Out of Sparta (My Title: How the Pashtun Raise Their Young)

National Review ^ | Nov 5 2001 | Stanley Kurtz

[Anamensis]

The following is an excerpt from Kurtz's most recent column in National Review. These are the Pashtun, the tribe that makes up the Taliban:

Charles Lindholm, an anthropologist at Boston University, has written an important but little-known account of Pashtun life in Northern Pakistan (which is all but indistinguishable from Pashtun life in Afghanistan). In Generosity and Jealousy, Lindholm describes the rearing of Pashtun boys and girls — particularly boys — and the picture Lindholm paints will surprise, puzzle, and distress most Americans.

The Pashtun unhesitatingly beat their children — slapping them hard across the face simply for stumbling or bumping into something. For coming home late, spilling tea, or for almost any other reason, a Pashtun child may find himself tied up and hung from the rafters of the house. Not only do adults see nothing wrong with publicly beating a child, they freely show pleasure in doing so. Children are encouraged to beat each other as well. Lindholm gives the example of a six-year-old girl who spilled a bowl of curd. Her father punished her by making her do deep-knee bends while holding her ears until she collapsed. "He then asked her elder siblings to kick her, which they did with gusto." The story itself was told to Lindholm with pride and glee, much as are stories of Pashtun wife beating (and by the way, Pashtun wives give almost as good as they get).

It might seem odd to mete out such severe punishments for stumbling or for dropping some food. But Pashtuns don't sanction behaviors that might disturb an American — stealing from outsiders, lying, or fighting. On the contrary, a boy who steals a toy from his uncle's house might find his own father helping him to pull off the theft. For the Pashtun, the world is filled with deceit, and one must learn to fend for oneself, with only immediate family immune from betrayal (and sometimes not even them). What is odious to a Pashtun is not theft, or lying, or fighting, but weakness, carelessness, and clumsiness — anything which diminishes an individual's power and self-command.

Boys roam in groups in which they constantly jockey for power and learn to fight. A boy running to his family when he's been beaten by a playmate may be beaten again by his father for his weakness. Mothers make no effort to see that playthings are shared. On the contrary, the stronger children will be encouraged to take from the weaker. Siblings regularly betray each other's misdeeds to their parents and are rewarded by being allowed to beat the miscreant. Children lie and pass blame without qualm. "Survival of the fittest," says Lindholm.

Older children are generally left to themselves. They huddle and shiver in the rain, since no one tells them to change into dry clothes. In summer the dirt and heat cause boils and running sores, which the children accept as of a piece with the ordinary depredations of life. In effect, Pashtun children are left to toughen themselves up, so as to endure without complaint the stresses of existence in a hostile and dangerous world. They learn that all men are equal — equally free to dominate their weaker fellows. The Pashtun therefore cultivate a fierce and defiant independence, a thirst for dominance, and a reluctant but occasionally necessary willingness to acknowledge a stronger hand.

[Zviadist]

The jokes that Polynesians played on a gullible Margaret Meade are still fodder for misinformation in lesbo-fascist "Women's Study" courses on American Campuses--even though they've been laughed out of the park due to more rigorous scholarship.

I knew it would be you who exposed the vile anthro-trash. These kooks were the weirdest people I ever came across at university. I can just imagine the Afghans having the laugh of their lives feeding this crap to some pachuli-stick stinking(sp), friendship-bracelet wearing idiot.

[Zviadist]

In the meantime, does anybody know when we're going to go after those who committed the attacks of September 11th?

LaBelle, I'm ashamed of you. That's so last week. Get with it!

[DoctorMichael]

......but.......but.......What would Dr. Spock think?

[dirtboy]

In the meantime, does anybody know when we're going to go after those who committed the attacks of September 11th?

LaBelle, I'm ashamed of you. That's so last week. Get with it!

I've heard this line quite often on FR. I would ask you propose an alternative course of action to take out Al Queda instead of just bitching about how things are going.

[Zviadist]

Wonder when we will start arming them....

The Marxist RAWA have already testified before Congress, to the dewy-eyed "right wing" Members who are ready to bring in the glorious Northern Alliance and elevate RAWA to some kind of favored NGO/government/Soros status.

[dirtboy]

Oh, I expect things to be ugly in Afghanistan after all this is over...of course, things have been ugly there for the last several thousand years - the only question is will it be single-coyote or double-coyote ugly? Afghanistan is a nation in name only.

[ArGee]

but wait, if we "interfere" isn't that arrogance, colonialism, imperialism, oh, pick a word...

Nah. It's a violation of the Prime Directive, which hasn't been issued yet.

Shalom.

[PoisedWoman]

Amazing isn't it? These people tie up, beat and kick their children until they are as vicious as pit bulls. And these are the "poor Afghanis that we are bombing."

I read this last night and couldn't sleep. Not candidates for rehab, but for total annihilation.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

"...I would ask you propose an alternative course of action to take out Al Queda instead of just bitching about how things are going...."

Now let me get this straight: I tell everyone who will listen that under no circumstances should anyone ever disturb a grizzley cub or the wrath of god will descend upon them in the form of the mama grizzley.

You, however, have another strategy in mind and proceed to play with a darling little cubbie. The mother bear rips off you scalp, breaks your neck and gnaws on your femur.

You crawl back to me, skull in hand and demand that I stop bitching and propose an alternative course of action to take out the marauding grizzley bear???

I told you what not to do. I've been called everything from traitorto liberalfor that. I'm not required to recreate the universe in order to make it conform to the flawed world view of people who cannot conceive of the idea that military interference in ongoing foreign abortions (which is what Aghanistan is) is ALWAYS disasterous for the USA and, in particular, American conservatives--whether or not the nature of the disaster makes itself apparent immediately.

[dirtboy]

You crawl back to me, skull in hand and demand that I stop bitching and propose an alternative course of action to take out the marauding grizzley bear???

Poor analogy. A better one would be that the grizzly has already attacked, and says it will attack again and again. A foreign country will not allow you to go in and hunt and kill the grizzly. What do you do?

[NewAmsterdam]

Buy the ones that are willing to betray the bear.

[dirtboy]

Buy the ones that are willing to betray the bear.

Very good - you have a much better grasp of Afghani politics than the average bear. Now, the government harboring the bear is a lot stronger than the warlords around it. Do you think they'd be willing to take on that country? Or do you try and weaken it first?

[NewAmsterdam]

I think that with some patient meddling and corrupting you can find people who are willing to throw up Mr Binliner for some solid cash (whilst keeping the threat of violence in the background). It is a nasty cynical game but it could have been done. Remember the Arab saying: It is better to be an enemy of the British because you can be sure they will buy you; if you are a friend of the British you can be sure they will sell you. It seems too late for such an approach now, I suppose.

[dirtboy]

It seems too late for such an approach now, I suppose.

Actually, I think that's the goal of the current campaign, to weaken the Taliban so that the warlords that are not firmly under their grip will consider easy lease terms from the United States. The worst approach, IMO, would be to insert massive numbers of ground troops to give the Pathans a common enemy (and something new to shoot at). It's hard to say whether the current approach will work - but I think it has a chance and is not the futile method some folks make it out to be.

[NewAmsterdam]

The problem with this line of thought is that it hasn't worked in the past. Bombing, on the whole, galvanises the population of a country, rather then weakening and demoralising it. For instance: Loondon during the Blitz and germany during the British bombing campaigns later in the war. Also: Yugoslavia in 1999. I believe that you can be far more succesful by letting the thing fall apart all by itself, helping the process along with bribery and cynical disinformation.

[dirtboy]

Bombing, on the whole, galvanises the population of a country, rather then weakening and demoralising it.

I would agree for the most part, but I think the way this is being done can accompish the START of the U.S. objectives.

For instance: Loondon during the Blitz and germany during the British bombing campaigns later in the war.

That was massive strategic bombing, not the targeted stuff we are seeing in Afghanistan.

Also: Yugoslavia in 1999.

We had no intensions of going into Serbia after Slobo and he knew it, so he could just wait out the bombing. This is different. I do think we will need some ground troops scattered about Afghanistan - just not a massive army. Adn we have other groups in that country who wish to act if the Taliban is weakened. If the air campaign is viewed as a prelude to such an action, then I think it has the chance for success - and bombardment of enemy positions prior to attack has long been a part of warfare .

I believe that you can be far more succesful by letting the thing fall apart all by itself, helping the process along with bribery and cynical disinformation.

That would take years, giving bin Laden many more opportunities to organize attacks against the United States. By forcing him underground, not allowing him to train his forces and putting his host government on the run, bin Laden has been weakened significantly. We still have to deal with existing Al Queda cells in this country - but it will be much harder for bin Laden to insert new ones.

[NewAmsterdam]

I think my point about the bombing is that it doesn't matter whether it is classified as strategic, tactical, carpet or precision: the population on the receiving end will classify it simply as the bombing of their country, however much they may detest their ruler(s). That is a fact that any country attacking another country - regardless of the just or unjust cause of the attacks - will have to consider. Hitler made the mistake, just as the British did later, and - in my opinion - the US and NATO did in Yugoslavia. This, in turn, makes it far more difficult to undermine the cohesion of the enemy; instead of weakening the enemy it might actually lead to its consolidation.

[dirtboy]

This, in turn, makes it far more difficult to undermine the cohesion of the enemy; instead of weakening the enemy it might actually lead to its consolidation.

However, bombing enemy positions prior to attack is an essential part of warfare - so is this strategic or tactical? You left out that we bombed the crap out of Iraq and that led directly to the weakness of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard during Desert Storm. As long as the bombing is not a means unto itself, IMO it can be effective.

[NewAmsterdam]

True, Iraq proves the opposite scenario from what I described. Yet, that was a 'conventional war' - if you wish - where you faced a 'conventional army', and fought for a clear-cut, territorial objective. Our exchange of ideas started with my idea that it could have been better to undermine the cohesion of the Taleban by bribery etc. Defections from their ranks were more likely then, then they are now, simply because the population and potential defectors are more likely to unite against the enemy who is bombing them. And the nature of the bombing is of very little significance to the way the Afghanis will perceive it, I think. So if the objective of this war is now to topple the Taleban, it will have to include a territorial element. To follow your example: the current bobmbing can only be meaningful and succesful in military terms if it is a prelude to a further campaign which has to include a territorial aim. It seems to me that that means that the war is evolving into something that was not initially intended. I think you would agree that Yugoslavia was not defeated militarily, but by diplomacy.

[malakhi]

There's more but you get the idea. What can really be done with such a people?

Not only do adults see nothing wrong with publicly beating a child, they freely show pleasure in doing so.

Send in Janet Reno?