Share
-
Heaven On Earth
On the Conversion of Europe: The case of the two Hewalds (Bede)
From A Medievalist’s Guide to the 21st Century, Chapter 3: “The Political Implications of Honor-shame: Prime Divider Societies” (footnotes not included).
As part of a chapter on the “Prime Divider,” I include a discussion of the efforts of Christian missionaries to convert the warrior tribes of the north, not by preaching a Christianity based on the Sermon on the Mount, but by introducing the imperial Roman hierarchy via what I call “the king bee.” Here, in a revealing tale by Bede, we see what kind of resistance these missionaries ran into when dealing with a tribal warrior elite still jealously guarding their egalitarian freeedom.
In northwestern Europe (the eventual site of modern civilization), the process of shifting from tribal to prime-divider structures occurred under the tutelage of the Christian Church, shaped by centuries of Roman imperialism, in alliance with some of the more ruthless of Germanic warriors, moved to destroy many of the most stabilizing forces in their tribal cultures of origin in search of absolute power. The tale of two misssionaries from the great historian of the early 8th century, Bede the Venerable, offers us a good insight into how the shift occurred.
Book V, Chapter 9 (Latin here; English here): But among [the monk] Egbert’s companions was one called Wictbert, well known for his contempt for worldly things and for his knowledge of doctrine, who had lived the life of a hermit in great perfection for many years as an exile in Ireland. Wictbert took ship and arrived in Frisia, where he preached the word of life constantly for two years to the people and their king Radbod; but his great efforts produced no results among his barbaric hearers. He then returned to his beloved land of exile and began to give himself to our Lord in his accustomed silence. And since he had been unable to help foreigners towards the Faith, he sought to be of more help to his own people by setting them a holy example.
Converting tribal warriors to a religion steeped in both individual spirituality and humility proved hopeless. The solidarity of the tribes did not permit the kind of shift from organic (native, clan) to voluntary community; and the values espoused – humility, sexual abstinence, asceticism, pacifism – found no resonance among the men of power.
Chapter 10: So the man of God, Egbert, realized that he was not permitted to go and preach to the heathen, and that he was retained to be of some other service to the Holy Church, as he had been forewarned by the vision. But, although he knew that Wictbert had enjoyed no success when he visited those parts, he still attempted to send other holy and zealous men for the work of preaching, among whom the outstanding figure by his priestly rank and his merit was one named Wilbrord.
When he and his twelve companions arrived, they made a detour to visit Pippin, Duke of the Franks, by whom they were graciously received. Since Pippin had recently conquered Nearer Frisia and driven out King Radbod, he dispatched them to preach there, supporting them with his imperial authority so that no one should interfere with their preaching, and granting many favors to those who wished to embrace the Faith. Consequently, aided by God’s grace, they converted many folk in a short while from idolatry to belief in Christ.
This reflects the fundamental strategy that Christian missionaries used to convert the northern tribal warrior peoples, including the English people in the previous century, whence these two missionaries came: the “king-bee” strategy. Instead of trying to preach to commoners, the missionaries went to the tribe’s big man, offered him the (Roman) power to rule as a monarch, and worked their conversions from the top-down. As one “big man,” a prospective convert, got promised in a dream: “…if he assured you that your enemies would be destroyed and that you would be a king who surpassed in power not only all your ancestors, but also all who have reigned before you over the English…” Without the ruler’s approval, as in the case of Radbod, the missionaries made little progress.
Pippin, duke of the Franks, represents precisely the new alignment of Christian administrators and ruthless Frankish warriors, one first established by Clovis at the beginning of the 6th century, and soon to find its greatest champion in the Carolingians, of whom this Pippin was the first great figure. With Pippin’s protection, the missionaries work unimpeded by unreceptive, even hostile natives, and used material advantages as part of the conversion package. For Pippin, it offered a way to consolidate conquests, because the missionaries brought with them a hierarchical ethos of humility and obedience for those whom he wished to subject to his rule. Bede then describes two other “top-down” missionaries who have the misfortune of working an area not yet conquered by a pro-Christian ruler. The two men, both named Hewald, are distinguished by the color of their hair, the Black and the White.
Both men were devout and religious, but Hewald the Black was more learned in the Holy Scriptures. On entering the province they were given hospitality by a certain local boss (vilicus), whom they asked to conduct them to his lord (satrapam), as they had a message to his advantage, which they were bound to communicate to him.
Note that they do not preach to the locals. Unlike the early apostles and their emulators among early Christian missionaries to Europe, who would preach publicly to all comers as soon as they arrived in an area, these men have a message for the “leader,” the king bee.
For these Old Saxons have no king, but several lords (satrapas) who are set over the nation. Whenever war is imminent, these cast lots impartially, and the one on whom the lot falls is followed and obeyed by all for the duration of the war; but as soon as the war ends, the lords revert to equality of status.
Here we get a clear view of a pre-Christian tribal warrior structure, close indeed to the descriptions of both Tacitus and modern anthropologists – fiercely egalitarian, following orders only in time of war. These tribal warriors had every reason to view what Christianity had to offer as dangerous to their “way of life.”
So (ergo) the reeve received and kept them with him for some days, promising to send them as they had asked to the lord to whom he was subject.
It’s hard not to read too much into this allusive sentence. “Therefore” the reeve procrastinated. Why? Perhaps because he knew what their mission was, and what kind of dangers the new, hierarchical dispensation of imperial Christianity posed for him and his fellow tribesmen. Bede’s language – the “reeve” and the “lord to whom he was subject” – may be a Bedan projection of social relations as he viewed them, designating no more than the a local “big man” and the “leader” of the most powerful clan in the region, not the realities of Old Saxon society.
Now the Hewalds devoted themselves to psalms and prayers, and daily offered the sacrifice of the saving Victim to God, having with them sacred vessels and a consecrated table for use as an altar.
Note that during their travel delays, there is no word of preaching to the people. The focus of the men is not on “bearing witness” but on praying and performing ritual acts. There is no hint of an audience for their performance of the mass.
And when the barbarous people realized that they belonged to a different religion, they began to distrust them, fearing that if they went to their lord and spoke to him, they might turn him from his gods and convert him to the new practice of the Christian Faith, so that the whole province would gradually be compelled to change its old religion for new.
Here Bede lays out the stakes. The locals “realization” that the men were of a different religion, and their immediate fears, suggest that the missionaries conducted their prayers and rituals in private, lest their identity arouse hostility. Bede, true to his personal perspective as a Christian, sees this essentially as a religious matter: the Saxons don’t want to change their religion for Christianity. But as a good historian, Bede also gives us the details we need to understand this rejection: it’s not just their religion they’re afraid of changing, it’s their way of life, and in particular, their egalitarian social structure.
So they seized them and put them to death: Hewald the White was killed outright with a sword, and Hewald the Black was put to lingering torture and torn agonizingly limb from limb. They then flung the murdered men into the Rhine.
The rapid and violent response of the Saxons to the Christians in their midst suggests that the missionaries were correct in their decision not to preach to the “masses.” The delay of the reeve may well have been precisely to allow the locals to have their say. The lingering torture for Hewald the black, the more learned of the two, may also have to do with his status as a literate man – something tribal warriors tend to both despise and fear.
When the lord whom they had wished to see heard of this, he was extremely angry that strangers, desiring to see him had not been allowed to do so; and he sent and slew all the villagers and burned down their village. These priests and servants of Christ suffered on the third of October.
The response of the lord again confirms the fears of the locals: had the Hewalds reached him, he may well have found attractive the monarchical status they wanted to offer him. His excuse for punishing the entire village may have been framed in tribal terms – a breach of hospitality – but the brutality and extent of the punishment makes it clear that more than that was at stake. This “lord” is already acting like an overlord. Notice that Bede sheds no tears for the villagers who rejected Christianity, even if they had no part in the killing of the missionaries.
Bede’s account continues with a description of miracles that lead to the discovery of the martyrs’ bodies.
When Pippin, the most illustrious Duke of the Franks, later heard of these events, he directed that the bodies be brought to him, and buried them with great splendor in the church of the city of Cologne on the Rhine. It is said that a spring bubbled up at the scene of the martyrdom, which affords a plentiful supply of water to this day.
Pippin again. The natives, despite their resistance, have a relentless foe: authoritarian warriors who can conquer more than their tribal customs permit them to control, but who, in alliance with hierarchically-minded Christian missionaries, can extend their control over great territories.
This will be an interesting book to read. In this segment, I am having some trouble seeing explicit honor-shame forces at work here – as opposed to what could easily be seen as self/group interest along with the ruthless political realities that were extant at the time. Maybe I’m looking too hard.
I didn’t know that the pre-Christian European tribes were egalitarian.
And, wasn’t the Khazar conversion similarly top-down?
EG, Salzman describes tribal ME culture as egalitarian in the same sense. First, it is egalitarian for males, who can choose to support and defend the honor of their tribe and kin or not. Honor-shame forces provide a powerful incentive. Their own protection from outside foes in future conflicts depends on their willing enlistment in the current cause. It is a burden taken seriously and actually serves a peaceful purpose in that tribal members will often discourage hotheads in their tribe because they all will have to withstand and defend against any retaliation for his actions – or lose honor.
From a Western perspective we may say he really has no choice – but then there is no draft board waiting to send him to jail if he refuses. Tribal males do not take orders. They reach a consensus and then act, each male willingly, as a unified body with an agreed leader to defend tribal honor. At least that’s how I read Salzman.
Ray,
As far as I recall, we have already mentioned and discussed Salzman’s criticized use of the notion of democracy in ME tribal culture.
Egalitarianism means lack of an (established) hierarchy, and some rules about the distribution of goods, responsibilities, and power within a social system. I’m surprised to learn that such was the case in pre-Christian European tribes.
I have several comments:
1) The contrast drawn between early Christian missions and early medieval isn’t quite as stark as drawn here. While some of the early Christian documents, such as the book of Acts in the NT, present great preaching moments followed by conversions, the NT also presents a kind of “top down” conversion. Granted, it isn’t on a societal scale, but then couldn’t be given the nature of the Roman Empire in the first century. But there are many instances of appeal made to the pater familias, and if he converts, the whole household converts. Further, Rodney Stark argued a number of years ago that Christianity in the Roman Empire probably spread in very similar ways as modern cults do: largely by familial, fraternal, and financial associations…head of a company converts, all the families dependent on him and all the slaves he owns convert as well. In a similar vein, there is some early hagiography, esp. that dealing with the fates of the apostles that have the apostles going outside the Empire to preach to other nations, who in fact go to the king or chief and either are martyred or successful depending on the story. But the model practiced by these early missionaries is one inherited by later generations.
2) The lesson of top-down conversion is likely one learned from Constantine and Theodosius…once they converted, the fortunes of the Church changed dramatically, the latter making Christianity the *only* recognized religion…if that isn’t top-down, what is?
3) On the continent, there is an added wrinkle that wasn’t mentioned. Converting to Christianity wasn’t simply a religious move, but a political one as well. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons Radbod was so resistant…it would mean not just a change in lifestyle, but a change in allegiance. Note that when Pippin is successful in taking over part of Frisia, the political situation having changed, that the Christian missionaries are now able to make inroads; while those never under Frankish control eventually kill Boniface half a century later. This policy of conversion is one that Charlemagne continued with the Saxons and Slavs on his borders–and when they rebelled, they also stopped being Christians according to the sources.
4) You might want to compare and contrast the Irish peregrini with the Roman/Anglo-Saxon missionaries as well. Many of the early peregrini also preached in the neighborhoods where they took up their exiles, and were successful, for a time…but typically didn’t necessarily preach to the leaders, and after they were gone (either moving to more remote areas or died), often the Christianity they planted died. The Roman strategy was different.
Just some thoughts
EG, I don’t think he called it “democracy”. He used “egalitarian”. An “established hierarchy” – the term you used – means that a person higher up can command a person at a lower level. In ME tribal society adult males have equal status in regards one being able to command the obedience of another – within the tribe. Decisions are made by consensus. Have you read his book? I didn’t think so.
EG: I’m surprised to learn that such was the case in pre-Christian European tribes.
It’s not so surprising. Small groups of independent kin (a tribe) must depend on the voluntary consensus of all males able to fight and defend the lives of the tribe. Every adult male is a precious resource. Any other system would be prone to disintegration as factions tried to take power within the tribe. They’d end up with two or more tribes – each weaker than the whole – which I assume probably happened from time to time anyway. But then they’d each have to depend on the voluntary consensus of their members to survive.
This is the essence of honor-shame. It is shameful to be commanded by another male. It is shameful not to defend your tribe. It is honorable to risk your life in the defense of your tribe and the male members who you fight with.
It is actually the way every successful military is organized – even or should I say especially in the West. Notice that we currently have an all voluntary military in the US and that honor-shame are the emotional forces that, through training, are instilled in them to bind them together as a cohesive unit.
They voluntarily agree to accept the commands of their military superiors as part of their enlistment path so there is effectively no coercion. It works in our armed forces but not in ME armies because our officers reciprocally embrace the concept of honor and duty to the women and men they lead. In the ME an officer is seen as someone who coerces underlings and who enriches himself from the power he wields. He is usually appointed to his position because of family connections.
That’s why the Arab League with their vastly superior forces and armaments could not defeat small Israel in 1947-8. It’s because Israel’s Armed Forces were better at being tribal warriors than the Arabs.
Arab states are not really tribal. Arab family groups within Arab states are still tribal. That’s where you’ll find tribal warriors willing to defend their kin to the death and risk everything to increase family honor – usually by joining alliances with other families to topple the current regime. Then they’ll go back to fighting each other to maintain their power.
Arabs don’t have states. They have power holders who enrich themselves and their extended families while commanding a large population defined by arbitrary borders established by the UN. And there you have the history of Arab nation building in a nutshell – and the reason why it is so impossible.
Greetings:
One of the ideas that has settled in my brain since I began to try to understand our Muslim brothers and sisters is that for all intents and purposes Muhammed both froze and globalized the Arab tribal culture with his Islam. In the Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam division, he expanded the basic tribal us versus them mindset to the entire planet. In declaring his teachings to be the words of Allah, he effectively prevented their being altered in the future.
I saw a reference to Philip Carl Salzman above. My favorite anecdote in his “Culture and Conflict in the Middle East” is his discussion with a Bedouin tribesman who tells him that his tribe doesn’t care much for all the Islamic praying, but they do like the Jihad.
11B40, I think you got it right. I read “Culture and Conflict in the Middle East” last year. Right now I’m just about through David Pryce-Jones’ “The Closed Circle”. In it he emphasizes how pervasively the power-challenging / money-favoring dynamic of current Arab pseudo-states drives all decisions of the ruler. So I guess that colors how I interpret things. I think Salzman has described important basic aspects of Arab society as they are played out in the tribal groups he has studied. I see a direct connection between the nomadic tribes he studied and the Arab states today – in terms of what options are available to leaders and what decisions must be made to retain power.
Unfortunately, some folks here don’t read much. They already know everything they need to know.
Ray,
I’m not willing to debate on things I’m not knowledgeable enough about. I only read one review (or was it 2?) of Salzman’s book.
It seems to me though that you’re stretching some (of his?) concepts, findings/conclusions a bit too much. And leave some significant factors and distinctions (e.g., paganism/religion; negotiation vs. consensus; loyalty mechanisms and conflicting goals) out of your fusion analysis. And, anyone even remotely familiar with Arabs knows the hierarchically structured nature of their societies.
Last but not least, I’m not at all sure how much pre-Christian European tribes resemble pre-Islamic or Islamic Arab tribes. BTW, do you know who the Moors Pippin’s father (and Pippin himself) fought and defeated were?
Ray#7
Not everybody here is retired and has time to devote to reading all the books one would have liked to devour.
EG says: I’m not willing to debate on things I’m not knowledgeable enough about. I only read one review (or was it 2?) of Salzman’s book.
But you are debating it, aren’t you?
EG: And, anyone even remotely familiar with Arabs knows the hierarchically structured nature of their societies.
I think you are wrong about that. Westerners are very prone to cognitive egocentrism in this regard. Hierarchy in Arab vs Western society is more complicated than most imagine.
EG: Not everybody here is retired and has time to devote to reading all the books one would have liked to devour.
I have very little time each day to read but I make the time when I can – like every time I go to Seattle I have a 30 minute ferry ride each way. I’m retired only in that I no longer have employees. I still make small fishing boats and market them but only as many as I can handle by myself. I’ve been reading “The Closed Circle” for several weeks now. You’ve had several months to read “Culture and Conflict in the Middle East” if you were interested.
EG: It seems to me though that you’re stretching some (of his?) concepts, findings/conclusions a bit too much. (snip)
You could be right about that. There’s a lot of ideas in there and I’m sure I got some of them wrong. I wish someone here had read enough of it that I could trust their opinion. So far I’ve been disappointed except for 11B40. If you agree to read it I’ll read it again and we can compare notes in a month or so if you like.
on the subject of egalitarianism — it’s a widespread phenomenon in tribal culture, esp warrior tribes that there is a strong resistance to the emergence of a king or other hierarchical authority. the zero-sum game plays out in myriad ways, and leaders are only chosen for the brief period of military activity.
the purpose of the chapter was to describe what happens when the “balanced opposition” that Salzman describes so well gets skewed by the advent of advanced weapons, writing, and agriculture, all of which permit the emergence of a state and hierarchy.
the arab world that EG refers to, and is so familiar to us, is that of state hierarchy. the honor-shame values remain, but play out in a different way. will post more on this shortly.
to #5. thanks Larry, for your careful reading and extensive comments. responses below.
I have several comments:
1) The contrast drawn between early Christian missions and early medieval isn’t quite as stark as drawn here. While some of the early Christian documents, such as the book of Acts in the NT, present great preaching moments followed by conversions, the NT also presents a kind of “top down” conversion. Granted, it isn’t on a societal scale, but then couldn’t be given the nature of the Roman Empire in the first century. But there are many instances of appeal made to the pater familias, and if he converts, the whole household converts. Further, Rodney Stark argued a number of years ago that Christianity in the Roman Empire probably spread in very similar ways as modern cults do: largely by familial, fraternal, and financial associations…head of a company converts, all the families dependent on him and all the slaves he owns convert as well. In a similar vein, there is some early hagiography, esp. that dealing with the fates of the apostles that have the apostles going outside the Empire to preach to other nations, who in fact go to the king or chief and either are martyred or successful depending on the story. But the model practiced by these early missionaries is one inherited by later generations.
if anything the early conversions (pre-Constantine) were done via the woman of the house, not the man. and i wouldn’t just write off the bottom up model as the default because at the beginning they couldn’t do more. it’s inherent in the model of preaching demonstrated by Jesus — speak to anyone including (esp?) commoners, enlist individuals who specifically leave their families. i’d say this is part of the very religiosity of early xnty, and that the emergence of the top-down model — which i agree happens long before the hewalds show up in saxony — is part of the four-century long shift of xnty from a bottom-up demotic religion (future chapter) to a top-down imperial religion.
2) The lesson of top-down conversion is likely one learned from Constantine and Theodosius…once they converted, the fortunes of the Church changed dramatically, the latter making Christianity the *only* recognized religion…if that isn’t top-down, what is?
absolutely. that’s what i’m arguing, that xns (esp roman-oriented ones) used the “king-bee” model. but my sense is that the earliest ones to go into northern tribal europe after the (non-)fall of the roman empire did not and failed. Wallace-Hadrill refers to them as the “lunatic fringe” as opposed to Wicfred who’s more practical. (presumably Jesus and the early apostles would fit in this former category.)
3) On the continent, there is an added wrinkle that wasn’t mentioned. Converting to Christianity wasn’t simply a religious move, but a political one as well. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons Radbod was so resistant…it would mean not just a change in lifestyle, but a change in allegiance. Note that when Pippin is successful in taking over part of Frisia, the political situation having changed, that the Christian missionaries are now able to make inroads; while those never under Frankish control eventually kill Boniface half a century later. This policy of conversion is one that Charlemagne continued with the Saxons and Slavs on his borders–and when they rebelled, they also stopped being Christians according to the sources.
that’s my point. i guess i didn’t state it clearly. Radbod’s anecdotal opposition to xnty — i’d rather spend eternity in hell with my ancestors than sharing heaven with the franks — is a pretty good illustration of the hostility to the kind of subordination political and religious, awaiting a non-carolingian convert. since his father was Christian, it’s clear the king-bee version was already tried on his tribe.
4) You might want to compare and contrast the Irish peregrini with the Roman/Anglo-Saxon missionaries as well. Many of the early peregrini also preached in the neighborhoods where they took up their exiles, and were successful, for a time… but typically didn’t necessarily preach to the leaders, and after they were gone (either moving to more remote areas or died), often the Christianity they planted died. The Roman strategy was different.
yes. i think that gets a precisely the model i am trying to delineate. i’m sure there are lots of exceptions to the rule, tho. maybe i’ll come back to this in my discussion of xnty’s versions of demotic religiosity.
Just some thoughts
RL says: the arab world that EG refers to, and is so familiar to us, is that of state hierarchy. the honor-shame values remain, but play out in a different way. will post more on this shortly.
Great! I’m looking fwd to that. I am in the last chapter of Pryce-Jones “The Closed Circle” and am struck by the consistency of Arab leadership over the last several decades – in the way they come to power, the way they hold it, the predictable decisions they make when in power to meet the honor-shame demands of their societies – and the way they lose power, typically assassination by young male conspirators who acted just like they did when they took power in a similar plot. (i.e. Nasser – Sadat)
Overlaying this onto Salzman’s accounts of tribal honor-shame behavior seems to mesh pretty well.
Ray#7
Not everybody here is retired and has time to devote to reading all the books one would have liked to devour.
Not everybody has the means, public libraries to order the books nor the finance to buy them, to read anything and everything either.
$30 – $50 on an American salary is one thing.
Be that as it may
In ME tribal society adult males have equal status in regards one being able to command the obedience of another – within the tribe.
I have not witnessed this, unless one considers a group of youngsters where no alpha male has yet appeared.
From what I observed there is a noticeable ranking and age plays a part. Take the case of two brothers one of whom was more religious and on his way to being the Imam, after all he was being addressed as sheik, but when his older brother told him to shut up he did just that.
Maybe if it got to his honour too much he’d have his brother removed a few years down the road.
Just like early English royalty :-)
And Allah forbid if a son did as the son of another family commanded if his father/brother/whatever held that other family in some sort of contempt.
Ray,
Westerners are very prone to cognitive egocentrism in this regard.
Only as long as they sit in the HolyLand Hotel and let taxi drivers do the observing for them.
Forgive the sarcasm, please.
Working with another culture and being open to observing their lifestyle one quickly comes to the realisation that there are cultural gaps which require invested effort on both parts to bridge and other gaps which are impossible to bridge if one is unwilling to surrender one’s roots and tradition completely.
As usual the Western body politic ends up talking at cross-purposes.
Just because Alibama likes waffles doesn’t mean that I do and that he can get me to like them.
Something that always comes to mind is the work of then Sir Solly Zukerman describing the life of primates by observing them in the zoo in London and the observations by South African poet Eugene Marais of those primates while out in the mountains.
Nowadays we know whose description was correct.
Cynic says: Not everybody has the means, public libraries to order the books nor the finance to buy them, to read anything and everything either.
$30 – $50 on an American salary is one thing.
I find this line of discourse puzzling. I only have vague notions of where members of this forum live although I have been quite explicit in describing my own. (I think you live in Israel.)
I buy most of my books for less than $10 from Amazon. In many cases I buy from their used book store and find most of my reading in the $6 to $10 range. I am then free to offer my books in that same store after I read them and resell them for about what I paid for them. The result is that I obtain much of my reading material for the cost of postage – usually about $3-$4 US. The best books I keep in my library for rereading and reference.
Occasionally I find that I must buy a new expensive book in the $30 range. Since I take 3 months on average to read a large book that still keeps my monthly expenses in the $10 range. There are great book deals to be found on the internet. I have a college text “Biological Psychology” that sells new in the $100 range that I bought on Ebay for $5 from a student who had gotten it wet and so some of the pages are a little wrinkled but perfectly readable.
If anyone here has problems obtaining desired reading material I will gladly purchase any item you wish and have it sent to you at my expense. I can’t simply become a free book store but I will provide up to $20 US per month or possibly more as my finances permit. Simply contact me privately (ray@cataraft.com) and explain your circumstances to me.
I don’t make this offer out of strict altruism. I have a selfish motive in improving the level of discourse here. This has become my favorite place to share ideas online, for now at least.
Cynic, re: your other comments in 15 – you are right that most of Arab society is based on who one can crap on and who can crap on you. I am discussing the organization of adult males within a tribal context. It seems to that, while on one hand there is this constant tension of seeking honor at another’s expense, even within families, there is also the underlying notion that physical coercion is not used against one’s close allies. Instead one entreats, cajoles, bribes and promises favors – which the respondent is free to accept or reject.
It seems that all social/political interaction in (adult male) Arab society is divided into that between allies and that between rivals – whereby different rules apply. For any power-challenge to be successful, allies must be enlisted and depended upon. It seems that physical coercion of one’s comrades-in-coup would not lead to much success.
As someone who lives in the ME (I think Israel) I am very interested in reading more of your thoughts on this and I welcome any suggested corrections to my own views from your vantage point.
Cynic, If you will allow me a suggestion, when I read,
As usual the Western body politic ends up talking at cross-purposes. Just because Alibama likes waffles doesn’t mean that I do and that he can get me to like them.
It makes me wonder if I am trying to have a reasonable conversation about complex geo-politics and culturally driven violence and war – with 6 year-olds. Partisan politics is such a downer for me, I can’t imagine why intelligent people would find such joy in it.
For the record I am very cynical of Obama’s (and Clinton’s) motives and abilities and that has grown to outright mistrust at this point – but I don’t see how referring to him as Alibama or her as Shrillery, as some do here, provides any possible enlightenment.
(Just some thoughts. I can live with it as I expect I must.)
Ray,
I thank you for your kind offer but must refuse.
Postage from the US to here is very expensive and when someone sent me a book by Andrew Bostom they paid over $40.
$40 to mail a book? I had no idea. Are there no Amazon-like online book sellers closer to you – such as in Turkey, Italy or Greece? I suppose not. But, I assume that many goods must flow from Europe and Japan to Israel every month. Is that not the case?
Cynic,
I concur with your hierarchical/age-heritage-accomplishment observation. Hajj, Mukhtar, elder, member of a more or less “noble” clan etc. make a man’s status. But it is hard nowadays to distinguish the influence of religion as a hierarchy-inducing factor from the earlier clan-tribal mentality.
Ray,
Of course making everybody share your literary fascinations and discoveries would enrich us all and the discussion. You may also consider sharing some of the participants’ intimate knowledge with the region and its inhabitants by observing things first hand during, say, 3-6 months. For a start. That’ll be a significant contribution to elevating the discussion (and ridding it of some unnecessary comments), no? It’ll also be an experience in shedding some cognitive egocentrism off.
I don’t think I debated Salzman’s notions other than the confusing egalianitarism/democracy one (and I just recalled that I did read his own paper on his book, not only the article about it that criticised that same notion).
EG, I don’t wish to deny you the opportunity to debate. But I do object (mildly) to hearing criticisms from someone – then when I offer a material response – they say they don’t really want to debate. I get the feeling that you often don’t like what I’m saying and you feel strong enough to make a sarcastic remark – but then drop out after you’ve scored the hit denying me any chance to engage on the points. You’ve done that to me more than once which is (mildly) irritating. Like in this comment where you wax sarcastic about “my literary fascinations”. My literary fascinations are any book that enlightens the topic of culture and conflict in the ME. I’m surprised that in a forum with so many strong opinions on that there is so little reading going on.
That said, IMO there is no need to be an expert in order to discuss any of this. Few of us are. Me for sure. By discussing and hearing others comments, even if they are not based on complete knowledge, we can learn more. If nothing else we can learn what we don’t know.
I’m afraid I can’t afford the time or expense of 3 – 6 months in Israel although I’d dearly love to do that. Certainly you’re not suggesting that only those who have should be commenting here. I think you’ll find that even people who have lived in Israel for many years have a full range of opinions about the Arab world, the conflict and what Israel should do about it.
E.G.,
But it is hard nowadays to distinguish the influence of religion as a hierarchy-inducing factor from the earlier clan-tribal mentality.
Don’t think of religion from the purely spiritual point of view but encompass the politicization of it in the “grander” scheme of things.
Today religion has all the failings of a political party with it becoming more dictatorial the more oppressive the regime within which it acts.
It sets its own hierarchy from religious minister down through the ranks of his thugs.
One can see an almost “benign” form (just blackmail and extortion) with some of the Jewish groups through the churches backing the very Muslim groups, which slaughtered Christians, against the Jews (one should also pay attention of the Church ministers’ behaviour in Jerusalem and the PA areas) to the extreme actions amongst the Muslims where in some cases the religious leader dictates the pecking order.
In some cases it was visible, for those paying attention, that with the influx of Saudi funds the status quo was altered. Honour in many cases only rules until filthy lucre enters the scene.
Ray,
Amazon in many aspects is far the cheapest means of buying but shipping in many cases doubles the cost of a book. I’m not going to squeeze my meager allotment for luxuries by buying more books to get a more cost effective shipping charge.
Also there is a difference buying from Amazon in the US and Amazon from Britain, for example.
Ray,
I’m afraid I can’t afford the time or expense of 3 – 6 months in Israel although I’d dearly love to do that. Certainly you’re not suggesting that only those who have should be commenting here. I think you’ll find that even people who have lived in Israel for many years have a full range of opinions about the Arab world, the conflict and what Israel should do about it.
The only reason I think I have something to say is because for many years I worked among the different cultures. It certainly took me longer than a year to discern certain traits and what a surprise I had when I perceived the difference in behaviour between Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs, westernized Jews and arabized Jews. All the preconceived ideas gleaned from the media mostly, and some books, were thrown out as they conflicted with the regional reality.
I think you left out a don’t between “years” and “have” as many such people do exist here and really are blind to many things going on for one of several reasons:
there are those just so stressed that they don’t want to know any more;
there are those who being of a “disconnected to life” disposition don’t even know what day of the week it is;
and then there are those who look but don’t see – they don’t perceive the change taking place in front of their eyes.
There are those who cannot see even after all their years here, what E.G. saw on his visit last month, the strategic importance of the hills within mortar range of Tel Aviv and the centre of the country given the West’s (US, EU) proclivity to bankrolling the groups from Arafat through to the present in their obsession to blow the Jews apart.
Even those who do realise what is happening find themselves confused about what action to take given the conflicting events, beyond of their control, manipulating them into who knows what down the road.
Now with the latest attempt by the US admin to make things worse the US is against imposing economic sanctions on Iran. Hillary demands that Jews stop procreating in East Jerusalem (which includes the historic Jewish Quarter of the Old City – it should be Judenrein as it was after the Jordanian Legion cleansed it in 1949?) as she wants it for the Palestinian capital.
Frustration is running high along with the stress and people who are aware are now suffering from cognitive dissonance as the one country in the world they respected and “loved” is now appearing to want them shoved into cattle cars.
As for the petty name calling of certain politicians, well it is to be expected that those who feel that they are being cornered and don’t even have a vote to use against the apparent “protection racket” (do as we say or we will let Iran loose on you, etc.) threats, have a lot of emotion invested and using words provides a slight relief.
The people chosen by BO don’t appear so wholesome and as an elderly lady asked rhetorically “what, haven’t the Jews had enough kapos in their history that now they need this Emanuel and ..” and she mentioned some other names.
{There is a book in Hebrew about the humour that the Jews in the death camps employed, and the psychology of it which is enlightening when considering the psyche’s ability to contend with adverse situations.}
Cynic, Thanks for your cogent reply. Reading things like that does give me a better understanding of the world you live in and its many serious threats. It’s not as good as me visiting but it helps fill in the gaps for me.
Although I have not looked up at the hills overlooking Tel Aviv in person I have studied photos and have studied relief maps of the area viewing from the top down to the west and from the coast up to the hills. here is no doubt in my mind that Israel must have complete control if the high ground there as well as the Golan Heights.
My view of the larger conflict and history is basically that those who start wars should not expect to be rewarded for that and should be treated as criminals – especially if they persist over the years and don’t renounce their murderous desires. I voted for Obama reluctantly and only after many weeks of discussion with Jews on another website who are very supportive of Israel repeatedly assured me that my misgivings were not warranted. There are still cards to played out and I could be wrong (as always) but I am almost certain now that I made a mistake. Another consideration was that McCain has exhibited no deep intelligence or understanding of geo-politics beyond ideological sloganeering. He graduated fifth from the bottom of his naval Academy class and was promoted mostly because he was the son of an admiral. I think he rode that prestige and his Viet Nam prison experience to political advantage. It was a tough choice but I am still not convinced that Israel would be better off with him in the driver’s seat.
Be that as it may – the question that must always be asked is what can we do from this moment forward to make the best of things. Rest assured that when I ask that question I ask it wondering what is the best way to secure the safety of the people of Israel. I am one American who will use my vote on your behalf as far as I can discern what that is. I will do that because I believe that US interests are very much tied to Israel’s and also because I believe that Israel is the morally righteous party in the conflict according to my standards. It’s not a tough choice for me at all.
But what draws me to this site is not to worry over my support for Israel. It is to better understand the psychology that drives the Palestinians (and Arabs) to their decisions and actions. In our discussions of that and as I propose possibilities please don’t think of me as your enemy.
Ray,
I don’t see any point in personalising the discussion. Of course I don’t intend to irritate your feelings, but does refuting an argument or criticising it only have this emotional consequence?
I won’t debate on things I don’t understand or that I’m not familiar enough with, nor with an interlocutor whose opinion is impermeable to any suggestion. In the last case I might just state mine, for the record.
I don’t think this place gathers people who wish to “score hits” by putting someone down (in fact, you’re the only one complaining about it). So I find a remark such as Unfortunately, some folks here don’t read much. They already know everything they need to know. inappropriate and tasteless.
And don’t you realise that your answer to my suggestion to observe ME first-hand is exactly the same as the ones Cynic and I evoked about reading all the books one would/should?
EG: I wish you could step back and see what is going on here. You and a couple other long time posters here have created a very uncomfortable place – I’d say a nasty place – for anyone but you to engage in discussion. I was amazed at the level of sarcasm and antagonism expressed toward me my first attempt at polite discussion here. I left for a while but I was intrigued by RL’s articles and eventually tried again. It was a bit easier but every time a real discussion gets going where someone other than your core group brings in ideas – some really vicious sarcasm and belittling of people and their ideas is sure to result. Then when someone like me calls you on it for being jerks or gives you back some of your attitude you say – see, you’re the one who’s being uncivil.
I don’t really give a crap whether anyone here likes me or not. So I keep trying to have a polite discussion mostly because of the topics being covered here. Most of the comments I read here are a distraction but there’s sometimes a good one that makes it worth the effort. But since I’ve been here I’ve seen several intelligent posters leave because of the insults and generally vicious treatment they’ve been given by you (you plural). Sophia and Diane just to name two recent ones. The way they were treated was way over the line IMO.
I don’t know much longer I’ll bother with it but what a shame you guys can’t get past acting like a little gang of closed-minded bullies. To be more accurate it’s one bully and his gang. Richard’s work and ideas deserve better than this IMO. But I understand the problems of running a website like this. Good moderation takes a lot of time and energy that Richard does not have. And less than good moderation can be worse than none at all.
In the meantime, if I keep commenting here, I’ll do my best to be civil and polite. If you can’t return the favor I’ll be happy to give you back whatever crap you throw and then some.
Ray,
The point here is not about liking or disliking a poster (RL included). It’s about a poster’s comment that is more or less “likable”. IOW, the ideas one expresses.
Digressing à la PoMo about who posters are, what they feel, where they live, what they do for a living, group dynamics, moderation rules etc. is beside the point, off topic and not quite interesting. I believe Chief-Poster (RL*) expects feedback on his writings and that’s what most “common posters” do.
Affinities can result from sharing some views and tastes. Including a taste for getting harshly criticised, in some cases.
*In the context of egalitarianism-hierarchy and tribalism, this label makes much sense ;-)
RL and Cynic,
I did get the point about instrumenting religion for political objectives. But I still fail to see how polytheistic tribes are/were egalitarian. A rankless, classless, group is not necessarily an egalitarian one. And, pecking order is not a human invention.
E.G., these cultures are egalitarian for adult males warriors. the role of envy in making sure that no one rises too high above the others asssures them of dominion in their household, but autonomy politically. that doesn’t mean they’re free — they have many obligations in order to maintain their honor — but they don’t have to take orders.
pecking orders exist — some warriors are greater than others, some clan leaders carry more weight — but not like the hierarchies that come with monarchy and the state.
does that help?
ray (#30) -
i agree with you. i’m sometimes surprised by the rapidness with which commenters sometimes “identify” where someone’s coming from and jump on them.
i’ve mentioned this before, and will again. i really would prefer a civil discourse. i’m not against sharp exchanges, and can give as good as i get, but unless it’s really necessary, i think it’s well worth it to treat people’s ideas with respect.
r
RL,
Thanks, it does help. But isn’t it better to describe it as dispersed (power, authority) or decentralized societies – flat structure – rather than egalitarian?
i’m sometimes surprised by the rapidness with which commenters sometimes “identify” where someone’s coming from and jump on them.
is it possible that some of us identify certain things rapidly? anyway, what is stopping anybody from proving the identification wrong?
i really would prefer a civil discourse.
what is civil? can one say tiresome, or nonsense, or bs? what if that is my true opinion, can’t i express it?
there have been several idiots in various threads, the last example of which is one johnny asia. note to what i reacted when i called him an idiot. is there no limit to what one can accept before one can call a spade a spade?
you have no idea the kind of insults i’ve absorbed in my long life and i never complained or tried to get anybody to shut up or changed their writings. i chose to ignore some, prove some wrong, or responded in kind.
all it takes is backed up self-confidence.
Ray,
I certainly don’t regard you as an enemy.
We have differences of opinion for several reasons, one being access to the factual reality as opposed to the virtual kumbaya reality usually expressed in the media and movies when it comes to either of our countries.
Another difference is in the temperament of the individual, and a third is the cultural difference in the use of the common language used here, English, where a word used by either of us does not have the same connotation or nuance.
Sometimes I try to apply an analogy to make my argument clearer and unfortunately the references and sarcasm hit a nerve. We are complex creatures, psychologically speaking, because we still have the inherent evolutionary impulses and seem to have developed a philosophical approach that overrides and conflicts with them causing us no end of trouble in our behaviour. We, for a myriad of parameters, choose a path and most times cognitive dissonance sets in.
Dershowitz seems to be having his now. He cannot seem to mouth the enormity of what Clinton said with regard to settlements let alone discuss the implications of the policy image coming out of DC.
What is terribly frustrating is the hypocritical standard being applied against this country, which no other country is expected to conform to, and then being subjected to the kumbaya cliches over and over again.
Understanding the Palestinians is to understand the Arabs, which means understanding Islam, and the West’s foreign policy from the end of the First World War to the present.
The Palestinians are the cannon fodder of the Arab League and certain Western interests whose apparent vested interest seems to be getting rid of that sh###y little country.
Why on earth does the West clamour for peace in the region while continuously bankrolling the violence from Arafat through Hamas on the one hand and permitting Syrian and Iranian hegemony in Lebanon on the other?
It is not just the cultures that must be studied but also those little men (civil servants, politicians and the UN’s gofers) and their psychoses which so influenced events after WW1 and formed what we know today as Palestinians and the current international situation.
C: I certainly don’t regard you as an enemy.
Thanks, it’s mutual.
C: We have differences of opinion for several reasons, one being access to the factual reality as opposed to the virtual kumbaya reality usually expressed in the media and movies when it comes to either of our countries.
I’m not aware of any important difference of opinion between us regarding the conflict. Maybe I missed it or forgot. I find your comments on the conflict to be honestly written from the heart.
C: What is terribly frustrating is the hypocritical standard being applied against this country, which no other country is expected to conform to, and then being subjected to the kumbaya cliches over and over again.
Putting myself in your place I appreciate your frustration. I don’t ask for Israel to treat Palestinians with more kindness. They only interpret that as weakness. I don’t expect any kumbaya breakthrough with the Arabs. I have little patience and hold great contempt for people who start wars, who use and even prefer violence to settle political disputes when a peaceful path is available (as in 1947 and repeatedly since then). I am probably less tolerant of that than many Israelis seem to be and I have mentioned that in this forum. My reason for being in this forum is to try to understand how a people develops a culture that seeks violence and glorifies it in their lives. For me, that’s what Richard’s articles are about.
C: Why on earth does the West clamour for peace in the region while continuously bankrolling the violence from Arafat through Hamas on the one hand and permitting Syrian and Iranian hegemony in Lebanon on the other?
I don’t know the answer but I think it lies somewhere in the psychology of our cultural beliefs – our side of the honor/shame coin. It’s something I’m trying to figure out. I hope you can see my frustration in getting insulted and attacked whenever I try to discuss it. To be clear, it’s the distraction from these topics that irritates me. The barbs themselves are minor. I’m always ready to engage as you have done in this comment and appreciate the opportunity.
Torquemadoao ;-)
You skipped
but unless it’s really necessary
If I may add, it’s sometimes sufficient.
But we do diverge on the style. It’s more urban to say “makes little if any sense to me” than “nonsense”.
Cynic & Ray,
Enemy?! Ridiculous!
Interlocutor it is, and that’s amply sufficient.
(valuable tips on food & drink are extra).
Why on earth does the West clamour for peace in the region while continuously bankrolling the violence from Arafat through Hamas on the one hand and permitting Syrian and Iranian hegemony in Lebanon on the other?
well, i have always thought it’s a combination of resenting the jews doing a better job than they do (and not keeping in their place), fear from jihad, unwillingness to defend themselves (cowardice and being under the american umbrella for so long), need to appease the arabs due to oil, PC, and ignorance and inability to reason driven by educational and civilizational collapse.
the reason you ask is not because you don’t know or don’t understand, it’s because suicidal stupidity and the danger it puts israel in is hard to accept.
Enemy?! Ridiculous!
understatement.
disagreement — no matter how bluntly expressed — does not equate to enmity. but perhaps he developed his theory by projecting from himself — in the face of disagreement, part. if bluntly expressed — he responds emotionally because of his strong identity belief that one must play it nice, and infers enmity from that.
Torquemadoao ;-)
why are you so derisive and offensive? :)
You skipped but unless it’s really necessary
yes, because for me telling it like it is is always necessary.
But we do diverge on the style. It’s more urban to say “makes little if any sense to me” than “nonsense”.
that’s entirely your prerogative as well as everybdy else’s; as it is mine to prefer a different style. i have not been born with it, it was instilled in me during a long time and i adopted it quite late in life. i used to think like you.
I don’t know the answer but I think it lies somewhere in the psychology of our cultural beliefs – our side of the honor/shame coin.
i’ve been trying to alert you to the tautological nature of this answer: they do it because of their cultural beliefs is at best a trivial statement: they do it because that’s what they believe.
it is more enlightening to focus on the specifics of those beliefs and HOW, WHY and BY WHAT/WHOM were they produced. for example, saying that hamas do what they do because of their cultural beliefs is trivial — people don’t do what they don’t believe. it’s what specific beliefs are instilled how and why that’s explanatory.
It’s something I’m trying to figure out.
yes, and that’s as cynic has explained. those of us who lived in the ME and, in addition, educated ourselves on top of it, see these things better than those with only the benefit of abstract study.
I hope you can see my frustration in getting insulted and attacked whenever I try to discuss it.
it’s neither attacks and insults, nor is it you who are the target. it’s what you say. one of the reasons i developed my blunt style is because i came to the conclusion that “shocking” from poor or wrong understandng is effective the able to think independently and critically (even about self) and i don’t much care about the rest in the majority (which nothing, including politeness will help; indeed, they cling to the politeness as an indicator that there’s something right that deserves attention). and i adopted this style over 30 years to teaching and writing. you can go at my (technical) site and read my articles and see exactly what i mean.
To be clear, it’s the distraction from these topics that irritates me. The barbs themselves are minor. I’m always ready to engage as you have done in this comment and appreciate the opportunity.
it’s not automatically distraction to point out that something is nonsense, as there is no automatic engagement just because somebody has expressed a thought. if engagement does not promise to be productive, or may induce others, part. readers who don’t participate, to see value where there isn’t much, it’s important to call a spade a spade and avoid tedious, but not very valuable engagements.
taking it emotionally and personally risks doing what you seem to be concerned with — to avoid being sufficiently aware and critical of your weaknesses, which the bluntness of the ‘shock’ often helps with. in my experience as a teacher and writer, the smart ones get it as intended, or return the favor, which is fine if smartly done. emotional reactions of being offended is an indicator for me of insufficient self-confidence. my approach has helped a lot of smart guys learn.
oao,
I think that a decentralized authority structure, with ad hoc alliances, better characterises the tribal culture RL describes than “egalitarian”. What’s your learned view?
P.S. – a vital question
Will you still love me when I’m 64?
Even if I don’t follow your example and very politely tell you that memories from your youthful days are of little relevance to the (future) present, but irreverently call you even more horrendous names than the above?
I think that a decentralized authority structure, with ad hoc alliances, better characterises the tribal culture RL describes than “egalitarian”. What’s your learned view?
arab/muslim society does not strike me as one for each equality is a salient concept so i am not sure that egalitarian fits.
Will you still love me when I’m 64?
depends on how old you’re now.
Even if I don’t follow your example and very politely tell you that memories from your youthful days are of little relevance to the (future) present, but irreverently call you even more horrendous names than the above?
1st of all you don’t have to be polite — it does not affect me much if you’re not.
2nd, i dk what my youth has to do with anything. be that as it may, i think i can judge pretty well what memories are relevant for what. but i will consider any specific demonstration that i can’t.
why you refer to my youth. and neither do i know why you think that i cannot judge what memories from my life — young or later — have relevance and what don’t.
oao,
arab/muslim society does not strike me as one for each equality is a salient concept so i am not sure that egalitarian fits.
Aye! (I guess you meant “for which equality…”)
Easy to formulate a civilised reply.
The expected answer was : what’s love got to do here anyway? Either I judge your judgement correct or not, and vice versa.
I’m not as young as Paul when he sang it, but the road to 64 is a long and winding one. So you can take your time to get sentimental.
The expected answer was : what’s love got to do here anyway? Either I judge your judgement correct or not, and vice versa.
hitchens once wrote that when he was asked how to live he answered “by disagreement” and that “some of us don’t strive for harmony and quite enjoy the life of the mind”. he’s rather uneven, but i am with him on this.
but you gotta have a good grasp of yourself — who you are and who you are not — to be comfortable with that.
I’m not as young as Paul when he sang it, but the road to 64 is a long and winding one.
lucky you. for me it’s very short.
cynic gets two silver stars for his comment above about the EU and other Western powers keeping the Israeli-Arab war going by funding the PLO/palestinian authority.
cynic gets two silver stars for his comment above about the EU and other Western powers keeping the Israeli-Arab war going by funding the PLO/palestinian authority
not to diminish cynic’s contributions, but that has been such an obvious phenomenon for such a long time.
and it’s not just the EU and the west. it’s israel too and its own idiots:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/07/barak-has-learned-nothing.html
but maybe not for long:
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/07/gerald-celente-predicts-obamageddon-by.html
must watch. he’s not alone in predicting this. i’ve done it without his ample research. just by observation and knowledge of history, economics and politics.
Eliyahu,
Thanks for the award. :-)
Did anyone read this by Pipes
Quneitra, Why in Ruins?
One just needs to look at the Separation of Forces Agreement Between Israel and Syria of 1974 to see that the UN did not hold the Syrians to their part of the agreement to return civilians to the area. Maybe Israel is to blame for not objecting to the recalcitrant Syrian behaviour.
1. All Israeli military forces will be west of the line designated as Line A on the map attached hereto, except in the Kuneitra area, where they will be west of line A-1. 2. All territory east of Line A will be under Syrian administration, and the Syrian civilians will return to this territory.
The Syrians have maintained the town as a ruin and have not permitted civilians to return.
The Western countries and the UN have never held the Arabs to any agreement but constantly vilify the Israelis based on Arab lies.
oao says: not to diminish cynic’s contributions, but that has been such an obvious phenomenon for such a long time.
It may be obvious to the few who follow these things but the average American has no clue. Repetition of the truth is one effective way to make it known – even if someone else ends up contributing comments and detracting readers from your “legend-in-your-own-mind” status.
Cynic asks, Did anyone read this by Pipes
Yeah, I’ve been subscribing to his blog for a few months now. Most of his articles are right on the mark IMO.
Most of his articles are right on the mark IMO.
yes, but he has a major blind spot: that radical islam is the problem and moderate islam is the solution.
It may be obvious to the few who follow these things but the average American has no clue.
how many average american readers we get here? (and what is the chance that they would comprehend reality? i mean, alibama is dismantling the country and they don’t comprehend it).
One just needs to look at the Separation of Forces Agreement Between Israel and Syria of 1974 to see that the UN did not hold the Syrians to their part of the agreement to return civilians to the area. Maybe Israel is to blame for not objecting to the recalcitrant Syrian behaviour.
plenty of blame to go around. but current events are nothing but a continuation since the 30′s and 40′s.
The Syrians have maintained the town as a ruin and have not permitted civilians to return.
it’s nothing like the arabs did with the pals, ain’t it?