Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Middle Eastern History

--Mostly unrelated note: the symbols in LOST that came up a few weeks ago, when time almost ran out, unless someone made a mistake or dicovered a new word, must be the Middle Egyptian word SWDhe which means "die" (Faulkner A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 1962 (2002 reprint),p. 218, . . . $1 in the bargain books at Boarders)--

Last night Gina bought me some more discount books. We actually came to Boarders, also known as my office, since the coffee shop is often the setting for my investigations, to see Patrick McMannus. He is (as he always was) hilarious, and is one of the best storytellers I've heard in person (John Smith, from San Diego, might be better). Anyway, we listened to him speak with I'd guess two-hundred people (judging from the autograph line), and then were again seduced by discount books. I picked up two on Islam and one on the English Bible for two dollars a piece, and Gina found a Dave Berry novel (yes, I said "novel") at a huge discount and a book for Steve and one for herself from the 2 books for 3 dollars section, then, after she couldn't find a third in which she had any considerable interest, she had me look, and I'm so glad she did. I found The Bookseller of Kabul. It, like my favorite book of the last six months, Reading Lolita in Tehran, is a biographical account of the recent history of a Muslim nation.

I am generally well-versed in the histories and cultures of the world, but the Middle East was off my radar from the tenth century to the present. But in the present, I've discovered these beautifully written narrative histories, and the world is a different place. Did you know that both Iran and Afghanistan were on their way to more secular forms of Islam, like Turkey? Iran was impeded by the very agents of change who would have made it a modern nation; their desire to form a national identity, caused them to remove the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi but in the vacuum of power the Ayatollah Khomeini was able to gain suppreme authority, which he used to create an atmosphere of terror, similar to Stalin's.

Before the Taliban, the situation in Afganistan was similar under Zahir Shah a somewhat ineffective leader who was ousted by his brother-in-law who was subsequintly murdered in a Marxist revolution. The USSR eventually took over but had little success subduing the native population. Eventually the Taliban, essentially a group of Pashtuni thugs and assorted criminal, along with Pakistani CIA types, and local crime lords, took over and created bizzare ans strict rules of conduct like "NO KITE FLYING: Kite flying has wicked consequences, such as gambling, death among children, and truancy. Shops selling kites will be removed." Dang, I wonder what kites were like to cause death, and, evidently more importantly, truancy.

Alright, so I said all that to say this: did you know that the Burka or Chador were not required in any country before the late ninteenth or early twentieth century? That's right, though most muslims do not know that and would deny it. Women were always expected to dress modestly, but the Burka was an invention of the ruler Habibullah,who required his 200 wives to wear them. It became fashion for the rich, but became normal dress for women of all social classes because of Taliban decree. Similarly, women in Iran were never required by law to wear the Chidor before the Ayatollah took over. Prior to that they were the choise of the extremely pious women, also primarily in the upper levels of society. I've never heard a report of how the afgani women feel, but Azar Nafisi says that many women who wore it as a religious symbol are angry that their act of devotion has been stolen by those who force everyone to dress in that way. They have become empty of the meaning for which they were originally adopted, the argument goes. According the proverb: "In a country where everyone is a Christian, no one is a Christian," thus, if everyone dresses in a pious manner, no one dresses in a pious manner.

Comments:
A good one to read on that toping is "Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam" by Gilles Kepel.

I've got a couple of others along that vein but I've been maing focused on Afghanistan, for obvious reasons. Funny that we should both hit this area of study at similar times.
 
--No need to read all this, unless you're interested--

I've been convinced that the removal of history from narrative structure results in dead history. David Novitz' Knowledge, Fiction, and Imagination (and Herzberger’s Narrating the Past) convinced me that even fictional accounts that are thoughtfully composed are better than much of the non-fic history from the last century-and-a-half.

My identity as something close to Lyotard’s Post- whatevers, means that I can't uncritically accept meta-narratives anyway, so, personal accounts, and accounts based on informants really appeal to me. I've read a whole lot of classical historiography and I always come out thinking that a person would either have to be naive or arrogant to believe that their accounts truly represent history. Most of them are, but, on occasion, I find that pragmatism allowed them to write where others used arrogance or naïveté.

(I can't just read such accounts so I'm reading The War for Palestine : Rewriting the History of 1948, In the Shadow of the Prophet and I hope to start Said's Orientalism and A Faceless Enemy soon. It seems obvious that nothing was, is, or can be fair in these conflicts, all we can do is try to protect the innocent and avoid genocide)
 
I don't really have anything to add - thanks for the lesson though.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]