Tweet
This journal has some excellent articles in it. Pat Buchanon, who many here loathe, I find to be an informative writer. One need not agree with his Caucasian centric viewpoint to understand that he tends to reference historical fact.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...k-eradication/
This great article, not by Buchanon, but another good writer gives us some good historical data. I do not agree with the article's central premise. If I could have debated with the author I would have told him he was ignoring common sense. Imaging if the tiny American Muslim population were backing Hispanics completely to and promoting an ideology that was an anathema to the will and mores of the majority. Once that regime was over thrown, of course it would be open season on and payback time for the ruling regime and their Muslim supporters. By this same token, he appeals to religious kinship to supplant the common Syrian will.
No matter, the rest of the article provides some interesting insight.
Here is the sentence I found the most interesting and I am sure those such as Shamlawar and others will also take note of it:
"Determined to avoid a repetition of the horrors of 1915, Christians struggled to create a new political order in which they could play a full role. This meant advocating fervent Arab nationalism, a thoroughly secular order in which Christians and other minorities could avoid being overwhelmed by the juggernaut power of Sunni Islam. All Arab peoples, regardless of faith, would join in a shared passion for secular modernity and pan-Arab patriotism, in stark contrast to reactionary Islamism. The pioneering theorist of modern Arab nationalism was Damascus-born Orthodox Christian Constantine Zureiq. Another Orthodox son of Damascus was Michel Aflaq, co-founder of the Ba’ath (Renaissance) Party that played such a pivotal role in the modern history of both Iraq and Syria."
So in summary, secular nationalism was a device created by these minorities to usurp the will of the people and, what Pew data and the University of Maryland Polling along with Dalia Mogahed and Esposito's work show to be the ideo-religious inclination of sunni Muslims in governance.
This author has done a great service in some ways by clearly delineating the links between the World War I and the subsequent treatment meted out to the Christians of this region. They were basically collaborators with colonial regimes and the results that followed were obvious. So in response, militant secularists would give birth to Arab Nationalism and the obvious murderous Baath Party.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...k-eradication/
This great article, not by Buchanon, but another good writer gives us some good historical data. I do not agree with the article's central premise. If I could have debated with the author I would have told him he was ignoring common sense. Imaging if the tiny American Muslim population were backing Hispanics completely to and promoting an ideology that was an anathema to the will and mores of the majority. Once that regime was over thrown, of course it would be open season on and payback time for the ruling regime and their Muslim supporters. By this same token, he appeals to religious kinship to supplant the common Syrian will.
No matter, the rest of the article provides some interesting insight.
Here is the sentence I found the most interesting and I am sure those such as Shamlawar and others will also take note of it:
"Determined to avoid a repetition of the horrors of 1915, Christians struggled to create a new political order in which they could play a full role. This meant advocating fervent Arab nationalism, a thoroughly secular order in which Christians and other minorities could avoid being overwhelmed by the juggernaut power of Sunni Islam. All Arab peoples, regardless of faith, would join in a shared passion for secular modernity and pan-Arab patriotism, in stark contrast to reactionary Islamism. The pioneering theorist of modern Arab nationalism was Damascus-born Orthodox Christian Constantine Zureiq. Another Orthodox son of Damascus was Michel Aflaq, co-founder of the Ba’ath (Renaissance) Party that played such a pivotal role in the modern history of both Iraq and Syria."
So in summary, secular nationalism was a device created by these minorities to usurp the will of the people and, what Pew data and the University of Maryland Polling along with Dalia Mogahed and Esposito's work show to be the ideo-religious inclination of sunni Muslims in governance.
This author has done a great service in some ways by clearly delineating the links between the World War I and the subsequent treatment meted out to the Christians of this region. They were basically collaborators with colonial regimes and the results that followed were obvious. So in response, militant secularists would give birth to Arab Nationalism and the obvious murderous Baath Party.
Comment