From: Peter I lived in Turkey for more than a year. I lived in Jordan, and I spend a lot of time in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and frequently go to Qatar, Oman, and all the others in that region. I've lived in about 10 countries, including the US and Canada and visited more than 60.
A lot of it is history. Everyone seems to forget longer term history where Judao Christian countries were not that free. Inquisition anyone? just to name one..... BOB: Ancient history. None of us live in those times. The US did not exist during the Inquisition, Crusades, Islamic conquest of the Middle East and southern Europe, etc. It's academic. But look at modern history of the middle east. The Americans and the Brits carved it up after the world wars and installed their own dicatators and called some of them democracies. BOB: Wasn't it mostly the British and French that carved up the Ottoman Empire and installed dictators and kings? I don't recall reading about the US being involved. Many British and French intellectuals even today say the Arabs are incapable of democratic self-government. Of course, they may be trying to rationalize their own post-war actions. Others they put in kings. Since then they have continued to manipulate the governments. The people there in nearly all cases resented the governerments and knew they were American/British backed. BOB: Why was it OK for the Ottomans to dictate over Arabs and other Muslims in the Middle East? Why did the Palestinians not complain when Egypt and Jordan were running Gaza and the West Bank, respectively? The religious leaders in many cases offerred them "Freedom" only to take charge and change things - very much like what happend in the Soviet revolution. BOB: I could interpret that as evidence that 21st century Middle East Muslims are not yet as civilized as 18th century Americans, who did a far better job at self-government. Israel suffered a lot more interference than any of them, and it thrives as a free and prosperous society -- without oil. In recent history the Middle East really hasn't been allowed to flourish - the US especially in the last 20-30 years continually interferes in internal affairs of every country in the region, much of it because of oil. The US props up the Saudi royal family, and often destablizes governments that are not inline with the US. The western world installed the Shah, who opressed the people and led to the Ayatollah. Sure most dont like him now, but at the time he was saying different things and everyone wanted rid of the Shah. BOB: From what my Iranian friends tell me, I doubt "everyone wanted rid of the Shah" at the time. It sounds more like the radical Islamists, who were being oppressed by the Shah -- perhaps rightfully so given what they did subsequently. I bet most Iranians had a lot more freedom under the Shah. Iran was more modern and progressive from what I hear. The Saudi monarchy is despicable but who would replace them? From what I read, bin Laden or something similar is the most likely successor. Until very recently, non-Muslims were not allowed in Saudi Arabia (except when they needed help), so it's rare that I meet someone who has been there. Yet the reports I read describe a very backward culture. They wanna party like it's 1399. Case after case is like this. Jordan and a few others offer a hint of freedom. Jordan has a king, and he still involves himself but the legislative bodies do most of the daily work and the king usually lets them be, although he does step in. But even his line was "installed". BOB: And what happens if King Abdullah allows full democracy in Jordan? I hear it's majority Palestinian. Would it become just another territory for the Palestinians to screw up? Arafat did try to murder Abdullah's father, King Hussein, after all. Turkey really is a special case and very difficult for foreigners to understand. BOB: My interpretation is Turkey functions mostly because Ataturk left a legacy of heavy-handed secularism, which is enforced aggressively by the Turkish military. They use a kinder, gentler, version of religious oppression than that used by Saddam and other Middle East secular dictators. But what is MORE common in all of these countries, much more than the fact that they are Muslim is that they are poor and opressed/interfered with. BOB: Poor? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? The Emirates? Lebanon? (Before the Muslims got the upper hand over the Christians) Most of the 9/11 terrorists were not poor at all. One doesn't have to look far to find Christian nations which are in similar positions. You only need to look to South America and the Caribbean for many examples. BOB: That's based on economic ideology -- capitalism vs. socialism -- not religion. The variants of Marxism are just as much a cancer as is Islamism. BOB: Thanks for your comments, and I welcome more. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Giramma To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror My experience with the Middle East is mostly reading and talking to neighbors, friends, and colleagues from the area. I do a lot of reading, but it doesn't substitute for real experience like yours. I've visited Turkey only. I definitely want to hear your views. Where in the Middle East did you live, and for how long? If not due to culture, then why doesn't liberty work there? What are the misconceptions I am likely to have based on reading American, European, and Asian press reports about the Middle East? Please provide some information. Thanks. From: Peter Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror Its more likely simply that they are first generation immigrants, while the others you "generalize" about are poor and not first, or even second or even third generation immigrants in most cases. I find you make many generalizations - especially about the middle east. An area that I used to live in. What is your experience in the middle east? ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Giramma To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror Then explain why poor immigrants from India and China, as well as past immigrants from poor parts of Europe, have higher levels of achievement. I'm not talking about the intellectual class, who come here to attend US colleges. I'm talking about the low-skilled class of immigrants. My wife and I own two retail businesses in sectors that attract lots of Indian immigrant owners. We know many of them closely. They came here poor and with low levels of education. They worked hard, pooled their money, networked with each other, and now they all drive Lexus or Mercedes vehicles and live in big homes. Many of them have children born in those poor villages of India, who then moved to the US and attended American public schools. I don't know any who didn't go on to college. Again, these are people who came here with nothing, lived in poor neighborhoods, could not collect welfare state benefits, had low levels of education, and have very dark skin. Yet statistically, Indian immigrants are the most successful cultural group in the US. Why are they and their children so successful? Answer: cultural values. From: Peter Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 7:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror I think if you looked at your numbers more closely you would see that especially in your scenarios race has very little to do with the outcomes, but rather economic status of the parents and surrounding neighborhoods. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Giramma To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror I have told you quite a lot about the cultures in which the children in this scenario are raised. They attend school and socialize with other children dominated by particular cultural groups. If you research demographic studies of educational success by race and ethnicity, you will see I am merely stating fact. I have three children, and I look into such matters when choosing where to live. The statistical results aren't even close. A statement of fact cannot be racist. If you intend to put that objectionable label on me, then at least show statistical evidence I am wrong. An individual is a product of nature and nurture. It is not clear to me which is the greater contributing factor. To the extent nurture is involved, then a child's environment makes a huge difference. Various cultural groups put different emphasis on education, work, family, religion, entrepreneurship, etc. There are individuals who opt out of the collective value set, but statistically what I say is accurate and well established. It is certainly possible that a particular child raised in a black community in urban Detroit will be more successful than a particular child raised in a Jewish suburb of Boston. But if you check the data, you will see that is a highly anomalous outcome. So you need to remove the word "often" from your claim. From: kiddleddee Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Stop the War FOR Terror --- In [email protected], "Bob Giramma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Suppose two children are born on the same day. One is raised in an urban black neighborhood in Detroit. The other is raised in a suburban Jewish neighborhood outside Boston. Can you predict which child is likely to be more successful in life? > > I bet most people will bet on the second child succeeding, and the statistical record is heavily in their favor. The only difference of which we are aware are the comparative cultural environments in which those children are raised. I've told you nothing else about the children in this scenario. __________________________________________________________ You have also told us nothing about the two cultures the two children are to be raised in. You have only told us the racial/ethnic identity of the neighborhoods. Sounds racist to me. In fact, no prediction can be made about the likelihood that a particular individual child will be more or less "successful" than any other child by examining the collectivist circumstances of the neighborhood in which that child is raised - whatever collectivist criteria you want to use. Why is it that many children who are raised in urban black neighborhoods, including some from Detroit, go on to be enormously successful in their chosen fields while many children who are raised in suburban Jewish neighborhoods, including some around Boston, have only mediocre success in those same chosen fields? Why is it that some children who are raised in urban black neighborhoods and some children who are raised in suburban Jewish neighborhoods often enjoy equal or comparable success in their chosen fields? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Compete with the big boys. Click here to find products to benefit your business. http://ads.lavabit.com/fc/Ioyw6kdcaPMhdKIUO1Je1C8r3KYx6LMWSLSmTFTk3IoUVltd3FYCH8/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Save on Cell Phones. Click Now! http://ads.lavabit.com/fc/Ioyw6kdctt992lo1PjTujTdJ0qKC9PKwNhvNM0qA07aeA6Fp6rSemx/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Hotel pics, info and virtual tours. Click here to book a hotel online. http://ads.lavabit.com/fc/Ioyw6kdcoITnBZ1uXOypGi4Ex4Jz3POlbkgC3vGzuSOwgt6X6a7awC/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
