Civilization v. Savagery - From Middle East to Europe and Back Again

[jbg]

This post focuses on the relationship of the Jews, and eventually the Judeo-Christian world, to other cultures. This shows that the contrasts predate the establishment of Islam and show that the target of this post is not current political Islam. Indeed when I use the term "Muslims" or "Islam" I am referring generically to the parts of Eastern culture that seek the death of the West and Westerners. I fully recognize that this is not universal among Middle Easterners, Muslims or Arabs.

The divide between civilization and savagery was expressed in many parts of the book of Genesis (certainly pre-Islam) but most famously in two (2) stories:

1. Sodom & Gomorrah; and
   
2. The binding and imminent sacrifice of Isaac.
   

In the former, Abraham showed, by his debate with G-d, his adherence to civilized values to arguing that if there was even one righteous resident of Sodom & Gomorrah that the cities be saved. G-d settled on ten and those ten didn't exist. In the latter story, my interpretation of the story was that G-d was contrasting the practices of surrounding people that included child sacrifice with the practice of Abraham and his descendants not to take his own son's life. G-d countermanded his own earlier commandment to march Isaac to the sacrifice location. Among surrounding people these days, the term is not "child sacrifice". It is "use of a suicide bomber".

When the Jews returned to the Holy Land they were commanded to utterly destroy the Amelkites and others. Among their practices was to "fight" an enemy by targeting straggling elderly and infants. To this day those are the practices of the surrounding people. The Hebrews have always, from time immemorial, been forced to content with neighboring people who apparently get an almost sexual thrill in killing hundreds or thousands simultaneously.

During post-Biblical history, there are numerous examples of similar debauchery, by non-Muslims. The Inquisition is one notorious example. The repeated expulsions (and re-admissions) of Jews to England is another. In Russia, there were the peasants whom, with government complicity if not support thought it was a great idea to burst into Jewish homes during Pesach, when the door is left open symbolically for Elijah, to burst in and stomp and murder the inhabitants. Following this famous Kisinev Pogrom of 1892 the tidal wave of Jewish emigration to the U.S. and Canada was unleashed.

And of course there was the Holocaust.

The question is, why couldn't Europe focusing on making a better life for its many peoples rather than pursuing unproductive persecutions?

Returning to the modern Middle East, the Arabs expelled their resident Jews upon Israel's establishment. Was this anti-Zionism or anti-Judaism? Perhaps they are one and the same.

In 1972 the Arabs, I supposed, believed that shooting Israeli athletes at the Olympics would promote the benefit of the Palestinian people. And, what about Kuryot Schmone (sp), an attack by "militants" against a Jewish nursery school in 1974?

Too bad there are useful idiots who excuse despicable conduct by appealing to the natural sense of justice that favors protecting militarily weaker "Palestinians". A great example of this was when the Second Intifada was set off, allegedly, by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount to make a speech. Are the same supporters of the Palestinians saying that these people are maddened bulls who react the same way as a bull in a bullring reacts to a red flag? Aren't the Palestinians indeed human too?

And of course September 11, 2001. How slaughtering thousands of totally innocent people helped anyone is a mystery. Yet even these attackers have their apologists, including those plumping for the likes of Khadr and seeking the closing of "Gitmo". What's their answer for the West; that we evacuate Iraq and Afghanistan so terror can be planned without molestation?

Just a few questions that are food for thought. I suppose the answer starts with a total lack of any fixed standards of morality.

Edited November 15, 2010 by jbg

[Sir Bandelot]

I suppose the answer starts with a total lack of any fixed standards of morality.

I think the answer lies in taking a truly unbiased look at history, realizing that savage violence exists amongst all peoples at various times, and how this has lead to deep-seated resentment. And how finally, the response to this is irrational violence against otherwise innocent persons, la 9-11. Or irrational posts.

Thus as long as we ignore the truth of who we really are, we all descend from civilization to barbarism. It can happen again, in the wink of an eye.

[bloodyminded]

And of course September 11, 2001. How slaughtering thousands of totally innocent people helped anyone is a mystery. Yet even these attackers have their apologists, including those plumping for the likes of Khadr and seeking the closing of "Gitmo".

Sigh.

[Shwa]

I suppose the answer starts with a total lack of any fixed standards of morality.

Isn't that what the Bible is for?

[jbg]

Thus as long as we ignore the truth of who we really are, we all descend from civilization to barbarism. It can happen again, in the wink of an eye.

So civilization and barbarism are equivalent?

How about the recent gambit where some "activists" tried to stuff explosives into live dogs so the dogs would explode in the kennel holds of planes? Justifiable response to "resentment"?

[jbg]

Isn't that what the Bible is for?

And that's a bad thing?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Thus as long as we ignore the truth of who we really are, we all descend from civilization to barbarism. It can happen again, in the wink of an eye.

So called "civilization" is the artifice.....barbarism is the truth.

[dre]

This post focuses on the relationship of the Jews, and eventually the Judeo-Christian world, to other cultures. This shows that the contrasts predate the establishment of Islam and show that the target of this post is not current political Islam. Indeed when I use the term "Muslims" or "Islam" I am referring generically to the parts of Eastern culture that seek the death of the West and Westerners. I fully recognize that this is not universal among Middle Easterners, Muslims or Arabs.

The divide between civilization and savagery was expressed in many parts of the book of Genesis (certainly pre-Islam) but most famously in two (2) stories:

1. Sodom & Gomorrah; and
   
2. The binding and imminent sacrifice of Isaac.
   

In the former, Abraham showed, by his debate with G-d, his adherence to civilized values to arguing that if there was even one righteous resident of Sodom & Gomorrah that the cities be saved. G-d settled on ten and those ten didn't exist. In the latter story, my interpretation of the story was that G-d was contrasting the practices of surrounding people that included child sacrifice with the practice of Abraham and his descendants not to take his own son's life. G-d countermanded his own earlier commandment to march Isaac to the sacrifice location. Among surrounding people these days, the term is not "child sacrifice". It is "use of a suicide bomber".

When the Jews returned to the Holy Land they were commanded to utterly destroy the Amelkites and others. Among their practices was to "fight" an enemy by targeting straggling elderly and infants. To this day those are the practices of the surrounding people. The Hebrews have always, from time immemorial, been forced to content with neighboring people who apparently get an almost sexual thrill in killing hundreds or thousands simultaneously.

During post-Biblical history, there are numerous examples of similar debauchery, by non-Muslims. The Inquisition is one notorious example. The repeated expulsions (and re-admissions) of Jews to England is another. In Russia, there were the peasants whom, with government complicity if not support thought it was a great idea to burst into Jewish homes during Pesach, when the door is left open symbolically for Elijah, to burst in and stomp and murder the inhabitants. Following this famous Kisinev Pogrom of 1892 the tidal wave of Jewish emigration to the U.S. and Canada was unleashed.

And of course there was the Holocaust.

The question is, why couldn't Europe focusing on making a better life for its many peoples rather than pursuing unproductive persecutions?

Returning to the modern Middle East, the Arabs expelled their resident Jews upon Israel's establishment. Was this anti-Zionism or anti-Judaism? Perhaps they are one and the same.

In 1972 the Arabs, I supposed, believed that shooting Israeli athletes at the Olympics would promote the benefit of the Palestinian people. And, what about Kuryot Schmone (sp), an attack by "militants" against a Jewish nursery school in 1974?

Too bad there are useful idiots who excuse despicable conduct by appealing to the natural sense of justice that favors protecting militarily weaker "Palestinians". A great example of this was when the Second Intifada was set off, allegedly, by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount to make a speech. Are the same supporters of the Palestinians saying that these people are maddened bulls who react the same way as a bull in a bullring reacts to a red flag? Aren't the Palestinians indeed human too?

And of course September 11, 2001. How slaughtering thousands of totally innocent people helped anyone is a mystery. Yet even these attackers have their apologists, including those plumping for the likes of Khadr and seeking the closing of "Gitmo". What's their answer for the West; that we evacuate Iraq and Afghanistan so terror can be planned without molestation?

Just a few questions that are food for thought. I suppose the answer starts with a total lack of any fixed standards of morality.

Too bad there are useful idiots who excuse despicable conduct by appealing to the natural sense of justice that favors protecting militarily weaker "Palestinians". A great example of this was when the Second Intifada was set off, allegedly, by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount to make a speech. Are the same supporters of the Palestinians saying that these people are maddened bulls who react the same way as a bull in a bullring reacts to a red flag? Aren't the Palestinians indeed human too?

I already answered this question. Humans in GENERAL are easily provoked into violence. Especially people in the position that palestinians are in. You think Jews would react any different if a figure that to them was a symbol of their oppression showed up at a sacred religious site with hundreds of armed troops? Think Christians would act different? Atheists?

Get real.

[jbg]

You think Jews would react any different if a figure that to them was a symbol of their oppression showed up at a sacred religious site with hundreds of armed troops? Think Christians would act different? Atheists?

Get real.

Oh yes. After the showing of "Wallenberg" on Thursday night with a group from my synagogue we went on a rampage, attacking German and Hungarian interests </sarcasm>.

[Melanie_]

This post focuses on the relationship of the Jews, and eventually the Judeo-Christian world, to other cultures. This shows that the contrasts predate the establishment of Islam and show that the target of this post is not current political Islam. Indeed when I use the term "Muslims" or "Islam" I am referring generically to the parts of Eastern culture that seek the death of the West and Westerners. I fully recognize that this is not universal among Middle Easterners, Muslims or Arabs.

The divide between civilization and savagery was expressed in many parts of the book of Genesis (certainly pre-Islam) but most famously in two (2) stories:

1. Sodom & Gomorrah; and
   
2. The binding and imminent sacrifice of Isaac.
   

In the former, Abraham showed, by his debate with G-d, his adherence to civilized values to arguing that if there was even one righteous resident of Sodom & Gomorrah that the cities be saved. G-d settled on ten and those ten didn't exist. In the latter story, my interpretation of the story was that G-d was contrasting the practices of surrounding people that included child sacrifice with the practice of Abraham and his descendants not to take his own son's life. G-d countermanded his own earlier commandment to march Isaac to the sacrifice location. Among surrounding people these days, the term is not "child sacrifice". It is "use of a suicide bomber".

What was Abraham`s connection to Sodom and Gamorrah? Lot was the patriarch who offered his virgin daughters to the crowd of rapists, and then violated his daughters himself, and yet was determined to be the only righteous citizen of Sodom. Obviously, a man made that determination.

And Isaac's willingness to sacrifice his son, an act of infanticice, can only be interpreted today as a commandment of a self centred and narcissistic god. No wonder most feminists reject this patriarchal model of family, where the father is empowered to kill a child (or any other dependent) in the name of his own relationship with a deity - the child is seen as a pawn, rather than a person in their own right.

I understand you are saying these situations are the basis of the Muslim religion, but I disagree. They are the basis of misogyny, in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Each of these three religions must deal with their inherent beliefs about the role and rights of women, before they can deal with the contrasts between them.

[bush_cheney2004]

....No wonder most feminists reject this patriarchal model of family, where the father is empowered to kill a child (or any other dependent) in the name of his own relationship with a deity - the child is seen as a pawn, rather than a person in their own right.

Of course, your point obviously raises the rejoinder that is legal abortion.

[jbg]

What was Abraham`s connection to Sodom and Gamorrah? Lot was the patriarch who offered his virgin daughters to the crowd of rapists, and then violated his daughters himself, and yet was determined to be the only righteous citizen of Sodom. Obviously, a man made that determination.

Unique interpretation.

And Isaac's willingness to sacrifice his son, an act of infanticice[uinfanticide[/u] (learn to spell), can only be interpreted today as a commandment of a self centred and narcissistic god. No wonder most feminists reject this patriarchal model of family, where the father is empowered to kill a child (or any other dependent) in the name of his own relationship with a deity - the child is seen as a pawn, rather than a person in their own right.

G-d stopped the infanticide from happening.

I understand you are saying these situations are the basis of the Muslim religion, but I disagree. They are the basis of misogyny, in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Each of these three religions must deal with their inherent beliefs about the role and rights of women, before they can deal with the contrasts between them.

I don't think most Jewish or Christian women are subject to the threat of honor killing, deprived of any right to drive, to vote etc.

[Sir Bandelot]

So civilization and barbarism are equivalent?

Certainly not. I don't see how you would draw that conclusion. A better example is, moving in with soldiers and crushing another race, exterminating them and building houses on their burned remains. Then sanctimoniously calling ones self "civilized".

How about the recent gambit where some "activists" tried to stuff explosives into live dogs so the dogs would explode in the kennel holds of planes? Justifiable response to "resentment"?

No, I myself do not justify it or condone it.

[dre]

Unique interpretation.

G-d stopped the infanticide from happening.

I don't think most Jewish or Christian women are subject to the threat of honor killing, deprived of any right to drive, to vote etc.

G-d stopped the infanticide from happening.

Right after he ordered it.

And the scary thing is that dirt-bag Abraham was not only all set to do, he actually forced Isaac to carry the wood that would be used to burn him.

Abraham was a disgracefull little maggot. Love the part where he pretends his wife is actually his sister, and sends her off to be gangraped by Egyptians to avoid being harrassed on the street.

Its amazing that virtually all of the worlds major religions are based on this guy. Says a lot really.

[jbg]

Right after he ordered it.

And the scary thing is that dirt-bag Abraham was not only all set to do, he actually forced Isaac to carry the wood that would be used to burn him.

Obviously you miss the point of the story, either willfully or otherwise.

[dre]

Obviously you miss the point of the story, either willfully or otherwise.

Youre probably right. Just the mention of Abraham turned me off. Im really not a fan of the guy. And I probably DID miss the point you were trying to make.

[jbg]

Youre probably right. Just the mention of Abraham turned me off. Im really not a fan of the guy. And I probably DID miss the point you were trying to make.

The point I'm trying to make is not the literal truth of the Biblical story (which I doubt) but that G-d was differentiating between the Hebrews and the surrounding peoples.

[dre]

The point I'm trying to make is not the literal truth of the Biblical story (which I doubt) but that G-d was differentiating between the Hebrews and the surrounding peoples.

I guess I just dont see how that matters or why you would use it as a seque into comments about the Is/Pal crisis.

[Bonam]

I already answered this question. Humans in GENERAL are easily provoked into violence.

What kind of statement is that? What do you mean by easily? Are you easily provoked into violence? If I came up and insulted you (in person) would you respond to this provocation with violence? I dunno about you, but I wouldn't. Most people I know are not at all easily provoked to violence. The only people I ever see/encounter participating in violence are complete idiots, modern day barbarians, the guys that aimlessly hang out on the street all day, that's like the bottom few percent of the population.

Especially people in the position that palestinians are in. You think Jews would react any different if a figure that to them was a symbol of their oppression showed up at a sacred religious site with hundreds of armed troops?

Yes, I think they would indeed react differently. Countless sacred Jewish sites in Arab lands have been desecrated since the formation of Israel, yet I don't see Jews blowing themselves up. In fact, none of such incidents of desecration even provoked any kind of military response from Israel. And these incidents go far beyond someone simply walking up to the site, as Ariel Sharon did.

Atheists?

Just in case you didn't know, atheists don't have any sacred religious sites. And no, I don't expect to see many atheist suicide bombers either, not even if someone peed on Darwin's grave.

[jefferiah]

And the scary thing is that dirt-bag Abraham was not only all set to do, he actually forced Isaac to carry the wood that would be used to burn him.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:17&version=NIV

[Michael Hardner]

Because this thread mixes holy book mythology with facts, it excludes some of us here from participating.

From the little I know of holy books, though, my understanding is that the myth of Cain & Abel was a personification of the ancient biblical conflicts between settlers/farmers (civilization) and hunters (barbarism). As such, these words describe modes of living and are, to my mind, phases of human organizational development - just as industrialization, post-industrialization and so on.

To compare them, for the purposes of vilifying people, is just a mistake from the outset.

If you want to stop the wars between peoples who are living in different centuries, then bring them into the same century.

[Sir Bandelot]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:17&version=NIV

I was thinking the same thing. Boom.

Clearly many of us do not understand the intended meaning of these tales of old, and interpret them fundamentally.

[Oleg Bach]

What civilization? We have none to speak of - in fact if a western city was a living orgainizm it would be in the trawlls of auto- cannibalism..which it is - bureacracy literally consumes the flesh of citizenry...the system is feeding on itself and no one is creating real wealth - shelter - food or good art.... at least you can trust a savage to some degree because some of them have kept the concept of honour ---------HONESTY...Were we all surive by lieing.

[ToadBrother]

Obviously you miss the point of the story, either willfully or otherwise.

The point of the story is that if God tells you to do something, you do it, and that is the root of a number of evils. Some pretty nasty people have insisted they were doing God's will when they were doing bad things.

I think the message goes to the heart of what's wrong with religion, or with similar social constructs; and that is that it encourages a sort of groupthink mentality. Frankly if a voice popped into my head telling me to kill my son as a sacrifice, I'd be assuming I'd lost my mind. But that would, apparently, according to the moral of the Abraham-Isaac story be questioning God's will, and that's a bad thing.

[Shwa]

And that's a bad thing?

No, not necessarily. You had written: "I suppose the answer starts with a total lack of any fixed standards of morality."

But I am not sure who you are speaking for when you say "a total lack of any fixed standards of morality" after using the Bible as a standard of morality or at least a historical reference.

So are you basing the morality of "civilazation v. savagery" on Biblical standards or basically throwing it out the window to make modern determinations of what our standards of morality ought to be?