6 ms·

The Brits intentionally created unstable countries so that none could rival them in power in a region. All those countries were too busy dealing with internal s

by jgeada 5y ago

The Brits intentionally created unstable countries so that none could rival them in power in a region. All those countries were too busy dealing with internal strife to become regional competitors to England.

goohle 5y ago
Do you know a way to intentionally create a stable country? Can you share this secret knowledge with us, please?
- technothrasher 5y ago
  Failing to intentionally create a stable country and intentionally creating an unstable country are two different things.
  - NotSammyHagar 5y ago
    Great point. A core cause of the endless wars in the middle east is people pushed into the truly evil British model of a minority in power over a weaker but larger other party. I get that there are lots of existing problems but doing this in countries on purpose is unforgivable. My own country (the us) fucks things up too of course - Afghanistan being the latest example, but we have our own long list of shame (Iraq, many countries in south and central America...).
    - goohle 5y ago
      Lot of countries are created by ruling minorities, and then their rulers are overthrown. Just look at the history of almost every country in western world.
mygoodaccount 5y ago
Source? I agree the borders were a failure, but I can't find anything close to what you're saying in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  The British were able to play European powers against each other for centuries, so expect the same elsewhere.
- jgeada 5y ago
  http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map-that-ruined-the-middle-east/ http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map-that-ruined-the-midd... Maybe deliberate is too strong a word, but certainly the map ignored all tribal, geographical and cultural boundaries. Nothing other than instability should have been expected.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Nothing other than instability should have been expected. Genuine, general question: we in the west are very keen on multiculturalism and many of the most ardent multiculturalists blame European powers (as you do) for carving up the Middle East into culturally heterogeneous regions which "inevitably lean toward instability". To me, these things feel in conflict; am I wrong for feeling that way? If you're a multiculturalist, how do you reconcile these things? To be clear, I'm not sure whether or not I'm a multiculturalist. On the one hand I like being around culturally diverse people; on the other, it seems hard to work out a society in which we may not be able to agree on the basic ground rules.
    - didibus 5y ago
      Multiculturalism is kind of the holy grail, but it requires that all participating culture value multiculturalism above all. It is similar to democracy, you must accept and yield to the fact that everyone should have an equal say, and deserve basic rights, irregardless of your own beliefs and judgements. You have to value live and let live above all else. You have to value having someone else do as they please as long as it doesn't prevent you from doing as you please above all else, even above your belief of heaven and hell, of how God wants men and women to act, of what you think is decent or not, good or bad, fun or boring, smart or dumb, etc. I think this is often abridged as valuing Freedom and Liberty above all else. Where freedom is the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; and liberty is the absence of arbitrary restraints, taking into account the rights of all involved. That means your top most value is maximizing Freedom while respecting the Liberty of others. And traditionally, a Liberal is someone who has this as their top most value. And this is the paradox, because values are often a big part of one's culture, but for multiculturalism to work, all must share this one value, and so you could say that makes it they must share culture to some extent, as they must all share this one value and have it as the most valuable value of all, that means multiculturalism only works if everyone is a Liberal. I just described the underpinning of multiculturalism. It only works if everyone shares this one value, which means it doesn't work to just put a bunch of people together that don't share this value. That makes multiculturalism its own culture. In practice, it will make for a very diverse place, but in terms of value, everyone will value this diversity above all else. Edit: Most of the time it also helps to value fraternity, which is that you value mutual support within society. So you'd want to maximize freedom while respecting other's liberty, and provide support to others when in need. I think this has to be the commonality between all members for multiculturalism to work well.
KineticLensman 5y ago
At the time these countries were created none of them were powerful enough to be a regional competitor to Britain. The brits were keen for individual countries to be stable so that they were easier to govern. Remember also that the British empire wasn’t created following a top-down strategic plan and that operationally it was a mass of country-specific special cases
jcranmer 5y ago
At the time of World War I, the British already had pretty much the rest of non-Ottoman Arabia under various forms of protectorates, and Persia too for that matter--Persia being by far the most powerful country in the region, at least outside of the soon-to-be-carved-up Ottomans. During World War I, the British freaked out about the potential unrest that the Ottoman sultan (as caliph) could provoke in their Muslim lands, and as a result made multiple incompatible agreements with whatever forces would be willing to help fight against the Ottomans in the Middle East. In particular, everyone was promised Palestine if they would help in the fight. When it came time to do the actual carving, the British, in fine imperial tradition, honored none of these agreements. In the actual agreement, the British and the French carved up the Arab regions somewhat (but not entirely) in the vein of the Sykes-Picot agreement, with the French choosing for themselves a majority Christian domain in Lebanon and a majority Muslim domain in Syria. The British kept Palestine for itself, granted Hejaz independence along its original Ottoman provincial boundaries, and created independent states of Transjordan and Iraq, each to be ruled by the sons of the new Hejai king (the upgraded Sharif of Mecca).

by jgeada 5y ago

goohle 5y ago

Do you know a way to intentionally create a stable country? Can you share this secret knowledge with us, please?

technothrasher 5y ago
Failing to intentionally create a stable country and intentionally creating an unstable country are two different things.
- NotSammyHagar 5y ago
  Great point. A core cause of the endless wars in the middle east is people pushed into the truly evil British model of a minority in power over a weaker but larger other party. I get that there are lots of existing problems but doing this in countries on purpose is unforgivable. My own country (the us) fucks things up too of course - Afghanistan being the latest example, but we have our own long list of shame (Iraq, many countries in south and central America...).
  - goohle 5y ago
    Lot of countries are created by ruling minorities, and then their rulers are overthrown. Just look at the history of almost every country in western world.

mygoodaccount 5y ago

Source? I agree the borders were a failure, but I can't find anything close to what you're saying in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

redis_mlc 5y ago
The British were able to play European powers against each other for centuries, so expect the same elsewhere.
jgeada 5y ago
http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map-that-ruined-the-middle-east/ http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map-that-ruined-the-midd... Maybe deliberate is too strong a word, but certainly the map ignored all tribal, geographical and cultural boundaries. Nothing other than instability should have been expected.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Nothing other than instability should have been expected. Genuine, general question: we in the west are very keen on multiculturalism and many of the most ardent multiculturalists blame European powers (as you do) for carving up the Middle East into culturally heterogeneous regions which "inevitably lean toward instability". To me, these things feel in conflict; am I wrong for feeling that way? If you're a multiculturalist, how do you reconcile these things? To be clear, I'm not sure whether or not I'm a multiculturalist. On the one hand I like being around culturally diverse people; on the other, it seems hard to work out a society in which we may not be able to agree on the basic ground rules.
  - didibus 5y ago
    Multiculturalism is kind of the holy grail, but it requires that all participating culture value multiculturalism above all. It is similar to democracy, you must accept and yield to the fact that everyone should have an equal say, and deserve basic rights, irregardless of your own beliefs and judgements. You have to value live and let live above all else. You have to value having someone else do as they please as long as it doesn't prevent you from doing as you please above all else, even above your belief of heaven and hell, of how God wants men and women to act, of what you think is decent or not, good or bad, fun or boring, smart or dumb, etc. I think this is often abridged as valuing Freedom and Liberty above all else. Where freedom is the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; and liberty is the absence of arbitrary restraints, taking into account the rights of all involved. That means your top most value is maximizing Freedom while respecting the Liberty of others. And traditionally, a Liberal is someone who has this as their top most value. And this is the paradox, because values are often a big part of one's culture, but for multiculturalism to work, all must share this one value, and so you could say that makes it they must share culture to some extent, as they must all share this one value and have it as the most valuable value of all, that means multiculturalism only works if everyone is a Liberal. I just described the underpinning of multiculturalism. It only works if everyone shares this one value, which means it doesn't work to just put a bunch of people together that don't share this value. That makes multiculturalism its own culture. In practice, it will make for a very diverse place, but in terms of value, everyone will value this diversity above all else. Edit: Most of the time it also helps to value fraternity, which is that you value mutual support within society. So you'd want to maximize freedom while respecting other's liberty, and provide support to others when in need. I think this has to be the commonality between all members for multiculturalism to work well.

KineticLensman 5y ago

At the time these countries were created none of them were powerful enough to be a regional competitor to Britain. The brits were keen for individual countries to be stable so that they were easier to govern. Remember also that the British empire wasn’t created following a top-down strategic plan and that operationally it was a mass of country-specific special cases

jcranmer 5y ago

At the time of World War I, the British already had pretty much the rest of non-Ottoman Arabia under various forms of protectorates, and Persia too for that matter--Persia being by far the most powerful country in the region, at least outside of the soon-to-be-carved-up Ottomans. During World War I, the British freaked out about the potential unrest that the Ottoman sultan (as caliph) could provoke in their Muslim lands, and as a result made multiple incompatible agreements with whatever forces would be willing to help fight against the Ottomans in the Middle East. In particular, everyone was promised Palestine if they would help in the fight. When it came time to do the actual carving, the British, in fine imperial tradition, honored none of these agreements. In the actual agreement, the British and the French carved up the Arab regions somewhat (but not entirely) in the vein of the Sykes-Picot agreement, with the French choosing for themselves a majority Christian domain in Lebanon and a majority Muslim domain in Syria. The British kept Palestine for itself, granted Hejaz independence along its original Ottoman provincial boundaries, and created independent states of Transjordan and Iraq, each to be ruled by the sons of the new Hejai king (the upgraded Sharif of Mecca).