Wednesday, April 6, 2016
A REBUTTAL TO BERTIL HÄGGMAN
by Benjamin Landis
I have just read and reread the article “The Global Civil War: Will the West Survive?” by Bertil Häggman in the Spring 2015 edition of the Comparative Civilizations Review. I am amazed that a scholarly journal published such an article, an article that is certainly not scholarly. In fact, the thoughts expressed therein are very much confused, even hysterically so, and in large part unsubstantiated.
Mr. Häggman’s thesis is that “A civil war characterized by revolution and counterrevolution has raged since 1789…The world civil war started when the kingdom of France was abolished, and the Bastille, a prison filled with insurgents and criminals, was stormed on July 14, 1789.” These statements create three problems. First, Mr. Häggman without any justification redefines the term “civil war”. Per Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English language” a civil war is “a war between political factions or regions within the same country”. Mr. Häggman gives no explanation whatsoever as to why the definition has to be changed. Second, he states that the “world civil war” began when the “kingdom of France was abolished” and when “the Bastille…was stormed…” Unfortunately, these two events were not simultaneous. The storming of the Bastille occurred on July 14, 1789; the kingdom of France ceased to exist in September 1792 with the declaration of the First Republic. Third, he writes that the Bastille was “filled with insurgents and criminals”. In fact, the Bastille housed at the moment of the storming only 7 prisoners: four forgers, two members of the nobility for immoral conduct, and a murderer. What? No insurgents? To deem the Bastille as “filled” by seven prisoners would seem to indicate that it was about the size of a small Parisian row house.
In support of his thesis, Mr. Häggman cites other subsequent elements of the “global civil war” since the French Revolution. “…two more insurgencies developed inspired in some respects by Jacobinism, namely Communism and Nazism…” We need now to look at what “Jacobinism” is. Per the dictionary cited above, “Jacobinism” has two aspects, one which died a long time ago, and one still alive. First, the dead one: the beliefs of a person who “in the French Revolution [was] a member of a radical society or club of revolutionaries that supported the Reign of Terror and other extreme solutions, active chiefly from 1789 to 1794…” The alive one: the beliefs of “an extreme radical, especially in politics”. Mr. Häggman’s lumping Communists and Nazis together as Jacobins is quite an intellectual feat. Admittedly both fostered dictatorships, but the Nazis were hardly extreme left-wing radicals; they were not even extreme right wing radicals. They were xenophobic racists.. Nor does he in any way substantiate his claim that Communism and Nazism were “inspired in some respects by Jacobinism”. As he did for the term “civil war”, in order to sustain his thesis, Mr. Häggman appears to have redefined “Jacobinism” to mean “a radical ideology of either the far right or the far left which is based upon genocide as a means of attaining and maintaining power”.
Mr. Häggman’s definition of the supposed “global civil war” is “…the concept is used to describe simultaneous civil conflicts happening at many locations with little regard for national boundaries.” A few sentences later he does modify this definition somewhat by indicating that “…national boundaries are relevant…” Note that Mr. Häggman states that the global civil war comprises “simultaneous civil conflicts”.
How does he substantiate his thesis? He claims that the opening phase of this global civil war began in France in 1789 and ended in 1815 by the military defeat of Napoleon’s France. With the advent of the French Revolution, well before the Jacobins came to power, the European monarchies went to war to restore the Bourbons to their throne. And this war continued, well after the end of Jacobinism as a political force in France, until the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. Mr. Häggman links Napoleon and the Jacobins as fellow-travelers, i.e., “A war had to be carried on until the Jacobin advance was stopped and Napoleon defeated”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Häggman needs to present proof for this claim.
The next phase in the global civil war appears to be, according to Mr. Häggman, the Paris Commune of 1871. So there was apparently a lack of simultaneity of 56 years in his global civil war. Mr.Häggman once again needs to verify his facts. Although there was no reason to bring it forth, he writes that there were more than 20,000 deaths during the 72 days of the Commune. This is quite inaccurate. The number estimated by a number of historians is about 7,000. I will be happy to furnish Mr. Häggman references.
He cites as evidence of this civil war, which he characterizes as “global” the French Revoluyion beginning in 1789, the Napoleonic wars, the Paris Commune in 1871, the First World War, the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Second World War, and the seizure of power in China by the Chinese Communists in 1949, and September 11, 2001, since “when radical Islam has waged war on the West in the spirit of the French Revolution”. This is a strange mix. What common thread does Mr. Häggman see that links the Napoleonic wars to the Paris Commune and then to the First World War and then to the Russian Revolution and then to the Second World War and then to the Communist takeover of China in 1949? Admittedly, these were all wars, but they were of different natures. European monarchies against the First French Republic. The European monarchies against the French Emperor. The people of Paris against the German conqueror. Certain European colonial powers against other European colonial powers. European nations and the United States against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Mr. Häggman needs to explain how these wars of different natures are part of his “global civil war”. Another problem Mr. Häggman needs to face and explain is the lack of simultaneity, which he indicates is a feature of the “global civil war”.
Mr. Häggman in writing about the Russian Revolution of 1917 mentions a “European civil war”, yet does not identify what civil war he is writing about. It may be that he is using the term to indicate the First World War, which only Mr. Häggman could consider to be a civil war. There was no clash of ideologies. There were only nation-states asserting their territorial ambitions. Examples of his use of the term are as follows: “It was in connection with the Bolshevik Revolution that the mass murders of the European civil war were initiated”. “…the European Civil War cost even more lives”.
He later writes “…in the 1930s a new phase of the European civil war started: Germany and Italy attacked the rest of Europe”. Once again Mr. Häggman transforms a conflict between nation-states into a civil war. However, this time instead of being monarchies fighting against the leftist French Republic, it is European and American democracies and Russian Communism fighting against reactionary dictators. Mr. Häggman does not mention that the Soviet Union, which he obviously considers to be one of humanity’s adversaries in his global civil war, fought alongside the “democracies” to defeat Germany and Italy and it was supported militarily and financially by the Western democracies. Mr. Häggman has created a terminological and ideological hodge-podge that is simply incomprehensible.
Mr. Häggman’s sub-thesis is that Jacobinism has been rampant since the French Revolution and represents one of the ideological bases fomenting the global civil war. “The war had to be carried on until the Jacobin advance was stopped and Napoleon defeated”. “…two more insurgencies developed inspired in some respects by Jacobinism, namely Communism and Nazism…” “The Russian revolutionaries used …the Jacobins as their models”. Mr. Häggman needs to explain more fully how the German Nazis were inspired by Jacobinism. His statement to that effect is thrown out into the public winds without any substantiation whatsoever except that he, Mr. Häggman, said so. The same holds true for his statement that the Russian revolutionaries used the Jacobins as their models. What happened to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?
Unfortunately, neither Mr Häggman’s thought processes nor his writing are coherent. For unexplained reasons he leaves out of his effort to substantiate his thesis a large number of civil wars that he apparently doesn’t believe fit his concept. I cite the English Civil War of 1642-1651, the American colonies revolt against the British monarchy of 1776-1783, the American Civil War of 1861-1865, the numerous revolutions and civil wars in South America starting in 1808 and continuing intermittently to the end of the Twentieth Century. I further cite the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
There are other blatant errors in Mr. Häggman’s article. He writes: “A period of economic and political warfare was initiated in 1982-83 by the United States that led to the freedom of a number of oppressed peoples”. I ask Mr. Häggman to name some of these oppressed peoples that were liberated by the American policy. In fact, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 there were none. Also, the idea that the United States government began its economic and political warfare against the Soviet Union only in 1982-83 is a total misreading of history after the end of the Second World War.
This has become too long. I will make one last major point and one last minor point.
Toward the end of his article Mr. Häggman proclaims that the “global civil war” continues: “Radical Islam wants, in cooperation with evil, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, to crush the West or to at least weaken it”. First, if Mr. Häggman has any information indicating that North Korea is in cahoots with radical Islam he should immediately get in touch with the CIA. Second, how does he define a “rogue state’? I would propose that a nation that gratuitously invades other nations which represent no danger to it are “rogue states’. An example would be the United States of America that invaded Iraq and bombed into destruction the Libyan government. Third, he claims that “…North Korea is believed to have 5,000 tons of biological and chemical weapons…” He offers no substantiation for that claim. With respect to islam, I humbly suggest that Mr. Häggman read my article at www.americandiplomacy.org (At the home page click on “Archives” and on the next screen click on “L”, then scroll down until you find the article entitled “The Islamic World Faces Its Future”.)
I apologize. I need to make another point. Mr. Häggman’s article is unfortunately full of errors of fact and judgment. He states “…radical Islam has waged war on the West in the spirit of the French Revolution”. Probably to Mr. Häggman’s surprise, the French Revolution was waged to attempt to free the French people from a tyrannical monarchy and to establish a democratic form of government. There is no indication, to my knowledge, that this is the spirit that motivates radical Islam. I ask Mr. Häggman for proof.
Now to the minor point. The title of Mr. Häggman’s article is: “The Global Civil War: Will the West Survive?” The entire article is devoted to conjuring the spector of this so-called “global civil war”. Mr. Häggman devotes absolutely no words to a response to the question: “Will the West Survive?”
In conclusion, I state emphatically that there never was and there is no “global civil war.” Mr. Häggman has failed to prove his thesis. He simply presumes that all wars are civil wars and tries to construct an unsubstantiated thesis based on this assumption.
I am more than surprised that a “scholarly” review would publish Mr. Häggman’s rantings . Was this peer reviewed? Who were the peers?
Friday, December 18, 2015
A New eBook from Ashok!
I have just published an EBook on Yoga: Health Healing and the Star Wars Connection. Please check it out for yourself and make members of the ISCSC as well as your students and friends aware of the influence of Yoga and Indian Philosophy on George Lucas.
Below is the link.
Have a wonderful Holiday Season!
Ashok
http://www.thedailystar.com/news/local_news/local-professor-s-work-details-yoga-s-influence-on-star/article_e0581a7c-d296-50f9-90dc-d321d98bd3a6.html
Thursday, September 3, 2015
The United States of Europe Is Obviously Premature
September 5, 2015
Europe is a geographic designation: the westernmost peninsula of the Eurasian continental landmass. For the past 7000 years, it has also been the home of a restless mass of human beings, always on the move, settling and moving on, replacing former residents and coming up with one invention after another, the most important of which, from today's discussion, came from ancient Greece: participatory government (Athens); Rome: written and progressively enlarging law; and England: that kings are not all-powerful (Magna Carta); and all of them: the religious, scientific, industrial, and political revolutions.
Restless, creative Europe (and its child, America) have given the world modern civilization: the good things being nation-states governed by their own people under rule of law; majority populations (middle class) wealthy and healthy beyond imagining; cities clean and vibrant with culture and convenience; and citizens living in safety and civility as in no cities before now. Europe's Scientific Revolution did much of this.
Now for the bad things. Europe's restlessness has also given the world endless warfare since the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century, culminating in two of the most frightening wars, the second of which, World War II, drew in the entire world and a third (the Cold War) almost destroyed the planet. The bad things frightened Europe's elites so much that they determined to do something radical: follow the example of the United States of America and create a United States of Europe, one in which war would be impossible.
The American example is not easy to replicate, however. Even with extraordinary founders, we had a common language and dominant religion, the good luck of geography, endless natural resources, non-threatening neighbors, and time to grow, we still had a horrific civil war over the divisive issue of slavery and still have some political alienation dogging our unity. We are only fully united when at war or during crisis. We still have to remind ourselves that we are one nation.
But Europe was very delusional to imagine that it could be a United States of Europe! There is no common language and nationalism is not dead. Watch World Cup games to see how fast national identity resurges!
Talk to the ordinary Europeans to learn how they detest rules issues from Brussels. Talk to Northern Europeans to learn how they hate the leisure life style in Southern Europe they are taxed for. These are taxes without representation. Europe really is not one entity---until it is under attack.
And we forget that there are four Europes: Western, Southern, Northern, and Eastern.
But there is nothing like real threats to unite people who are quarreling or have been asleep. The US umbrella let them live the good life for 70 years, but now comes the storm. The Russian wolf is not dead! The New Russia is eating at Eastern Europe and extorting the rest of Europe with threats of cutting off their gas in winter. Russia is prowling the once pacified Scandinavia and even the Swedes are alarmed. They had better be united and revive their defense budgets and industries. NATO is needed and the US will help those who help themselves.
The flood of Muslim refugees, once regarded as cheap labor or welfare fodder are now seen as security threats, militant fifth columns in their midst, creating adolescent jihadis. They are no longer seen as easily assimilated. They are a huge and growing problem. Europe depends more and more on INTERPOL for protection.
The United States of Europe, the EU, was premature in concept. Their really is no single governing body in Brussels is acceptable to all Europeans. However, there is no reason why there should not be many agencies throughout the sovereign European states that can work together. NATO is one of them. The banking organizations established by the Dumbarton Oaks conference at the end of World War II (World Bank, IMF, etc) still work well. The point is that there is a modern Europe and it is is under attack. Their enemies are identifiable and they are our enemies too.
Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author of God's Law or Man's Law. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, by George Friedman, Doubleday, 2015.
Book Review by:
Laina Farhat-Holzman
I read George Friedman's intelligence reports almost every day, and reviewed one of his books: The Next Hundred Years, several years ago. Friedman is chairman and founder of Stratfor (Strategic Forecasts), a leading private intelligence company. I think he, and several of his collages (including Robert D. Kaplan) are the best analysts of international geopolitics. Few other analysts regard geography as a major player in world affairs, an oversight that makes so many get it wrong.
For the past few years, his reports have focused on the world's borderlands, those faultlines where countries or ethnicities meet with latent hostility. His latest book, Flashpoints, explores Europe's past and present (and potential future) with an eye to the borderlands which can become flashpoints for conflict.
The only other scholar mentioning this issue was Samuel P. Huntington, with his much discussed Clash of Civilizations. Huntington noted that ever border shared with Muslim countries is, and has always been bloody. This observation has proven itself many times over in the past decades.
Europe has given much to the world in the past 500 years: the scientific revolution, religious reformations, political liberalism with participatory governance, and nationalism: the creation of nation states ideally governed by their own people in democracy. The modern world with its peaceful civil life, rule of law, and amenities available for all that were once the exclusive luxury of the ruling elites. We are only talking about Western Europe here, along with its British offspring, the United States.
But there is another side to Europe: a region of catastrophic conflicts along its many geographic and political flashpoints. The “Enlightenment” on the 18th century has been much admired by the educated among us because it largely discarded religion as a governing institution, replacing it with “reason.” Friedman explores the underbelly of the Enlightenment, in which some of its prized institutions gave rise to unanticipated and ugly consequences.
Nationalism can be a benign institution when it only means that a country's people love their country and its culture. However, when love of country morphs into hatred of other countries, nationalism becomes an excuse for violence. Europe's two world wars exemplify this.
Reason, replacing religion, can morph into ideologies that demand as much fanaticism as that of the true believers of religion. Furthermore, the decline of religion in Europe has left the young with a nihilism that discards both national identity and cultural identity; it becomes an “anything goes” culture that is ill equipped to defend itself against such fanatical ideologies as neo-Nazism and Militant Islam.
With this book, Friedman provides us with the definitive analysis of today's Europe, exploring Europe's geography, political life, and history. The geography alone dictates regional and country borders. His important contribution is the interaction of geography, history, and politics.
In his preface, he reminds us that
“Between 1914 and 1945 roughly 100 million Europeans died from political causes: war, genocide, purges, planned starvation, and all the rest. It was particularly striking in Europe, which had, over the course of the previous four hundred years, collectively conquered most of the world and reshaped the way humanity thought of itself.”
How could this happen in a place that in 1913 represented the highest level of civilization, rich in culture, with a population similarly educated, with rulers related by blood (offspring of Queen Victoria) and institutions such as the military trained with the same standards and values?
Friedman shows that Europe's descent into hell in the 31 years between 1914 and 1945 was not a fluke. It was the natural outcome of the emergence of the negative sides of all the institutions it most valued---and the fact that geography matters.
Europe's unification is based on ideology and optimism, neither of these enough to overcome the geographic, cultural, and behavioral patterns of European history. Friedman explores the issues, and this book makes for fascinating reading.
Tradition!
August 22, 2015
Laina Farhat-Holzman
Tevye, the father living in revolutionary times of rapid change, struggled with what to do about traditions in the much loved musical, Fiddler on the Roof. This Russian-Jewish story, later a Broadway play and then a movie, played to audiences of many other cultures around the world who understood the issues very well. The 20th century was beset with traditions biting the dust. Children were in rebellion everywhere and parents did not know what to do about it.
My own view of “tradition” is sourly expressed in my web site: “Tradition? The only good traditions are food traditions. The rest are repressive.” Indeed, history will bear me out. Most traditions around the world have to do with what woman may not do---or what must be done to them to keep them “under control.”
In an attempt to be unbiased, 20th century anthropologists have reversed what seemed to be cultural jingoism of their predecessors in criticizing the practices of the world's non-western societies. Western explorers and colonial conquerors were horrified by some of the practices they found: bound feet in China, the harems in the Muslim world, widows compelled to sacrifice themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres in India, forced child marriages everywhere, and widespread child slavery.
Fashions in scholarship change. By mid-20th century, Anthropology had swung the other way and tried to find reasons for native practices rather than judging them through our own biases. Political fashions entered too, and the new fog of political correctness blew in with Edward Said, who managed to bully a generation of Islamic scholars into fear of saying anything negative about Muslim culture.
The world has recently had an opportunity to see what kind of “traditions” the culture of Islam has resurrected from the past. Even Edward Said, were he still alive, could not paint them in rosy colors. Islamists resolutely target women, who, to avoid beating or worse, must be invisible, covered from head to toe in black, and hidden from the public arena. When monsters such as ISIS take territory, they resurrect such “traditions” as female slave markets, religiously-sanctified rape of girls as young as nine (citing the “tradition” of the Hadith), and decapitation by the sword and amputation of limbs for theft. Tradition!
And then there is African tradition. One infamous Africa scholar claimed that democracy should not be their model. The “great chief” model was a fine “tradition” that had always worked in Africa. How well it worked has been seen in a parade of villainous, thieving, dictatorships-for-life. Another scholar I heard at a conference lamented the demise of traditional village languages and scorned the popularity of English and French as languages of the colonialists. I asked him how tradition languages would allow people to talk to each other? He had no answer.
President Obama took on the “tradition” issue in his July visit to Kenya and Ethiopia, which set everybody back on their heels! He bluntly told his hosts (I am paraphrasing) that just because certain practices have been done for centuries does not make them right! It is not right, he said, to abuse half your population just because they are female. It is not right to marry off underage girls, to deprive them of education and afflict them with genital mutilation. This does nothing but keep your country from its full potential. It is not right to persecute people because of whom they love. (This is a very hot-button issue in Africa. Homosexuality can bring death sentences in many places, and at a minimum, is illegal everywhere. It was very bold of President Obama to even mention it in public.)
He went on to discuss another most pervasive issue. “Corruption is an old tradition, but it does not have to be permanent. I come from Chicago, which also had a tradition of corruption. It can be challenged and changed. You can change it too.” He also discussed democratic elections, and the reluctance of some leaders to step down from power. Presidents for life, he noted, are not compatible with democracy.”
Bravo, Mr. President!
Tradition? Bah, humbug!
Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author of God's Law or Man's Law. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.
Laina Farhat-Holzman
Tevye, the father living in revolutionary times of rapid change, struggled with what to do about traditions in the much loved musical, Fiddler on the Roof. This Russian-Jewish story, later a Broadway play and then a movie, played to audiences of many other cultures around the world who understood the issues very well. The 20th century was beset with traditions biting the dust. Children were in rebellion everywhere and parents did not know what to do about it.
My own view of “tradition” is sourly expressed in my web site: “Tradition? The only good traditions are food traditions. The rest are repressive.” Indeed, history will bear me out. Most traditions around the world have to do with what woman may not do---or what must be done to them to keep them “under control.”
In an attempt to be unbiased, 20th century anthropologists have reversed what seemed to be cultural jingoism of their predecessors in criticizing the practices of the world's non-western societies. Western explorers and colonial conquerors were horrified by some of the practices they found: bound feet in China, the harems in the Muslim world, widows compelled to sacrifice themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres in India, forced child marriages everywhere, and widespread child slavery.
Fashions in scholarship change. By mid-20th century, Anthropology had swung the other way and tried to find reasons for native practices rather than judging them through our own biases. Political fashions entered too, and the new fog of political correctness blew in with Edward Said, who managed to bully a generation of Islamic scholars into fear of saying anything negative about Muslim culture.
The world has recently had an opportunity to see what kind of “traditions” the culture of Islam has resurrected from the past. Even Edward Said, were he still alive, could not paint them in rosy colors. Islamists resolutely target women, who, to avoid beating or worse, must be invisible, covered from head to toe in black, and hidden from the public arena. When monsters such as ISIS take territory, they resurrect such “traditions” as female slave markets, religiously-sanctified rape of girls as young as nine (citing the “tradition” of the Hadith), and decapitation by the sword and amputation of limbs for theft. Tradition!
And then there is African tradition. One infamous Africa scholar claimed that democracy should not be their model. The “great chief” model was a fine “tradition” that had always worked in Africa. How well it worked has been seen in a parade of villainous, thieving, dictatorships-for-life. Another scholar I heard at a conference lamented the demise of traditional village languages and scorned the popularity of English and French as languages of the colonialists. I asked him how tradition languages would allow people to talk to each other? He had no answer.
President Obama took on the “tradition” issue in his July visit to Kenya and Ethiopia, which set everybody back on their heels! He bluntly told his hosts (I am paraphrasing) that just because certain practices have been done for centuries does not make them right! It is not right, he said, to abuse half your population just because they are female. It is not right to marry off underage girls, to deprive them of education and afflict them with genital mutilation. This does nothing but keep your country from its full potential. It is not right to persecute people because of whom they love. (This is a very hot-button issue in Africa. Homosexuality can bring death sentences in many places, and at a minimum, is illegal everywhere. It was very bold of President Obama to even mention it in public.)
He went on to discuss another most pervasive issue. “Corruption is an old tradition, but it does not have to be permanent. I come from Chicago, which also had a tradition of corruption. It can be challenged and changed. You can change it too.” He also discussed democratic elections, and the reluctance of some leaders to step down from power. Presidents for life, he noted, are not compatible with democracy.”
Bravo, Mr. President!
Tradition? Bah, humbug!
Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author of God's Law or Man's Law. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Civilization As Seen By Dr. Perumpanani
Civilization As Seen By Dr. Perumpanani
Benjamin L. Landis
In the Spring 2013 issue of the Comparative Civilizations Review Dr. Abbey Perumpanani proposed a definition of the term and concept of civilization “…as an inclusive scientific definition that can bring about a convergence in the widely differing historical views on civilization”. He proposed the following definition: “A civilization is a dynamical system that supports endogenous cultural development through economic activity aggregated across elements of its data.”
Dr. Perumpanani’s definition contains, unfortunately, four fatal flaws.
The first to consider is his use of the term “dynamical”. It is apparent that he uses this term to differentiate civilizations from pre-civilizations. How does Dr. Perumpanani define “dynamic”? He does not give us his definition. The truth is that pre-civilized societies were often dynamic. We need only consider the evolution of the human species. It exudes dynamism. The domestication of cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep about 10,000-13,000 B.C. The creation and development of agriculture as the way of life for the majority of humankind about 11,000-9,000 B.C. These acts of human ingenuity enabled humankind to continue to progress. The horse was domesticated around 4,000 B.C. The spear was invented. As well as the bow and arrow. The plow. The hoe. Crop irrigation. The development of new societal organizations as a result of the sedentary life imposed by agriculture. The development of new structures for living space, for storage space, for controlling and guarding livestock. The wheel was invented about 6500-4500 B.C. and the wheeled vehicle about 4500-3300 B.C.
Dynamism may be in the eye of the beholder. It is difficult to measure with regard to human activity, although it is relatively simple to quantify and measure in the physical sciences. Dr. Perumpanani cannot reasonably use it to separate pre-civilization humankind from civilization humankind unless he can devise means to define, categorize, and measure levels of human dynamism.
Dr. Perumpanani’s use of the term “dynamical” to describe an essential element of civilization fails another test also. As demonstrated by Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee, civilizations have a life-cycle from genesis through growth or development to disintegration and termination. When a civilization ceases to develop, it passes into a static condition. In other words, its dynamism descends to zero. The most striking example of this phenomenon is the history of Egyptian Civilization. It ceased growing at about the end of the Old Kingdom circa 2300 B.C., but continued as a living fossil until it was conquered by Islamic armies representing the Syriac Civilization in 642 A.D. For almost 3,000 years the Egyptian Civilization was dynamically nil, preserving and repeating what its creators had developed up until about 2300 B.C. Unless one considers war, territorial conquest, and social rift as a sign of dynamism. If not, what does one call a non-dynamic civilization? Per Dr. Perumpanani, without dynamism it can no longer be called a civilization. He needs to clarify this issue, if he expects his definition to be taken seriously. The Egyptian Civilization is only the most striking example. The same phenomenon occurred in all extinct civilizations, with the exceptions of the Andean (Inca) Civilization and the Mexic (Aztec) Civilization which were prematurely ended by Spanish conquistadores. (It is regrettable that Dr. Perumpanani apparently has not read the work of Dr. Arnold J. Toynbee, which he describes as having a “somewhat indecent corpulence.” Just because Toynbee’s “A Study of History” takes up eleven volumes (plus a gazetteer and glossary) does not mean that it is indecently overweight. A gigantic subject, i.e., human history, cannot be adequately portrayed, studied, and analyzed in a couple of volumes. I feel that Dr. Perumpanani was simply not up to the task of reading “A Study Of History”. If he had, he certainly would have a far greater understanding of the phenomenon of civilization than what he may have gleaned from his mathematics and medical texts.)
The second fatal flaw is the use of the adjective “endogenous” to qualify “cultural development” in his definition. “Endogenous” means “proceeding from within; derived internally”. This is an inaccurate description of the cultural development of civilizations. Except probably, but not definitively, for the primary civilizations, i.e., those deriving directly from primitive societies (Egyptiac, Andean, Mayan, Sumeric, Indus Culture, Minoan, Shang Culture) (I use A.J. Toynbee’s terminology), all subsequent civilizations developed culturally with imports from preceding civilizations, from primitive societies, or from contemporaneous civilizations. As an example, let us look at our Western Civilization. Our culture is primarily derived from Greek, Roman, and Christian inputs. Our culture was not created in a vacuum. It was not created in isolation. To state that our culture was endogenously developed is so inaccurate as to border on a falsehood. Once again, it demonstrates Dr. Perumpanani’s deep misunderstanding of the phenomenon of civilization.
Another striking and contemporary example of the porosity of civilizational cultural development is what is occurring in the world today and since about the end of the Second World War. Our Western Civilization is westernizing the other still living civilizations (Russian Orthodox, Islamic, Hindu, Far Eastern). They are slowly adopting, more or less willingly, the features of our civilization: Democracy, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, our Music, our Literature, our Sports, etc. Eventually, but not in this century, as Dr. Targowski predicts, the world will be westernized, but at the same time, aspects of these other civilizations will seep into Western culture. Since the first civilizations there has not been endogenous cultural development in any civilization.
The third fatal flaw in Dr. Perumpanani’s definition occurs by correlating cultural development with economic activity, i.e., …”cultural development through economic activity…” History has demonstrated that there is not a necessary correlation between “economic activity” and “cultural development”. One striking example is the Seventeenth Century. Economic activity was generally at a lower level than in the preceding century, yet scientific, educational, and artistic development flourished. For example, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Milton, Monteverdi, van Dyck, Racine, Corneille, Stradivarius all lived and worked in the Seventeenth Century. And they represent a very small sample of the intellectual ferment that characterized this economically disastrous century. I encourage Dr. Perumpanani to read Geoffrey Parker’s “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century”. It’s only one volume, but lengthy. I also cite the Hellenic Civilization (Again I use Toynbee’s terminology.) during the early years of Rome’s mastery of the Mediterranean world when economic activity flourished, but cultural development was virtually nil, the Romans merely repeating what the Greeks had achieved. It is up to Dr. Perumpanani to substantiate his claim that cultural development and economic activity are correlated.
The fourth fatal flaw in his definition is the phrase “…cultural development through economic activity aggregated across elements of its data.” As a previous commentator, Wallace Gray wrote in the Fall 2013 issue of Comparative Civilizations Review “…If he’ll try to explain to me in non-mathematical language what he means by the phrase… ‘economic activity aggregated across elements of its data.’ ” I do not know whether Dr. Perumpanani has responded to Mr. Wallace’s request. But I go one step farther than Mr. Wallace and ask, “What data?” Dr. Perumpanani’s entire definition, his entire concept of linking mathematics and history, is inevitably based on the data selected to determine whether a culture is a civilization or not. Even more, his data must also be capable of determining at what point a civilization is in its life cycle: genesis, growth, culmination, stagnation, decline, and death. Yet he gives us no hint as to, not only what the data should be, but also how many elements of data are needed.
The flaws I have described above render Dr. Perumpanani’s definition totally useless, stillborn. There are many errors of knowledge and judgment in his exposition attempting to clarify and explain his definition, but since the definition itself is fatally flawed, there is no need to treat in detail the eleven pages of exposition that follow the proclamation of the definition..
I do not agree with him when he writes that there is an “absence of a…consensus definition of the term civilization.” If one were to ask a high school student for a definition of the term, what would that student do? He or she would go to a dictionary. Every dictionary contains a definition of “civilization”. “A condition of human society marked by an advanced stage of development in the arts and sciences and by corresponding social, political, and cultural complexity”. “An advanced state of human society in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached” “État de développement politique, social, économique atteint par certaines sociétés et considéré comme une idéale à atteindre”. [State of political, social, economic development attained by certain societies and considered an ideal to be reached] (Translation by the author) Finally, I cite the definition found in The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles: “2. The action or process of being civilized 3. (More usually) Civilized condition or state”. I further cite this dictionary’s definition of the verb “civilize”: “To make CIVIL; to bring out of a state of barbarism; to instruct in the arts of life; to enlighten and refine”. I find the Oxford Universal Dictionary’s definition to be quite inadequate and reeking of the Eighteenth Century.
The other definitions cited demonstrate that there exist quite usable definitions of the term “civilization” and that there is a striking similarity among them. In my mind, I tend to condense them into the following succinct definition: The most advanced and most complex social, political, economic, cultural, and military environment thus far achieved by humankind.
So, with a plethora of quite valid definitions of the term, why do academics and other scholars chase their tails to come up with another? I believe that the answer resides in these persons attempting confusedly to mix a definition with the characteristics of “civilization”. A definition categorizes. Describing the characteristics or features of some object or concept is an entirely different exercise. For example: in the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language cited earlier, the definition of bronze is “any of various alloys consisting essentially of copper and tin, the tin content not exceeding eleven percent”. The definition does not address the characteristics of bronze, copper, or tin or of their various combinations. Doing so would be beyond the scope of definition, i.e., categorizing, and would probably require a whole page of text, if not more.
I have reread the thirty-one so-called definitions of civilization on the home page of the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations (ISCSC). Not a single one can be legitimately called a definition. They are ruminations on the characteristics of civilizations. The Society would be well advised to change the heading of these ruminations to something like “Thoughts on the Characteristics of Civilizations”. I was also very much surprised to note that none of these academics and scholars made any reference to the archaeologist, anthropologist, and pre-historian V. Gordon Childe (1892-1957). He is considered by some to have been the pre-eminent pre-historian and archaeologist of the Twentieth Century. Childe proposed ten criteria to distinguish civilized cultures from pre-civilized cultures. They are: (1) Large and thickly populated settlements (2) A variety of specialized occupations (3) The ability to produce and store food and other surplus goods (4) Large public buildings (5) A variety and ranking of social positions (6) Writing and a system of notation (7) The development of science (8) The development of a style of art (9) Trade over long distances (10) Social control based on a central government rather than kinship.
Childe’s criteria are far more reasonable, pertinent, and coherent than the ramblings of the persons cited by the ISCSC. What can we say about them? Are these criteria essential to distinguish a civilized culture from a pre-civilized culture? Are there certain criteria named that are not essential? Are there criteria that need to be added? I believe that these questions would be a fruitful discussion on the ISCSC blog, far more relevant to the purpose of the Society than “Laina at the Movies”. And could also lead to articles in the Comparative Civilizations Review (CCR) as well as in the newsletter.
Two points I wish to make before ending this “somewhat indecently lengthy” comment. Civilizations do not spring fully grown and armed as did Minerva from the head of Jupiter. The transition from the highest level of primitive culture to the state of a civilization takes place over an extended period of time, even centuries (Our own Western Civilization is an example.) and the various criteria cited by Childe do not develop at the same time, nor at the same rhythm. In my opinion one of the last, if not the last, of the criteria to develop is that of writing. The Andean (Inca) Civilization is an example. When it was destroyed by Spanish conquistadores its written language was embryonic, knotted ropes which have been thought to be mnemonic. However, recent studies are interpreting these knotted cords as an embryonic written language. So, the Andean Civilization was still evolving when its life was prematurely terminated.
Now, my final comment. I believe that it behooves the ISCSC to give up trying to create a definition of civilization that combines what is normally considered to be a definition and the fundamental characteristics of the concept of civilization. It cannot be done successfully. The Society needs to develop a consensus of those elements of a civilization that are essential to distinguishing it from the highest level of primitive culture. The Society needs to encourage a more precise use of the term “civilization.” At present, as well as in the past, academics and scholars in different disciplines have felt free to label almost any social group as a civilization. This is an insult to the efforts and achievements that humankind has made since the first real civilizations.
I also believe that the Society should develop a consensus list of all past and present civilizations, such as Dr. Toynbee did for his monumental “A Study of History”. As well as a list of those cultures that can logically be considered to be arrested and abortive civilizations (Again I use Toynbee’s terminology.) Doing these will not only further the study and understanding of civilizations, which is the purpose of the Society, but will also (One can hope) take the Society out of going to the movies with Laina.
Benjamin L. Landis
In the Spring 2013 issue of the Comparative Civilizations Review Dr. Abbey Perumpanani proposed a definition of the term and concept of civilization “…as an inclusive scientific definition that can bring about a convergence in the widely differing historical views on civilization”. He proposed the following definition: “A civilization is a dynamical system that supports endogenous cultural development through economic activity aggregated across elements of its data.”
Dr. Perumpanani’s definition contains, unfortunately, four fatal flaws.
The first to consider is his use of the term “dynamical”. It is apparent that he uses this term to differentiate civilizations from pre-civilizations. How does Dr. Perumpanani define “dynamic”? He does not give us his definition. The truth is that pre-civilized societies were often dynamic. We need only consider the evolution of the human species. It exudes dynamism. The domestication of cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep about 10,000-13,000 B.C. The creation and development of agriculture as the way of life for the majority of humankind about 11,000-9,000 B.C. These acts of human ingenuity enabled humankind to continue to progress. The horse was domesticated around 4,000 B.C. The spear was invented. As well as the bow and arrow. The plow. The hoe. Crop irrigation. The development of new societal organizations as a result of the sedentary life imposed by agriculture. The development of new structures for living space, for storage space, for controlling and guarding livestock. The wheel was invented about 6500-4500 B.C. and the wheeled vehicle about 4500-3300 B.C.
Dynamism may be in the eye of the beholder. It is difficult to measure with regard to human activity, although it is relatively simple to quantify and measure in the physical sciences. Dr. Perumpanani cannot reasonably use it to separate pre-civilization humankind from civilization humankind unless he can devise means to define, categorize, and measure levels of human dynamism.
Dr. Perumpanani’s use of the term “dynamical” to describe an essential element of civilization fails another test also. As demonstrated by Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee, civilizations have a life-cycle from genesis through growth or development to disintegration and termination. When a civilization ceases to develop, it passes into a static condition. In other words, its dynamism descends to zero. The most striking example of this phenomenon is the history of Egyptian Civilization. It ceased growing at about the end of the Old Kingdom circa 2300 B.C., but continued as a living fossil until it was conquered by Islamic armies representing the Syriac Civilization in 642 A.D. For almost 3,000 years the Egyptian Civilization was dynamically nil, preserving and repeating what its creators had developed up until about 2300 B.C. Unless one considers war, territorial conquest, and social rift as a sign of dynamism. If not, what does one call a non-dynamic civilization? Per Dr. Perumpanani, without dynamism it can no longer be called a civilization. He needs to clarify this issue, if he expects his definition to be taken seriously. The Egyptian Civilization is only the most striking example. The same phenomenon occurred in all extinct civilizations, with the exceptions of the Andean (Inca) Civilization and the Mexic (Aztec) Civilization which were prematurely ended by Spanish conquistadores. (It is regrettable that Dr. Perumpanani apparently has not read the work of Dr. Arnold J. Toynbee, which he describes as having a “somewhat indecent corpulence.” Just because Toynbee’s “A Study of History” takes up eleven volumes (plus a gazetteer and glossary) does not mean that it is indecently overweight. A gigantic subject, i.e., human history, cannot be adequately portrayed, studied, and analyzed in a couple of volumes. I feel that Dr. Perumpanani was simply not up to the task of reading “A Study Of History”. If he had, he certainly would have a far greater understanding of the phenomenon of civilization than what he may have gleaned from his mathematics and medical texts.)
The second fatal flaw is the use of the adjective “endogenous” to qualify “cultural development” in his definition. “Endogenous” means “proceeding from within; derived internally”. This is an inaccurate description of the cultural development of civilizations. Except probably, but not definitively, for the primary civilizations, i.e., those deriving directly from primitive societies (Egyptiac, Andean, Mayan, Sumeric, Indus Culture, Minoan, Shang Culture) (I use A.J. Toynbee’s terminology), all subsequent civilizations developed culturally with imports from preceding civilizations, from primitive societies, or from contemporaneous civilizations. As an example, let us look at our Western Civilization. Our culture is primarily derived from Greek, Roman, and Christian inputs. Our culture was not created in a vacuum. It was not created in isolation. To state that our culture was endogenously developed is so inaccurate as to border on a falsehood. Once again, it demonstrates Dr. Perumpanani’s deep misunderstanding of the phenomenon of civilization.
Another striking and contemporary example of the porosity of civilizational cultural development is what is occurring in the world today and since about the end of the Second World War. Our Western Civilization is westernizing the other still living civilizations (Russian Orthodox, Islamic, Hindu, Far Eastern). They are slowly adopting, more or less willingly, the features of our civilization: Democracy, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, our Music, our Literature, our Sports, etc. Eventually, but not in this century, as Dr. Targowski predicts, the world will be westernized, but at the same time, aspects of these other civilizations will seep into Western culture. Since the first civilizations there has not been endogenous cultural development in any civilization.
The third fatal flaw in Dr. Perumpanani’s definition occurs by correlating cultural development with economic activity, i.e., …”cultural development through economic activity…” History has demonstrated that there is not a necessary correlation between “economic activity” and “cultural development”. One striking example is the Seventeenth Century. Economic activity was generally at a lower level than in the preceding century, yet scientific, educational, and artistic development flourished. For example, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Milton, Monteverdi, van Dyck, Racine, Corneille, Stradivarius all lived and worked in the Seventeenth Century. And they represent a very small sample of the intellectual ferment that characterized this economically disastrous century. I encourage Dr. Perumpanani to read Geoffrey Parker’s “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century”. It’s only one volume, but lengthy. I also cite the Hellenic Civilization (Again I use Toynbee’s terminology.) during the early years of Rome’s mastery of the Mediterranean world when economic activity flourished, but cultural development was virtually nil, the Romans merely repeating what the Greeks had achieved. It is up to Dr. Perumpanani to substantiate his claim that cultural development and economic activity are correlated.
The fourth fatal flaw in his definition is the phrase “…cultural development through economic activity aggregated across elements of its data.” As a previous commentator, Wallace Gray wrote in the Fall 2013 issue of Comparative Civilizations Review “…If he’ll try to explain to me in non-mathematical language what he means by the phrase… ‘economic activity aggregated across elements of its data.’ ” I do not know whether Dr. Perumpanani has responded to Mr. Wallace’s request. But I go one step farther than Mr. Wallace and ask, “What data?” Dr. Perumpanani’s entire definition, his entire concept of linking mathematics and history, is inevitably based on the data selected to determine whether a culture is a civilization or not. Even more, his data must also be capable of determining at what point a civilization is in its life cycle: genesis, growth, culmination, stagnation, decline, and death. Yet he gives us no hint as to, not only what the data should be, but also how many elements of data are needed.
The flaws I have described above render Dr. Perumpanani’s definition totally useless, stillborn. There are many errors of knowledge and judgment in his exposition attempting to clarify and explain his definition, but since the definition itself is fatally flawed, there is no need to treat in detail the eleven pages of exposition that follow the proclamation of the definition..
I do not agree with him when he writes that there is an “absence of a…consensus definition of the term civilization.” If one were to ask a high school student for a definition of the term, what would that student do? He or she would go to a dictionary. Every dictionary contains a definition of “civilization”. “A condition of human society marked by an advanced stage of development in the arts and sciences and by corresponding social, political, and cultural complexity”. “An advanced state of human society in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached” “État de développement politique, social, économique atteint par certaines sociétés et considéré comme une idéale à atteindre”. [State of political, social, economic development attained by certain societies and considered an ideal to be reached] (Translation by the author) Finally, I cite the definition found in The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles: “2. The action or process of being civilized 3. (More usually) Civilized condition or state”. I further cite this dictionary’s definition of the verb “civilize”: “To make CIVIL; to bring out of a state of barbarism; to instruct in the arts of life; to enlighten and refine”. I find the Oxford Universal Dictionary’s definition to be quite inadequate and reeking of the Eighteenth Century.
The other definitions cited demonstrate that there exist quite usable definitions of the term “civilization” and that there is a striking similarity among them. In my mind, I tend to condense them into the following succinct definition: The most advanced and most complex social, political, economic, cultural, and military environment thus far achieved by humankind.
So, with a plethora of quite valid definitions of the term, why do academics and other scholars chase their tails to come up with another? I believe that the answer resides in these persons attempting confusedly to mix a definition with the characteristics of “civilization”. A definition categorizes. Describing the characteristics or features of some object or concept is an entirely different exercise. For example: in the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language cited earlier, the definition of bronze is “any of various alloys consisting essentially of copper and tin, the tin content not exceeding eleven percent”. The definition does not address the characteristics of bronze, copper, or tin or of their various combinations. Doing so would be beyond the scope of definition, i.e., categorizing, and would probably require a whole page of text, if not more.
I have reread the thirty-one so-called definitions of civilization on the home page of the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations (ISCSC). Not a single one can be legitimately called a definition. They are ruminations on the characteristics of civilizations. The Society would be well advised to change the heading of these ruminations to something like “Thoughts on the Characteristics of Civilizations”. I was also very much surprised to note that none of these academics and scholars made any reference to the archaeologist, anthropologist, and pre-historian V. Gordon Childe (1892-1957). He is considered by some to have been the pre-eminent pre-historian and archaeologist of the Twentieth Century. Childe proposed ten criteria to distinguish civilized cultures from pre-civilized cultures. They are: (1) Large and thickly populated settlements (2) A variety of specialized occupations (3) The ability to produce and store food and other surplus goods (4) Large public buildings (5) A variety and ranking of social positions (6) Writing and a system of notation (7) The development of science (8) The development of a style of art (9) Trade over long distances (10) Social control based on a central government rather than kinship.
Childe’s criteria are far more reasonable, pertinent, and coherent than the ramblings of the persons cited by the ISCSC. What can we say about them? Are these criteria essential to distinguish a civilized culture from a pre-civilized culture? Are there certain criteria named that are not essential? Are there criteria that need to be added? I believe that these questions would be a fruitful discussion on the ISCSC blog, far more relevant to the purpose of the Society than “Laina at the Movies”. And could also lead to articles in the Comparative Civilizations Review (CCR) as well as in the newsletter.
Two points I wish to make before ending this “somewhat indecently lengthy” comment. Civilizations do not spring fully grown and armed as did Minerva from the head of Jupiter. The transition from the highest level of primitive culture to the state of a civilization takes place over an extended period of time, even centuries (Our own Western Civilization is an example.) and the various criteria cited by Childe do not develop at the same time, nor at the same rhythm. In my opinion one of the last, if not the last, of the criteria to develop is that of writing. The Andean (Inca) Civilization is an example. When it was destroyed by Spanish conquistadores its written language was embryonic, knotted ropes which have been thought to be mnemonic. However, recent studies are interpreting these knotted cords as an embryonic written language. So, the Andean Civilization was still evolving when its life was prematurely terminated.
Now, my final comment. I believe that it behooves the ISCSC to give up trying to create a definition of civilization that combines what is normally considered to be a definition and the fundamental characteristics of the concept of civilization. It cannot be done successfully. The Society needs to develop a consensus of those elements of a civilization that are essential to distinguishing it from the highest level of primitive culture. The Society needs to encourage a more precise use of the term “civilization.” At present, as well as in the past, academics and scholars in different disciplines have felt free to label almost any social group as a civilization. This is an insult to the efforts and achievements that humankind has made since the first real civilizations.
I also believe that the Society should develop a consensus list of all past and present civilizations, such as Dr. Toynbee did for his monumental “A Study of History”. As well as a list of those cultures that can logically be considered to be arrested and abortive civilizations (Again I use Toynbee’s terminology.) Doing these will not only further the study and understanding of civilizations, which is the purpose of the Society, but will also (One can hope) take the Society out of going to the movies with Laina.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Middle East is Running out of Water
Register-Pajaronian
July 11, 2015
Laina Farhat-Holzman
California knows how serious it is to have a water shortage. But we are a modern state and know perfectly well what to do about it. For us, it is just a matter of spending money and having the will to do what is obvious: desalinate the ocean water immediately to our west.
But when the entire Middle East is running out of water, it is another thing altogether. This is a region with a minority of scientifically educated people and a majority of ignorant, religious villagers and recent urban displaced country people, not to mention those newly uprooted by the vicious wars riling the region. This flood of newcomers is putting even more pressure on the flagging water supply in the Arab world. Even Egypt's Nile cannot keep up with the demands on it. Hunger is stalking Egypt.
But the Middle East is not just the Arab World. It is also Iran and Turkey, the two non-Arab Muslim countries that have always had the advantage of being in the highlands with watersheds, where lakes and river systems begin (Turkey with the Tigris and Euphrates) and snow-capped mountains and one great lake (Urmia in Iran).
The second and third-largest Muslim states, Pakistan and India, are also running out of water, thanks to over-irrigation from their once lavish deltas and aquifers and prodigal overpopulations.
And worst of all is miserable Yemen, which was once a breadbasket and garden with the world's largest earthen dam (5th century AD), but since that dam's collapse, the country has declined. It is now in collapse, running out of water so that even its capital must move to the coast. It has become an anarchy of rival tribes, and its behavior is so stupid that what water is left is irrigating qat, its drug of choice (like pot). Its favorite bride age (9) has produced a population explosion that uses up what water is left. The IQ declines with it. Dumb and dumber?
The following numbers are taken from a reliable well-sourced article by Daniel Pipes (www.danielpipes.org/15815/the-middle-east-runs-out-of-water): Iran's Lake Urmia has lost 95% of its water; Esfahan's river, the Zayanderud wend dry in 2010; over 2/3 of Iran's cities and towns are on the verge of a water crisis in drinking water shortages; already, thousands of villages depend on water tankers. Unprecedented dust storms disrupt economic activity and damage health.
Egypt: Rising sea levels threaten to submerge Alexandria and contaminate the Nile Delta Aquifer. Egypt is alarmed that Ethiopia plans to build massive dams on the Blue Nile that will threaten water to Egypt and Sudan.
Gaza: In a hydrological nightmare, seawater is leaking into sewage, making 95% of the coaster aquifer unfit for human consumption. Yet Hamas continues to dig tunnels to send rockets into Israel.
Iraq: Euphrates River waters are half or what they were. Already in 2011, the Mosul Dam was shut down entirely due to insufficient flow. Seawater from the Persian Gulf has pushed up the Shatt al-Arab, resulting in briny water destroying fisheries, livestock, and crops. Date palms have diminished from 33 million to 9 million.
Pakistan: may be a water-starved country by 2022.
Climate Change and Arab Spring: Prolonged drought led to food shortages and civil collapses in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and Yemen.
The only country in the Middle East without a water shortage is Israel. As recently as the 1990s, they suffered water shortages too. But thanks to a combination of conservation, recycling, innovative agricultural techniques, and high-tech desalination, the country is awash in H2O. Israel's Water Authority claims they have all the water they need and are quite willing to sell surplus to such friendly neighbors as Jordan. They have a new technology that can desalinate about 27 liters of water for one U.S. penny. It recycles about five times more water than does second-ranked Spain.
Obviously tradition doesn't work. Could desperation be the mother of some new ideas? Could Israel's neighbors bury the hatchet and consider a common market? The smart ones could consider cooperating on water programs. Egypt and Jordan could, for a start. That could be a beginning of something very fruitful.
Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author of God's Law or Man's Law. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.
July 11, 2015
Laina Farhat-Holzman
California knows how serious it is to have a water shortage. But we are a modern state and know perfectly well what to do about it. For us, it is just a matter of spending money and having the will to do what is obvious: desalinate the ocean water immediately to our west.
But when the entire Middle East is running out of water, it is another thing altogether. This is a region with a minority of scientifically educated people and a majority of ignorant, religious villagers and recent urban displaced country people, not to mention those newly uprooted by the vicious wars riling the region. This flood of newcomers is putting even more pressure on the flagging water supply in the Arab world. Even Egypt's Nile cannot keep up with the demands on it. Hunger is stalking Egypt.
But the Middle East is not just the Arab World. It is also Iran and Turkey, the two non-Arab Muslim countries that have always had the advantage of being in the highlands with watersheds, where lakes and river systems begin (Turkey with the Tigris and Euphrates) and snow-capped mountains and one great lake (Urmia in Iran).
The second and third-largest Muslim states, Pakistan and India, are also running out of water, thanks to over-irrigation from their once lavish deltas and aquifers and prodigal overpopulations.
And worst of all is miserable Yemen, which was once a breadbasket and garden with the world's largest earthen dam (5th century AD), but since that dam's collapse, the country has declined. It is now in collapse, running out of water so that even its capital must move to the coast. It has become an anarchy of rival tribes, and its behavior is so stupid that what water is left is irrigating qat, its drug of choice (like pot). Its favorite bride age (9) has produced a population explosion that uses up what water is left. The IQ declines with it. Dumb and dumber?
The following numbers are taken from a reliable well-sourced article by Daniel Pipes (www.danielpipes.org/15815/the-middle-east-runs-out-of-water): Iran's Lake Urmia has lost 95% of its water; Esfahan's river, the Zayanderud wend dry in 2010; over 2/3 of Iran's cities and towns are on the verge of a water crisis in drinking water shortages; already, thousands of villages depend on water tankers. Unprecedented dust storms disrupt economic activity and damage health.
Egypt: Rising sea levels threaten to submerge Alexandria and contaminate the Nile Delta Aquifer. Egypt is alarmed that Ethiopia plans to build massive dams on the Blue Nile that will threaten water to Egypt and Sudan.
Gaza: In a hydrological nightmare, seawater is leaking into sewage, making 95% of the coaster aquifer unfit for human consumption. Yet Hamas continues to dig tunnels to send rockets into Israel.
Iraq: Euphrates River waters are half or what they were. Already in 2011, the Mosul Dam was shut down entirely due to insufficient flow. Seawater from the Persian Gulf has pushed up the Shatt al-Arab, resulting in briny water destroying fisheries, livestock, and crops. Date palms have diminished from 33 million to 9 million.
Pakistan: may be a water-starved country by 2022.
Climate Change and Arab Spring: Prolonged drought led to food shortages and civil collapses in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and Yemen.
The only country in the Middle East without a water shortage is Israel. As recently as the 1990s, they suffered water shortages too. But thanks to a combination of conservation, recycling, innovative agricultural techniques, and high-tech desalination, the country is awash in H2O. Israel's Water Authority claims they have all the water they need and are quite willing to sell surplus to such friendly neighbors as Jordan. They have a new technology that can desalinate about 27 liters of water for one U.S. penny. It recycles about five times more water than does second-ranked Spain.
Obviously tradition doesn't work. Could desperation be the mother of some new ideas? Could Israel's neighbors bury the hatchet and consider a common market? The smart ones could consider cooperating on water programs. Egypt and Jordan could, for a start. That could be a beginning of something very fruitful.
Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author of God's Law or Man's Law. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)