The mistake made by virtually the entire Western media during the Arab Spring was to assume that social progress is like technological progress.
By mark steyn
Media types like to talk about "the
narrative": News is just another form of storytelling, and certain plot
lines grab you more than others.
The easiest narrative of all is anything involving
young people. "I believe that children are our future," as the late
Whitney Houston once asserted. And, even if Whitney hadn't believed it, it
would still, as a point of fact, be true. Any media narrative involving young
people presupposes that they are the forces of progress, wresting the world
from the grasping clutches of mean, vengeful old men and making it a better
place.
In the West, young people actually believe this. Thus, in 2008, Barack Obama, being the preferred choice of America's youth, was, by definition, the candidate of progress and the future. In humdrum reality, his idea of the future doesn't seem to be any more futuristic than the pre-Thatcher statist wasteland of Britain in the Seventies, but that didn't stop the massed ranks of fresh-faced youth chanting "We are the Hopeychange!" in adoring if glassy-eyed unison behind him at every campaign rally. Four years later, half of recent graduates can't find full-time employment; Americans' college debt is now larger than credit card debt; the number of young people with summer jobs is at a record low; and men in their late twenties and early thirties trudge upstairs every night to the same bedroom in which they slept as a kindergartner.
And that's before they're
permanently buried by interest payments on the multitrillion-dollar debt and
unfunded liabilities from Medicare. Yet in 2012 the rubes will still vote for
Obama and be congratulated by the media for doing so. Because to be young is to
vote for hope and change.
Likewise, halfway across the
world, the Arab Spring was also hailed as the voice of youth, tweeting its
universal message of hope and change. A year on, it's proved to be rather
heavier on change, and ever lighter on hope. Egypt's first freely elected head
of state is a Muslim Brotherhood man. In the parliament of the most populous
Arab nation, the Muslim Brotherhood's party and its principal rival, the Even
More Muslim Brotherhood, between them won nearly three-quarters of the seats.
In traditionally relaxed and secular Tunisia and Morocco, elections have been
won by forces we are assured by the experts are "moderate Islamists"
– which means that, unlike the lavishly bankrolled American protectorate of
Afghanistan, they won't be executing adulterous women in the street, or at any
rate not just yet.
So what are they doing? In Libya, British
Commonwealth war graves have been desecrated, something that never happened
under Col. Gadhafi even at the very lowest of low points in relations between
him and the West. But hey, one can forgive Libya's suddenly liberated young men
a spasm of very belated anti-imperialism, right?
Meanwhile, in northern Mali,
the dominant Ansar Dine group is currently engaged in destroying the ancient shrines
of Timbuktu, including the famous door of the 15th-century Sidi Yahya mosque
that was supposed to be left closed "until the end of the world."
Bring it on, baby!
No Britons or Europeans were
involved in the creation of these shrines.
Rather, it's a dispute between
the region's traditionally moderate Sufi Islam and the ever more assertive
Wahhabist model exported worldwide by Saudi Arabia with Western petrodollars.
The shrines are official UNESCO World Heritage sites, but then so were the
Buddhas of Bamyan blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan a decade ago. What's
next on the condemned list? Abd al-Latif al-Mahmoud, Bahrain's "Sheikh of
Sheikhs" (he's like a supersized sheikh) has invited Egypt's President
Morsi to "destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin
al-As could not" – a reference to the Muslim conqueror of Egypt back in
the seventh century.
Less controversially, Egypt's
Salafi Party does not see the need to destroy the Pyramids but does favor
covering them in wax. The Pyramids are the last of the Seven Wonders of the
World still around in the 21st century, but that's no reason not to destroy
them, as part of the new pan-Islamic identity's contempt for any alternative
claims of allegiance – cultural, national or historic.
The old dictators represented
nobody but themselves, their cronies, and their Swiss bank accounts. The new
democratic rulers embody all too well the dispositions of their people. In the
years immediately after 9/11, many Western commentators argued that Islam needed
a reformation. This overlooked the obvious fact that Islam had already
reformed, thanks to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Iran's revolutionary mullahs,
and Saudi Arabia's principal export – not oil, but globalized ideology. I've
lost count of the times I've found myself sitting at dinner next to a
Westernized Arab woman d'un
certain age who was at
college in the Fifties, Sixties or Seventies, and listened to her tell me that
back then "covering" was for wizened old biddies in upcountry
villages, the Islamic equivalent of gnarled Russian babushkas. The future
belonged to modern, uncovered women like her and her classmates.
The assumptions of her
generation were off by 180 degrees: The female graduating class of Cairo
University in the Fifties looked little different from Vassar. Half-a-century
later, every woman is hijabed to the hilt. Mohammad Qayoumi, now the president
of San Jose State University, recently published some photographs from the
Afghanistan he grew up in: The girls in high heels and pencil skirts in the
Kabul record stores of the 1960s aren't quite up to Carnaby Street cool, but
they'd fit in in any HMV store in provincial England. Half a century later, it
was forbidden by law for women to feel sunlight on their face, or leave the
home without male permission. Even more amazing to my female dining companions,
today you see more covered women in London's East End or the RosengÄrd district
of Malmö, Sweden, than you do in Tunis or Amman.
The mistake made by virtually
the entire Western media during the Arab Spring was to assume that social
progress is like technological progress – that, like the wheel or the internal
combustion engine, women's rights and gay rights cannot be disinvented. They
can, very easily. In Egypt, the youth who voted for the Muslim Brotherhood are
more fiercely Islamic than their grandparents who backed Nasser's Revolution in
1952. In Tunisia, the young are more proscriptive than the secular old-timers
who turned a blind eye to the country's bars and brothels. In the developed
world, we're told that Westernization is "inevitable." "Just
wait and see," say the blithely complacent inevitablists. "They
haven't yet had time to Westernize." But Westernization is every bit as
resistible in Brussels and Toronto as it's proved in Cairo and Jalalabad. In
the first ever poll of Irish Muslims, 37 percent said they would like Ireland
to be governed by Islamic law. When the same question was put to young Irish
Muslims, it was 57 percent. In other words, the hope'n'change generation are
less Westernized than their parents. 36 percent of young British Muslims think
the penalty for apostasy – i.e., leaving Islam – should be death. Had you asked
the same question of British Muslims in 1970, I doubt the enthusiasts would
have cracked double figures.
Unlike the dopes droning the
halfwit slogans at the Obama rallies, these guys mean it. The children are our future. That's the problem.
Raises some interesting questions about the limits of personal freedom,the right to self determination,multicultarism as well as the limits of the free economy in the context of hostile cultures.
ReplyDeleteMO my man I admire you for being able to handle the level of contradiction in your reposts.
Some questions have lots of (partially correct) answers.
Delete