cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/20797683
[https://lemmy.ml/post/20797683] > By Nader Durgham in Beirut and Umar A Farooq
in Washington
> Published date: 28 September 2024 09:35 BST
Contemporary, socially progressive ideology (feminism, anti-racism, queer…) is the consequence not of some “western superior ideology”, it’s mostly a consequence of progress, both societal and economical. Without the societal and economical part of it, you simply don’t have the conditions for it. By bombing nations into ashes, you’re preventing them from the possibility of arriving to these conclusions by themselves.
In the 50s, there was a movement in Iran that led to a democratically elected, progressive, secular president (Mosaddegh). Failing to maintain the exploitation of oil at low prices by the British Petroleum against the interests of the Irani, the country was embargoed and covert intelligence operations by western countries destabilised it and kicked him out of government (mainly through enforcing poverty and discontent on the population), so that they could put in place a king who would uphold the interests of Britain and the US.
In Egypt, not much later than that, president Nasser was giving speeches about how ridiculous the idea of legally forcing every woman to cover their head with a veil was.
There have been plenty of progressive, secular, truly forward periods in the history of north Africa and the near East. The fact that right now in many countries destroyed by western influence they don’t have such movements anymore, has much more to do with western influence than with anything else.
So please, explain me, what is the logic flaw in my argument.
Are you serious? Have you ever heard of the literal Nazi Azov battalion? The invasion of Ukraine is generating insane reactionary tendencies. The minister of Ukraine posted pictures on twitter that included slightly modified emblems of SS corps, and it’s very frequent to see soldiers in Ukraine with Nazi tattoos. That’s not to say anything positive about the invasion, on the contrary, it’s normal that such nationalist radical sentiments are stoked in extreme cases
Yeah everyone’s got a few Nazis, even you I expect, although not knowing your country yet I can’t name them. Azov was a small bunch of extremists, not representative of the whole country, but Russia do like to make out they’re far more substantial than they really are because it plays into their idea that the West are all Nazis, which obviously we’re not.
Another example. Now that everyone’s stopped trying to fix Afghanistan and they’re now fully autonomous, the Taliban are getting increasingly misogynistic, not decreasingly. Your logic would suggest they should be heading in the opposite direction. By the way, everyone here includes Russia, so it’s not only the Western bogeyman that applies here.
Everyone’s got a few Nazis, but Ukraine’s problem with Nazism is far more generalized nowadays than in most places, as a consequence of the invasion. It’s not just the Azov battalion, as I said the literal defense ministry tweets Nazi symbolism on the regular.
In fact, the rise of right wing extremism in Europe can be seen to be heavily influenced by the past 15 years of economic stagnation. Your point of “everyone’s got a few Nazis” clearly points towards a radicalisation towards the far-right in places as the situation worsens. We see that in the US as well, with Trump quite literally having project 2025, and Kamala supporting Zionist genocide.
Now that everyone’s stopped trying to fix Afghanistan and they’re now fully autonomous, the Taliban are getting increasingly misogynistic
That’s not what’s happening. Taliban have always been misogynistic, they just weren’t in full control of the country. If you want to compare nearby countries with a Muslim majority that didn’t go through such a phase, you can look at Uzbekistan for example, which while not the most progressive country on earth (again, due to the level of development), the continued development and stability within the USSR led to much more progressivism than nearby countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan (which were seriously damaged by western influence). Afghanistan, btw, could have been another socialist country with a comparable quality of life to that of Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, but the US just HAD TO arm radical militias who, surprise surprise, would turn into the Taliban.
Your logic would suggest they should be heading in the opposite direction
If Afghanistan significantly develops materially over the following decades, I DO expect to see that, btw. It’s just that Afghanistan is absolutely destroyed as a consequence of western policy.
You’re really trying to decouple the level of societal development to the level of economic progress and to the recent history of the countries, in a sort of racist view that the west is superior just because it’s superior, not because of the material and historical conditions.
No, I’m just pointing out a potential logical flaw in your argument.
Contemporary, socially progressive ideology (feminism, anti-racism, queer…) is the consequence not of some “western superior ideology”, it’s mostly a consequence of progress, both societal and economical. Without the societal and economical part of it, you simply don’t have the conditions for it. By bombing nations into ashes, you’re preventing them from the possibility of arriving to these conclusions by themselves.
In the 50s, there was a movement in Iran that led to a democratically elected, progressive, secular president (Mosaddegh). Failing to maintain the exploitation of oil at low prices by the British Petroleum against the interests of the Irani, the country was embargoed and covert intelligence operations by western countries destabilised it and kicked him out of government (mainly through enforcing poverty and discontent on the population), so that they could put in place a king who would uphold the interests of Britain and the US.
In Egypt, not much later than that, president Nasser was giving speeches about how ridiculous the idea of legally forcing every woman to cover their head with a veil was.
There have been plenty of progressive, secular, truly forward periods in the history of north Africa and the near East. The fact that right now in many countries destroyed by western influence they don’t have such movements anymore, has much more to do with western influence than with anything else.
So please, explain me, what is the logic flaw in my argument.
Well Ukraine are currently being bombed back to the middle ages by Russia and I don’t see much homophobia and misogyny coming from them.
Are you serious? Have you ever heard of the literal Nazi Azov battalion? The invasion of Ukraine is generating insane reactionary tendencies. The minister of Ukraine posted pictures on twitter that included slightly modified emblems of SS corps, and it’s very frequent to see soldiers in Ukraine with Nazi tattoos. That’s not to say anything positive about the invasion, on the contrary, it’s normal that such nationalist radical sentiments are stoked in extreme cases
Yeah everyone’s got a few Nazis, even you I expect, although not knowing your country yet I can’t name them. Azov was a small bunch of extremists, not representative of the whole country, but Russia do like to make out they’re far more substantial than they really are because it plays into their idea that the West are all Nazis, which obviously we’re not.
Another example. Now that everyone’s stopped trying to fix Afghanistan and they’re now fully autonomous, the Taliban are getting increasingly misogynistic, not decreasingly. Your logic would suggest they should be heading in the opposite direction. By the way, everyone here includes Russia, so it’s not only the Western bogeyman that applies here.
Everyone’s got a few Nazis, but Ukraine’s problem with Nazism is far more generalized nowadays than in most places, as a consequence of the invasion. It’s not just the Azov battalion, as I said the literal defense ministry tweets Nazi symbolism on the regular.
In fact, the rise of right wing extremism in Europe can be seen to be heavily influenced by the past 15 years of economic stagnation. Your point of “everyone’s got a few Nazis” clearly points towards a radicalisation towards the far-right in places as the situation worsens. We see that in the US as well, with Trump quite literally having project 2025, and Kamala supporting Zionist genocide.
That’s not what’s happening. Taliban have always been misogynistic, they just weren’t in full control of the country. If you want to compare nearby countries with a Muslim majority that didn’t go through such a phase, you can look at Uzbekistan for example, which while not the most progressive country on earth (again, due to the level of development), the continued development and stability within the USSR led to much more progressivism than nearby countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan (which were seriously damaged by western influence). Afghanistan, btw, could have been another socialist country with a comparable quality of life to that of Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, but the US just HAD TO arm radical militias who, surprise surprise, would turn into the Taliban.
If Afghanistan significantly develops materially over the following decades, I DO expect to see that, btw. It’s just that Afghanistan is absolutely destroyed as a consequence of western policy.
You’re really trying to decouple the level of societal development to the level of economic progress and to the recent history of the countries, in a sort of racist view that the west is superior just because it’s superior, not because of the material and historical conditions.