3 ms·

As have stated other film critics [1] this documentation takes a rather one-sided approach in that it's basically the fault of the west (and of the USSR). It s

As have stated other film critics [1] this documentation takes a rather one-sided approach in that it's basically the fault of the west (and of the USSR). It seem to lack fact checking and leaves out one of the main issues surrounding modern arabic history: the delayed formation of nation-states and the threat modernism posed to existing, usually aristocratic power structures. Specifically Saudi-Arabia felt threatened by movements like Pan-Arabism and Ba'athism and used religeous radicalism as an ideology to counter them. Yes, the cold-war factions quickly found their adversaries on either side but it doesn't take a grain away from the pile of guilt the Saudi Establishment has amassed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_(film)#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_(film)#Reception

arethuza 10y ago
From what I can see pretty much every analysis of something like the recent war in Afghanistan has its own perspective and it's only by reading different accounts that you can get any idea of what actually happened. [e.g. I've read multiple accounts of the "why can't the Paras install a washing machine in a hospital" incident - each from wildly different perspectives]. I guess this need to get different perspective might be obvious to trained historian - but my degree is in CS :-)
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
> the delayed formation of nation-states Do you think that between the British, the French, the Russians, and the Ottomans all controlling the region, the development of nation-states may have been delayed by understandable reasons.
- woodpanel 10y ago
  I think so. Or to put it in another perspective: Nations often (if not mostly or everytime) came into being by an outside threat. USA = the British England = The French/Catholic Church Germany = France Poland = Germany and Russia and so on. Threats make possible that people see an "us". I very much like the term "imagined communities" (Benedict Anderson) in this regard.
DominikR 10y ago
> As have stated other film critics [1] this documentation takes a rather one-sided approach in that it's basically the fault of the west (and of the USSR). This is also a major cultural problem to overcome for Muslims before they can be able to build enduring and prospering societies. The thing is that every major power constantly meddles in the affairs of everyone else and it will never end, that's for sure. The Russians do it to the West, the West to the Russians, same as the Chinese, the Japanese and Indians do. Yet these societies are not constantly on the verge of collapse and total chaos. It is because these societies are more resilient to outside influence, because members of these societies feel more strongly connected to their government and to other members of their societies. On the other hand in many Muslim societies I see tribal attitudes, one clan against all other clans. One Muslim group might even declare another Muslim group as an enemy on the basis of the smallest imaginable disagreement and start total war. No wonder their governments can be toppled and controlled from the outside if many don't feel a strong connection to their own nation and people. Here this belief that all bad that has happened to you in your life is primarily caused by the US, the Soviets or more generally the infidels gives them an easy way to redirect their energy towards useless fighting (often among each other) instead of working together to improve their own societies. This is a bad motivator for progress and nothing good or useful will ever come out of it. If you face outside meddling then work hard on strengthening your own society so you can handle that stress, because it will never, ever stop.
- woodpanel 10y ago
  > this belief that all bad that has happened to you in your life is primarily caused by the US, the Soviets or more generally the infidels gives them an easy way to redirect their energy Exactly! In general, everything is the fault of the west/infidels. You see this in nowadays Turkey. And that alone says a lot about the state of muslim countries, since Turkey used to be a beacon of progress (Genocide aside). I think Atatürk is rolling over in his grave for quite some years now.

arethuza 10y ago

From what I can see pretty much every analysis of something like the recent war in Afghanistan has its own perspective and it's only by reading different accounts that you can get any idea of what actually happened. [e.g. I've read multiple accounts of the "why can't the Paras install a washing machine in a hospital" incident - each from wildly different perspectives]. I guess this need to get different perspective might be obvious to trained historian - but my degree is in CS :-)

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

> the delayed formation of nation-states Do you think that between the British, the French, the Russians, and the Ottomans all controlling the region, the development of nation-states may have been delayed by understandable reasons.

woodpanel 10y ago
I think so. Or to put it in another perspective: Nations often (if not mostly or everytime) came into being by an outside threat. USA = the British England = The French/Catholic Church Germany = France Poland = Germany and Russia and so on. Threats make possible that people see an "us". I very much like the term "imagined communities" (Benedict Anderson) in this regard.

DominikR 10y ago

> As have stated other film critics [1] this documentation takes a rather one-sided approach in that it's basically the fault of the west (and of the USSR). This is also a major cultural problem to overcome for Muslims before they can be able to build enduring and prospering societies. The thing is that every major power constantly meddles in the affairs of everyone else and it will never end, that's for sure. The Russians do it to the West, the West to the Russians, same as the Chinese, the Japanese and Indians do. Yet these societies are not constantly on the verge of collapse and total chaos. It is because these societies are more resilient to outside influence, because members of these societies feel more strongly connected to their government and to other members of their societies. On the other hand in many Muslim societies I see tribal attitudes, one clan against all other clans. One Muslim group might even declare another Muslim group as an enemy on the basis of the smallest imaginable disagreement and start total war. No wonder their governments can be toppled and controlled from the outside if many don't feel a strong connection to their own nation and people. Here this belief that all bad that has happened to you in your life is primarily caused by the US, the Soviets or more generally the infidels gives them an easy way to redirect their energy towards useless fighting (often among each other) instead of working together to improve their own societies. This is a bad motivator for progress and nothing good or useful will ever come out of it. If you face outside meddling then work hard on strengthening your own society so you can handle that stress, because it will never, ever stop.

woodpanel 10y ago
> this belief that all bad that has happened to you in your life is primarily caused by the US, the Soviets or more generally the infidels gives them an easy way to redirect their energy Exactly! In general, everything is the fault of the west/infidels. You see this in nowadays Turkey. And that alone says a lot about the state of muslim countries, since Turkey used to be a beacon of progress (Genocide aside). I think Atatürk is rolling over in his grave for quite some years now.