A tale of feud from Afghanistan that illustrates the problems of non-state tribal cultures at work and the persistance of alpha-male “pride” to the point of “foolishness.” Hat tip: Robert Schwartz
Afghan blood feud ends after 30 years
By Tom Coghlan in Mohammad Rahim, Nangahar
Last Updated: 12:14PM BST 03/06/2008The men of an Afghan village have emerged from their fortress homes, safe for the first time in 30 years after the end of a blood feud which had claimed more than 300 lives.
Village menfolk have declared a truce after 30 years of bloodshedThe settlement of Mohammad Rahim is celebrating the end of a war that many believe, though few actually remember, began for age-old reasons – “Zan, Zar, Zemin”, or Women, Gold, Land.
For three decades it ran unchecked and confined the male population to their homes, which were quickly turned into fortresses with bricked-up windows and gun loopholes in the walls. The locals say that even the Taliban took one look at the chaos and went elsewhere.
“It started over Sambola’s widow,” said Malik Abdul Wahab, the leader of one of the sides. “Ashmir Khan was supposed to marry her. But Haji Nasruddin Khan married her instead. Ashmir shot Nasruddin, and that is how it began.”
The fighting split Mohammad Rahim along clan lines, involved the entire population, and spilled into neighbouring Weygel. A total of 318 men were killed in the fighting, which involved 160 families.
The situation inverted the norms of Afghan society as only women, protected from harm under Pashtunwali, the Afghan code of conduct, were able to continue the running of the village.
As their menfolk traded fire from the houses and alleyways above, the women toiled in the fields together without incident.
“Sometimes they shot us, sometimes we would go and attack them. Sometimes it was 12 hours,” said Mr Wahab, stroking a foot-long beard, and shaking his head.
Doulat Beg, 32, a member of the opposing clan, remembers: “In order to leave the village you had to wait until midnight or later and then creep away in the dark. And sometimes they would have ambushes for you.” He lost two nephews, three cousins and one uncle to the fighting.
Then abruptly, at the end of May, the governor of Nangahar province, Gul Agha Sherzai, stomped in and announced the fighting must end.
Mr Sherzai called a jirga, or council session of elders, to end the madness.
“The problem was that for the last thirty years the government was very weak,” said Mr Wahab, neatly spearing the major problem that continues to beset rural Afghanistan. “No outsiders ever came to negotiate an end to our dispute.”
And, apparently, they were incapable of doing so themselves… partly, I suspect, because they wouldn’t listen to their women. The role of the state can serve as a critical brake on the feuding tendencies of alpha males (i.e., the law of might makes right), which one sees at work in this case of what began as a marital dispute in which the woman’s wishes played no role.
Without the intervention, locals say that Afghan male pride would have kept the fighting going into infinity.
“Since I was a 20-year-old I have been in a prison except this last month. Now we sit together, we joke, we are like brothers,” said Mr Wahab, gesturing at Ger Han Khan, a toothless old mountain man who used to be his sworn enemy.
“I lost 11 men of my family. This was all just foolishness.”
Interesting remark. It suggests why progressives believe it’s important to set aside “foolish pride” and behave “rationally.” Even these Pashtun villagers would agree (after 30 years and 300 dead). But can we just set all this aside? Does our rationality, however advantageous, carry with it glaring vulnerabilities? Can these honor-shame dynamics have advantages we do not see, especially when a “rational culture” finds itself in an asymmetrical war with an honor-shame culture? What do we do with that fierce pride that can carry on its vendettas over generations — discard it? or sublimate it?
“Rational culture” is actually a great and evident progress over “Honnor and shame culture” and sure would easily win hearts were it not for some phony God’s law created in blood and deceit, over a thousand years ago, and that we are so shy to seriously discredit. But why, really?
Comment by ajm — June 4, 2008 @ 3:21 am
Rather than characterize Western culture as rational, I’d put it as a culture valuing rationality. And I’m not even sure how high rationality ranks on the Western value scale. Besides, emotions are often involved in orienting our cognition, largely contributing to not-very-rational behavior, whatever our culture.
I’d argue that some Western norms restrain our behavior, so a journalist doesn’t kill his critics in order to restore his honor or reputation, but fights them in courts and labels them unflattering names…
Yet other Western conventions prevent a regular army from fully deploying its forces when facing militias using human-shields.
What to do about it? One way is to rethink and adapt the societal ethics to the new situation. The IDF did it - see Philosopher Asa Kasher’s work. Sharansky’s recent book (I haven’t read it yet, posted a link to Tobin’s review on the thread below) deals with reinforcing society’s will, resistance, resiliency.
And perhaps some may draw an idea or two from reading
this The paradox of Muslim weakness
Comment by E.G. — June 4, 2008 @ 10:15 am
[…] The Augean Stables - Honor-Shame culture Afghan Style: The Thirty-Years Feud […]
Pingback by Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 06/04/08 — June 4, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
there is one more important lesson to be learned from this. why did the conflict not stop without outside intervention?
because stopping it would have required one of the sides to realize the idiocy and try to communicate with the other side. and in such societies the only interpretation of such an attempt would be weakness, which would invite harsher pounding.
in the conflict with the west the west multiculti stuff and jiziya are constant signals of weakness, with consequences that are ignored despite their obviousness.
when did hezbollah and hamas increased their attacks? after oslo, when israel started believing in and compromising for peace, instead of aggresively defending itself.
oao
http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/
Comment by oao — June 4, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
EG, a sign that many in America may value rationality but do not practice it, or may not even be able to consistently practice it, has emerged in the massive support for champion faker presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama. I really refer to the support for him among “college educated” young people. They must have learned little reason or capacity to reason if they took obama at face value when he claimed to represent the New, the Hopeful, the Innocent, etc. He spoke for Change and Hope without identifying exactly what changes he wanted to make, since everybody wants some changes oF some kind. Hope too is an empty platitude since just about all people hope for many things. What did bho hope for???
Then these poorly educated youth seemed to pay no attention to the revelations that standing behind obama were not only sleazy characters like the Syrian, Tony Rezko, but hard line revolutionaries, like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Arab anti-Israel academics like Rashid Khalidi, two-legged threats world peace an security like Zbig Brzezinski [and several ex-State Dept hacks], etc.
Carter used the Change and Hope slogans in his campaign back in 1976, according to Judith Klinghoffer. So there is nothing new under the sun. And obama did not represent the New and Fresh, as he claimed.
just by the way, his speech to AIPAC was loaded with sinister innuendoes and insinuations which boil down to forcing Israel to make “peace” on Arab and American terms.
Comment by Eliyahu — June 4, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Oao,
I think both sides ended up realizing the foolishness. But apparently, being the first to seek peace is interpreted as a confession of weakness, or a statement recognizing defeat. Hence, making a 3rd or external party broker the deal enables both sides to keep honor and avoid shame.
Sadat was murdered because he was the first to ask for peace. He was the one who went to Israel (30 years ago, next Sept.!) and implicitly announced that Israel cannot be defeated militarily (i.e., confess weakness). Perhaps this was Jordan’s Hussein motive to back Saddam in the ’90s while it was an open secret he was in touch with Israel.
So maybe the lesson is to let your honor-shame bound opponent claim out loud victory (whatever the truth really is) in order to achieve your goal of peace?
Comment by E.G. — June 4, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Eliyahu,
Gut feeling is a double edged sword and politicians’ appeal to emotion rather than reason is an old Shtick.
I’m not sure Dems actually chose BB (Brilliant Barack) or merely rejected Billary. Choosing and rejecting are - as surprisingly as it may sound - distinct cognitive processes.
Comment by E.G. — June 4, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
I think both sides ended up realizing the foolishness.
perhaps. but the 1st side to initiate communication to express this is interpreted as weakness. there is no mechanism for both to initiate at the same time. that’s why initiation must come from outside.
So maybe the lesson is to let your honor-shame bound opponent claim out loud victory (whatever the truth really is) in order to achieve your goal of peace?
you mean, in a conflict with the west, because in one between themselves would not work BY DEFINTION; loss is shame.
but it does not work there either. because superimposed on the honor-shame culture is islam and jihad. so they are not interested in just declaring victory, they want elimination or subjugation. see brett stephens’ article in WSJ.
Comment by oao — June 4, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
EG, a sign that many in America may value rationality but do not practice it, or may not even be able to consistently practice it, has emerged in the massive support for champion faker presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama. I really refer to the support for him among “college educated” young people.
bingo. americans today are not educated. they are either trained, or indoctrinated, or both. there is a huge difference between education and schooling.
therefore, while they use the mantra of rationality, they don’t really know what that means, or how to apply or appreciate it. so it’s all words like democracy and freedom without a clue as to what they mean and require.
to see the consequences compare america’s dire circumstances with the quality of its politicians, part. the 3 presidential candidates. they are faithful representatives of the rationality of the american people.
oao
http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/
Comment by oao — June 5, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
oao, I don’t really like any of the three major candidates. But I think they’re all smart. However, obama and Hilary, especially obama, think the people are dumb. They think that they can lie to them and make the most asinine excuses and switch positions, etc. [which supports your general position].
Obama did this the most blatantly with his excuses for loving Rev Wright, and pretending that his earlier proposals regarding Iran were misunderstood or some such. Hilary did it too with her Bosnia sniper claim, which was totally unnecessary. She could have gotten a lot of credit if she had simply and truthfully claimed: I went to Bosnia which was a war zone. The airport we landed at had been under sniper fire not long before.
But she had to enhance the truth which obama also did with his claim that his mother’s uncle had liberated Auschwitz. Then it turned out that Soviet troops had liberated Auschwitz and the uncle had supposedly liberated Buchenwald. Obama thinks that he can weasel out of any tough spot with a burst of eloquent, rhetorical BS that may or may not be coherent and reasonable. Obviously, there is a body of public opinion who can be fooled time after time, like small children.
Comment by Eliyahu — June 5, 2008 @ 6:24 pm