Liberal Orientalism can be just as misguided as the more conservative variety. One recent example, a book by a young American journalist/poet named Eliza Griswold, sold briskly in hardcover and is just now appearing in paperback.
The title summarizes the book’s flawed thesis: The Tenth Parallel: Dispatches from the Fault Line Between Christianity and Islam.
Over several years, Griswold (selectively) visited several African and Asian nations along the 10 degrees north latitude, a line where, she says, “two worlds collide,” marked by “two rival worldviews.” She writes sweepingly, ‘For more than two thousand years, the tenth parallel has served as such a dividing line; in its history begins the contemporary contest between Islam and the West.”
This framing of Islam as the Dangerous Other is an old and menacing theme in the West, dating to the Crusades, the Catholic Reconquista in 15th century Spain, or the Turkish army laying siege to Vienna in 1683. Samuel P. Huntington, in his notorious The Clash of Civilizations, insisted that “Islam has bloody borders.”
Disproving Griswold’s thesis is not difficult, even by using some of her own evidence. She does examine Muslim/Christian religious clashes in the middle belt of Nigeria, but she ignores ferocious, violent tribalism elsewhere in the country, between southern ethnic groups that are all “Christian.” She moves east to Sudan, and reports on the (recently ended) chronic war between the “Muslim north” and the “Christian and animist south,” but only in passing does she note that in the vicious fighting in Darfur, both sides are Muslim.
She leaves out most of the worst violence in Africa in recent decades: the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and the Great War in central Africa that started with Rwanda’s 1996 invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Christian/Muslim divide had nothing to do with either case of mass murder, (although the genocide museum in Kigali, Rwanda, points out that members of the small Rwandan Muslim community there risked their lives to protect Christians).
She also omits nations along the 10th parallel that do not fit her thesis. If she had visited Benin, Togo, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Guinea, or Mali, she would have found countries basically at peace, certainly divided by ethnic, and regional differences, but places where religion is not the most important distinction. In Mali, in particular, she would have encountered not a front-line Muslim caliphate on the march south, but a civilized, tolerant, plural society that despite being one of the poorest in the whole world has something to teach other, richer nations.
Her thesis is even weaker in Asia. She travels through Indonesia, investigating some Muslim/Christian clashes, but downplays the worst recent fighting there – the (Muslim) central government’s ferocious effort to suppress a rebellion in the (even more devoutly Muslim) region of Aceh. And her reporting is outdated; you would think Indonesia was still torn by conflict, instead of mainly at peace.
Griswold’s first-hand reporting is actually better than her wrongheaded thesis. She does show considerable courage in visiting some definitely dangerous places. She does explain that climate change has contributed to the tension in central Nigeria; Muslim herders are forced south by drought, where they clash with Christian settled farmers. So Nigerians are not really killing each other over Bible passages and verses of the Quran. And she does include portraits of brave people from both religions who risk their lives as peacemakers.
But, in the end, her divisive thesis looms over the book, casting an old, all-too-familiar Orientalist shadow.
Ah, the progressive double standard raises its head. Of course there are other conflicts. But Griswold wants to focus on the ones between Christianity and Islam, just as this blog wants to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Does she say there are no other conflicts? No. Does she belittle other conflicts? No. Yet, when she focuses on the Christian Muslim one you criticize her while you are doing the very same thing by focusing on the Israeli Palestinian one.
Until PNAC brought it back into play under Frum as rhetorician and Wolfowitz-Feith as PNAC salesmen/implementers, the ancient Crusades was not a factor in interpreting contemporary times in behalf Israel & at the expense of the gullible USA masses /bribed USA government, orchestrated by the US MSM (full of Israel Firsters). The Zionist abuse of the natives of Palestine was welded by such ilk into a fake bipolar war; the US Christian Zionists offered additional support towards their “end times” and rapture. We are at the point now that we have rapture evangelical Christians running for POTUS against an old fashioned Uncle Tom who just wants to have his own plantation; he sees seniors (80% white) as those with ability to pay, and the spanking new generations of Americans (trending non-white) as those in need of payment–because they exist.
progressive double standard … you are doing the very same thing
Huh?
Looking for a unifying theory (The Tenth Parallel … the Fault Line Between Christianity and Islam) to explain many different conflicts is not the same as focusing on a single conflict.
Where do you see a unifying theory? The title is descriptive. There are many conflicts between Muslims and Christians along this parallel and she is describing them.
Where do you see a unifying theory?
In the attempt to attribute many and varied conflicts to a single factor (Christianity vs. Islam), while virtually ignoring other possible causes -evident in other conflicts in the same regions – and failing to address the frequent lack of conflict, even where the Christian-Muslim factor is present.
Shmuel,
That sounds rich coming from a supporter of site that attributes most US foreign policy errors in the last few years to the Israel Lobby “while virtually ignoring other possible causes” “and failing to address the frequent lack” of success even when the lobby was not present at all. For example, North Korea or Vietnam.
3e,
You’re changing the subject, and if you are referring to me, I don’t share that view of USFP.
Shmuel,
Ok, but many on this site and especially Phil do.
In fact, I am also against simplistic explanations and laying the blame at the feet of one cause. Maybe Griswold does that, even though the title certainly doesn’t betray that. But having North criticize her for this while advocating simplistic theories of his own? That is rich. And having North criticize also her focus is hilarious. This site does the same thing exactly! Does he not see the irony?
I don’t think you’re right about North, but I suggest you rephrase your criticism/question (an apology might be nice too) to go something like this (in Northian single quotes): ‘James – I agree that attributing many and varied conflicts to a single cause is, at best, simplistic, and may reveal underlying prejudice. Do you see any parallels between this kind of Orientalism and attempts to attribute diverse US foreign policy decisions over the years primarily (exclusively?) to the influence of the Israel lobby in Washington? Thanks. Interesting article, btw.’
Apology for what? James is a pompous hypocrite. Just see his interactions with Witty.
“hat sounds rich coming from a supporter of site that attributes most US foreign policy errors in the last few years to the Israel Lobby”
That phrase “last few years” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Our biggest policy errors in the last few years have been in the Middle East and the Israel Lobby has played a big role there. Whether it is the dominant influence is where you’d probably find a lot of disagreement even at this blog. I’d just say “a big role” myself.
Israel played no role in Vietnam or Korea. There are some odd Israeli connections during the Cold War to Latin America and South Africa, but I suspect (without proof) that to some extent they were helping our government do its dirty work in those places or at least I think that was the case in Latin America. That is, I suspect that if there was a connection Israel was working for the US, not vice versa.
Anyway, suppose you were right. The criticism of Griswold would still be valid and you could then compare her to whichever persons here believe that the Israel Lobby dominates all of US foreign policy. But you should name them and provide links to back it up. You did name Phil and North. I suspect James will respond. I hope Phil does.
Apology for what?
For having levelled an accusation of “double standards” based on your failure to distinguish between an attempt at a unifying theory (the subject of the post) and focusing on a specific conflict (I/P).
Whether you consider James to be a hypocrite or not, this specific accusation was false.
Shmuel,
I am in fact still leveling the same accusations. This site attempts at a unifying theory and is focused only on one conflict. Do you deny that?
3e,
This is a rather pointless discussion, but to answer your question, many posters and commenters here do seek a more-or-less unifying theory behind USFP in the ME in recent years. Whether this is analogous to Griswold’s “tenth parallel” theory or not is a reasonable question.
Your initial criticism however, was that Griswold chose to focus only on certain conflicts, just as this site chooses to focus on a single conflict – hence North’s ostensible “double standard”. It is only after I pointed out the difference between the two cases that you shifted your criticism to the question of unifying theories. Don’t apologise. See if I care.
Shmuel,
I did not shift my criticism to the issue of a unified theory, I added it to my other criticisms because it also applies to this site. Thank you for helping my argument.
Thank you for helping my argument.
You’re welcome. You looked like you needed it ;-)
I hope your generous mood continues in other threads.
Because God knows, eee is drowning in the effluence when he argues on his own and he needs every lifeline he can get. Even if he’s going to bite your hand as you reach out to help him.
Jews are also considered “oriental” historically.
And Witty, our resident genius, unravels a conundrum which it has perplexed all kinds experts for many years. And a million Asian restaurant owners now have an explanation for their prosperity.
Hey, Witty, we can’t help it if you need to feel special.
“Jews are also considered “oriental” historically.”
Right you are, Witty, and people often forget that fact, but I bring it home to them with just two short strips of duct tape. I stick one end on my temple, and pull back the corner of my eye, and stick the other end down. You should see the deals I get at the local Teriyaki place!
Mooser: For once, Richard is right here. In the West, Jews have been portrayed as the Other, essentially and negatively different from other European humans. At times, Jewish women were depicted with an exotic and sensual aura: Rebecca in Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe. The Nazis took this view to a murderous extreme.
Jews, “Oriental”? It is possible I guess. One could argue that a bagel-and-lox is simply a Semitic version of sushi.
“At times, Jewish women were depicted with an exotic and sensual aura”
Yes, I’ve heard all the reasons for not marrying “out”.
“Jewish women were depicted with an exotic and sensual aura”
You bet they are!! Wanna see my girlfriend’s photo? Goddamn!
“with an exotic and sensual aura”
I’m sure your girlfriend is a wonderful girl, just like Mother makes, and “the bee’s roller-skates”, but when I start getting exotic and sensual auras, I check the expiration date on my film.
The trouble with Orientalists is that they heart Islam too much:
Jews are also considered “oriental” historically. (Witty)
Witty, as usual, is criptic. If historically, then perhaps “were”.
Example of roughly 80 year old anti-Semitic ditty:
Warszawa i Krakow to miasta Polakow (Warsaw and Cracow are cities of Poles)
A wszelkie Beduiny won do Palestyny (so assorted Beduins get out to Palestine)
Of course, it did not originate in anti-Beduin sentiment.
On the topic, there are so many massacres to choose from that one can indeed make various thematic cycles. My favorite: massacres for the cause of Freedom. Largest example: mostly Muslim Freedom loving military of Indonesia made a short work of ca. 0.5 million of mostly Muslim Communists and sympathisers in 1965. Other good examples are mostly from Latin America. Of course, every direction is represented, so it requires some “meta study” to figure out which cause is most vicious: Freedom, Civilization, Workers’ Paradise, Islam, Christianity, Bhuddism, I guess any notable ideology has some entries.