@Ceili,
No argument there, Ceili. I do agree that Koran burning is a hateful thing and that it can (though does not do so inevitably) lead to worse expressions. (Something like okie's repeated assertions that a tinge of social democracy leads inevitably to communism - it does not and there are lots of examples that demonstrate that.)
Just a few centuries ago the "Middle World" then comprised of three Empires; the Ottomans the Persians and the Moguls of India comprised most of the Moslem world .... and a very large segment of the civilized world as well. All three had long histories of real power and dominance in large parts of the world. They competed with one another and sometimes fought wars amidst themselves, but also shared a common culture derived in major part from Islam. A distinguishing feature of Islam is and was that it made no real distinction between God and Caesar. It is a code for how one should live and for how the community of believers should live... and rule.
Until the end of the 15th century Islam lived, grew , and thrived with little thought of and contact with the Western, Christian world - except as an object of conquest and conversion and as an occasional source of retaliation and conflict, as in the Crusades and the various island and naval struggles in the Mediterranean. Notably Islam experienced no secular enlightenment and no religious reformation as did Europe (though science, learning and religious disagreements abounded) and importantly no tradition of nation states, distinct from religious authority. These Islamic Empires, owing to their geographic situation, also controlled trade between the, adjacent to them, Eastern and Western worlds.
Beginning in the late 16th century European trading companies (Portuguese, French, British and Dutch) began their penetration and later control of the trade of the Mogul Empire - a process that (with a resolved struggle amount the Europeans)led ultimately to its political control by the British (and control of Indonesia by the Dutch). Penetration of the Persian empire by European powers, notably Britain and Russia was a more subtle process done by "advisors" and arms suppliers to Persian kings, largely in the context of the competitive struggles of European powers and their growing and competitive empires. The European attacks on the third Islamic Empire, that of the Ottoman Turks, was more direct and military. It started with Russian expansion on the north shores of the Black sea under Catherine, and the early 19th century, Russian expansion into the Caucuses and Napoleon's invasion of Egypt & Syria. It continued throughout the following century, culminating with the complete destruction of the Ottoman Empire at the hands of Britain and France. By the middle of the 20th century nearly all of the Moslem world - and all Moslems - were ruled by either Russia, Britain, France, or the Netherlands.
The tide appears to be turning again. The day of European Empires is long past - exhausted by their incessant wars and internal political struggles.; populations in Europe are declining, while those in the Islamic world are rising rapidly, while oil and mineral wealth flows in increasing amounts from East and West to them. After a brief (on an historical scale) but titanic and ultimately successful struggle with Soviet communism the USA's period of dominance of world affairs appears to be winding down.
In all of this we are confronted with segments of the Islamic world that are fixated on a return to literal interpretations of the Koran and renewed war (jihad) with external and internal forces that would limit them. This Wahhabi movement started in the very early 19th century. There are of course other, more moderate, reform movements afoot in the Islamic world, but all have in common the regeneration of the vigor, independence and ultimate domination of Islam in a competition with the West that most expect to continue.
With this in mind it is useful to rethink many aspects of contemporary struggles. The United States was not the agent of Islamic suppression. It is true that we foolishly aided the British & French in destroying the Ottoman Empire by our assistance in WWI (we put a million troops in Europe while they withdrew about 700,000 for transfer to Palestine): we even more foolishly aided our British ally by providing muscle to their overthrow of Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh so they could impose a continued 90-10 split of the profits of British Petroleum in Iran (as opposed to the 50-50 deal we had just negotiated with Saudi Arabia) - The British Labor government needed the money to pay welfare benefits in Britain. Finally, largely at the urging of a large and politically active domestic Jewish population, and aghast at the fate of displaced European Jews after the horrors of WWII, we supported the creation , and later expansion, of a Jewish state in Post WWII Palestine. During WWI, the British had promised the territory both to the Hashemite family (kicked out of Mecca and Medina by the Whabbis & Ibn Saud) and to European Zionists. These contradictions have created the ingredients for a continued struggle not unlike that which gripped Northern Ireland for three centuries.
Now the whole western world, Canada included, is confronted with a challenge from the Moslem world that is led by both moderate and extremist (= violent) elements of a larger movement. Because, after WWII and throughout the living memory of most of them, the USA became the chief embodiment of the Western world that, in their eyes, has brought so much grief to them, we are the prime, though by no means the only, object of their efforts.
This is a struggle that will likely continue for some time. Moreover, if history is a guide, it will have a winner and a loser. I'll leave it to you to choose which side you would rather be on. Many folks, particularly in Europe, ardently believe that a synthesis can be found that will end the need for such historical struggles. They seek various structural arrangements that they ardently hope will end history as we know it. One of a cynical nature might suggest that this is a notably convenient perspective for a region that has been enriched by past struggles and now wishes to live a comfortable senescence unaffected by the storms raging around it. Moreover there are few successes to be found in these efforts and very good historical reasons to suppose they will not succeed. In any event, escaping these struggles does not appear to be a feasible option for anyone.
All of these issues are played out in the internal politics of Germany, France, the UK, Canada, the USA and many other countries as well. each struggle involves many of the same elements , but each colored by the individual characters and political situations of the nations themselves.
I have a deep affection for my country, as I’m sure you do for yours. While I am certainly not immune to criticizing others, I try to confine myself to addressing specific actions they take and not to superficial analyses of their inner character and motivations. I have not always succeeded, but I try. Frankly I resent such actions on the part of others, and there is a lot of that to be found on A2K. We are a nation largely populated by people who gave up on other places (lots of Irish) and came here to create something “nearer to the heart’s desire” (Edward Fitzgerald) for themselves. It still goes on, and it involves a rather messy, vulgar and disputatious process. Canada has a lot of that too. It isn’t all bad: indeed I believe, considering the alternatives, it is very good.
