4 ms·

When Europe dominated the Middle East (and Africa), it was a pretty safe place. Certainly there was hope. Now the entire region is going down the sink. Maybe th

by mms1973 10y ago

When Europe dominated the Middle East (and Africa), it was a pretty safe place. Certainly there was hope. Now the entire region is going down the sink. Maybe the problem instead is that Europe _LEFT_ ?

tdkl 10y ago
But, but.. Dictatorships! /s
nickik 10y ago
The people there didn't want the Europeans and fought them. The only way to stay their would be to suppress the people more and more. That would also not lead to a flourish of the region.
mustaflex 10y ago
the White man's burden syndrom? France was the colonial power in control over there, they used basic divide and conquer tactics. While the sunnis arabs are in majority in Syria they took another minority faction, the nusayriis, and trained them in military schools, etc... to put them in power. It's like having a protestant pope in Vatican. Contrary to Europe where different ethnic groups are well separated in different countries, in the middle-east, like in Irak, you can find arabs, kurds, turks living in the same villages, cities that makes a clean separation almost impossible. They lost the skill to live together in peace, my opinion is that it won't be resolved before civil wars and huge population displacements and even greater hatred between those ethnic groups.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > France was the colonial power in control over there, they used basic divide and conquer tactics. And while France ran Algeria and Lebanon, they were thriving, pleasant, peaceful, beautiful places. Beirut was once one of the loveliest cities in the world. There are worst things than colonialism; to a first approximation, every single post-colonial country is worse off than it was when it was a colony (I wouldn't count the U.S. as post-colonial because in a very real sense it's a successful colony).
  - mustaflex 10y ago
    I don't know about Algeria, but again in Lebanon your so called "pleasant peaceful and beautiful place" was like that because it did favor minorities and some small groups at the detriment of others. It was bound to collapse after the colonial forces withdrew. And let me be clear, I didn't say that it is better now, but your theory that it was better when colonial powers were in charge is false. "every single post-colonial country is worse off than it was when it was a colony (I wouldn't count the U.S. as post-colonial because in a very real sense it's a successful colony)." ...that is the definition of colonization, it is only successful if you overcome the local population. Again it is successful at the detriment of the local population (or a part of it).

by mms1973 10y ago

tdkl 10y ago

But, but.. Dictatorships! /s

nickik 10y ago

The people there didn't want the Europeans and fought them. The only way to stay their would be to suppress the people more and more. That would also not lead to a flourish of the region.

mustaflex 10y ago

the White man's burden syndrom? France was the colonial power in control over there, they used basic divide and conquer tactics. While the sunnis arabs are in majority in Syria they took another minority faction, the nusayriis, and trained them in military schools, etc... to put them in power. It's like having a protestant pope in Vatican. Contrary to Europe where different ethnic groups are well separated in different countries, in the middle-east, like in Irak, you can find arabs, kurds, turks living in the same villages, cities that makes a clean separation almost impossible. They lost the skill to live together in peace, my opinion is that it won't be resolved before civil wars and huge population displacements and even greater hatred between those ethnic groups.

zeveb 10y ago
> France was the colonial power in control over there, they used basic divide and conquer tactics. And while France ran Algeria and Lebanon, they were thriving, pleasant, peaceful, beautiful places. Beirut was once one of the loveliest cities in the world. There are worst things than colonialism; to a first approximation, every single post-colonial country is worse off than it was when it was a colony (I wouldn't count the U.S. as post-colonial because in a very real sense it's a successful colony).
- mustaflex 10y ago
  I don't know about Algeria, but again in Lebanon your so called "pleasant peaceful and beautiful place" was like that because it did favor minorities and some small groups at the detriment of others. It was bound to collapse after the colonial forces withdrew. And let me be clear, I didn't say that it is better now, but your theory that it was better when colonial powers were in charge is false. "every single post-colonial country is worse off than it was when it was a colony (I wouldn't count the U.S. as post-colonial because in a very real sense it's a successful colony)." ...that is the definition of colonization, it is only successful if you overcome the local population. Again it is successful at the detriment of the local population (or a part of it).