Posted on 08/29/2010 6:58:34 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
The learned professor doesn't seem to recognize what the Mongols did to the "superior" Muslim civilization. They romper stomped on them.
Until the mongols were "assimilated" too.
One of the many terrific insights presented in this interview.
Thanks for posting.
This is a major difference between the United States and these various cultures of the Middle East, where they have a very acute sense of history, a very keen awareness of the past.
Now I'm not saying that their perceptions of history are necessarily accurate. I mean, we all have our own particular slant to the--the way in which we view the past, but at least they know. I mean, for example, in the Iraq-Iran war, between 1980 and 1988, the war propaganda of both sides, of both the Iraqis and the Iranians, made frequent allusions to events of the seventh century.
Mr Lewis makes too little of the fact, and is missing intellectual rigor in the fact that (1) a "sense" of history, is NOT the same as a KNOWLEDGE of history, (2) nor is a sense of grievance over past events a substitute for KNOWLEDGE of why the events occurred, and (3) "perceptions" and mis-perceptions are much stronger in moving people than actual knowledge - as we see in Islam where the early century battles between Shia and Sunni continue to be not mere theological disputes but animate violent strife BETWEEN Muslims the world over, today.
With all their perceptions and mis-perceptions rampant in moving Muslims to action, of how much positive value is there in their "sense" of history? Very little.
All Empires "fall" from within, first. The Muslim empires, from the first to the last, from the early ones that fell into dispute with each other to the Ottomans at the end, fell from within first - rotted - before external forces delivered the coup de grace. One cannot observe that without concluding that that internal failure had to also include failures of the reigning religious-philosophy of those empires as well - Islam.
But, where western Judeo-Christian society looked within to their own reigning philosophies and altered their approach to their own faiths and faith's impact on society, Muslims have always, and still now, blame everyone but themselves and everything but their 7th-century religious sensibilities for their troubles.
Notice also that Mr. Lewis picks up Islam in Europe only after conquest had produced that fact, by which he can ignore it (their "crusades" to conquer Europe) and proceed to place everything in an Islamic context for how they thereafter declined - as if they were supposed to be in Europe in the first place.
"Prof. LEWIS: My point is that, in this country, there isn't a great deal of interest and, therefore, of knowledge of history, and the phrase `that's history' means something is unimportant and irrelevant to present concerns. It is dismissing history as such. And one is constantly astonished, and, I may say, appalled at the lack of knowledge of history, even among educated people. This is the more remarkable if one thinks that the universities of the United States are full of tenured historians. There must be tens of thousands of them turning out hundredweights of books, monographs and so on on history, all of very high quality--well, mostly of very high quality, and yet the--the ignoran--the general ignorance of history remains, and tested in a number of ways. You make an allusion to something that happened not so long ago, within my lifetime, even educated, well-informed people look blank. This is a major difference between the United States and these various cultures of the Middle East, where they have a very acute sense of history, a very keen awareness of the past.
Now I'm not saying that their perceptions of history are necessarily accurate. I mean, we all have our own particular slant to the--the way in which we view the past, but at least they know. I mean, for example, in the Iraq-Iran war, between 1980 and 1988, the war propaganda of both sides, of both the Iraqis and the Iranians, made frequent allusions to events of the seventh century. Now they didn't describe them or discuss them, they just alluded to them in passing, in the secure knowledge that their readers on both--their listeners and readers, on both sides, Iraqi and Iranian, would pick up these allusions and understand them. The allusions were to the advent of Islam, to the coming of Islam to Iran and the struggles between different factions in earlier Islam. They could allude to these in the sure knowledge that they would be understood...."
His point is, this explains a fundamental difference in perception, right or wrong, and understanding this key difference is critical to being able to understand in depth the way things have gone.
It has been my experience that Dr. Lewis is not well known for his views on Islam, he is well known for his cogent, unbiased and honest explanations.
I will say, it pains me to hear his criticism of our understanding or even awareness of history, but...it is spot on as well.
I highly recommend his book "What Went Wrong", in which he pretty much expounds on what you said above. For example, one of the most interesting things was his observation that in a period of time (I think spanning a century) thousands of books were translated from Arabic into English, but only one book (a book on the diagnosis and treatment of venereal diseases) was translated from English into Arabic. Their contempt for all things western was such that this was the only thing they thought they could learn from the West, and that was only because they viewed venereal diseases as a 'Frankish" disease, so it was only fitting that they would approve translation of a 'Frankish' book on treatment of those conditions.
It is also illustrative when he describes a publication of the day where a damaged portuguese ship ran aground and was captured, and two muslim military men are discussing whether they can copy the designs of the infidel ship into their own ship design, because the infidel design was obviously and significantly superior. Instead of just taking the design concepts and incorporating them, they had to have a fatwa on the usage of those infidel designs. It was approved by whatever islamic committee of the day had to approve those things, but it makes you see why Islam is the state it is in today.
You must read the two books I referenced...they are not only full of these insights, but are very readable as well. Not dry at all, in my opinion.
“The allusions were to the advent of Islam, to the coming of Islam to Iran and the struggles between different factions in earlier Islam. They could allude to these in the sure knowledge that they would be understood....”
The “allusions” were to the “perceptions” of that history, as conveyed to largely uneducated Muslim masses by the sectarian adherents - Shia Muslim and Sunni Muslim - NOT a “knowledge”, in terms of historical and factual analysis of that history.
He excuses their “sense” of history as “knowledge” of history but the only “knowledge” from which that sense is derived is dates and places when their faction was offended by another faction and not an analysis of the non-subjective “facts” that led to the events or the events themselves. In fact most of the actual facts have been lost because the original chroniclers in Islam were either Shia or Sunni sectarian advocates.
The west rendered Greek, Roman and Celtic myths to the realm of legend, where they belong; taking from them what moral lessons, if any, they held while rendering the “history” in them as myth; but Islamic scholars keep teaching their myths about historical events as factual history; and from those myths Islamic masses derive their “sense” of history.
"LAMB: If somebody wants, in your opinion, to read about this, get the best background on it, what's the best book to read?
Prof. LEWIS: Oh, my next one, naturally. It's always the next one."
LOL - instant uptick on the credibility scale.
"LAMB: Where would you go or where do you go on a regular daily basis to get your information?
Prof. LEWIS: Shortwave radio"
LOL - what many FReepers have advocated for years, thus avoiding the MSM.
No expert imo, when he starts with the above paragraph. The 1,000 years was called the dark ages. During which time they pillaged and deprived people of the freewill to educate themselves. They were an alliterate civilization then and still are now by western standards.
They may have been the strongest, most powerful, most wealthy.. but that doesn't make them 'great'. Any bully in the playground are all those things.
I believe Dr. Lewis readily factors in what you refer to. Just curious...do you feel he is being an apologist?
Whether or not he is an apologist is not the question, to me.
In my view he simply has an overzealous low opinion of what people in the west “know” (what he thinks they know) about history and an excessive appreciation for what he, as a scholar MUST know, is but a “sense” of history among Muslims, in the Middle East; which as a scholar he knows is NOT the same as a knowledge of history.
And, as an observer of the Middle East, it is that myth ridden “sense” of history, contagious around the Middle East, that is played upon by Islamists and “nationalists” throughout the Middle East, to further their own personal, ideological and political ambitions.
The truth is a middle ground he is positioned to explore and dissect, as a scholar; a middle ground he does not tackle. That middle ground is that while EDUCATION in history, world history, may be lacking in the west, and in that it might be particularly deficient in Middle East history, it is, in today’s world, in terms of understanding actual KNOWLEDGE of history, no more deficient than the “sense” of history that passes for knowledge in the Middle East.
If his overzealous low opinion of what people in the west “know” about history, was to help them correct what contributes to that condition, he would FIRST lead them to an understanding of the myth ridden errors in the “sense” of history, that passes for knowledge in the Middle East. Instead, he passes along that “sense” of history as superior knowledge to “knowledge” of history in the west.
I think you are missing the entire point of his approach to explaining the arab world to us (which is the point of his books, from what I have seen) Rarely does he ever present anything regarding what he says is the truth or untruth of their historical claims or timelines, even though he does take pains to say it IS what they perceive or know.
He is not using his position to tackle that truthful middle ground you alluded to, because that is not the point of his work.
He is pointing out how history and perception of it has shaped events. One can easily refute claims about the supposed genetic inferiority of Jews or blacks, but that won’t retrospectively change the way historical events occurred because of actions by people who embraced those faulty claims.
But referencing those claims or viewpoints can help explain how those faulty viewpoints resulted in a world aflame in WWII, or hooded men who burned crosses.
Dr. Lewis simply states that the arab world, for the most part, know their claims of historical events and what those associated timeslines are, have a much more homogenous template than we do, and use it culturally to convey meaning to other arabs in a way that is completely and totally foreign to us.
About the best analogy I can make is “Remember Pearl Harbor!” If you say that to almost any American citizen, even the most history-deficient amongst us understand the meaning of it, inclusive of all the emotional, cultural, political and historical context and data. In the phrase “Remember Pearl Harbor!” there is a universe of emotion, resolve, history, etc. that it encompasses. One could write a book on that phrase alone. What Dr. Lewis tries to convey is the fact that their history and religion is chock-full of Pearl Harbor-like references. As he said in an interview, when Saddam Hussein referenced an event 80 years ago, the arab world knew exactly what it meant in the same way we understand Pearl Harbor, and those types of intentional usages of that type of reference are utilized extensively in the arab world.
While it pains me, it IS true that we as Americans barely know our own history, never mind that of any other nation. That doesn’t cover everyone, and certainly doesn’t blame school kids for that. They only learn what they are told. I blame our educational system and culture.
I guess my problem is that at this point IN OUR HISTORY I find our western scholars failure to point-out the Arab/Middle-Eastern myths that are used to animate current Middle-East events today, among Middle-East populations, as of much greater importance and a much more critical issue than Mr.Lewis (and others) efforts to simply point out that such is the case in the Middle East.
Why? Because without the exploration and analysis that corrects Arab/Middle-East myths offered as “history”, then the process of western peoples developing a parallel, alternative, historical “sense” cannot, and will not take place. When one “template” is already a given, the first step in developing an alternative IS NOT to simply say - “oh, here’s a historical template” - but, instead, the first step is to understand what’s wrong with it. Therefore, for me, his scholarly effort is less than half of an effort that western scholars should be about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.