This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The following is an adaptation/repost of something that I posted to /r/theMotte a few years back. I had intended to post it yesterday but real life intervened. It feels strange to think that it has since been 10 years.
For me, as I sit in an airport lobby writing this, it is around mid-day September 11th. In Mecca it is late evening, the Sun has gone down and in the eyes of the more conservative/orthodox clerics it is already the 12th. The 11th and 12th of September are auspicious dates in political Islam as they represent the Caliphate's "high water mark" and end of the Islamic golden age. While it has largely passed from conscious memory in the West, the day that King Sobieski of Poland broke the Siege of Vienna (September 12th 1683) is remembered by many in the Islamic world as a bloody and shameful anniversary, the day that Islam lost it's way.
It is poetic, and likely intended by the attack's perpetrators, that the date of September 11th is now remembered by many Americans in much the same way. The end of a perceived golden age, the day we lost our way. That said, while the the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon in 2001 have overshadowed it is the twelfth that comes to mind when I think "bloody and shameful anniversary", and that I find more personally significant.
As I mentioned in /u/mcjunker's 9/11 memory thread, September 11th 2001 is the day I "picked a side". The towers went down on a Tuesday and I was talking to a US Navy recruiter the following Monday. While my feelings about the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are complicated I don't regret any of the choices I made. Solzhenitsyn said "Prosperity breeds idiots". I don't think that's right. What prosperity breeds is forgetfulness. To quote Lee Harris in the opening to Civilization and it's Enemies...
September 11th 2012 was also a Tuesday. When the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi began at 9:40 PM local time I would have been eating lunch, maybe knocking out a last-minute homework assignment for my 2:00 PM class. As I said above it was on 9/11 that "I chose a side" but I don't think truly grokked or appreciated what that meant before those months leading up to the 2012 Election and September 12th 2012 in particular.
By this point I had already completed two enlistments where in I'd served as a rescue swimmer and combat medic, as well as the first of several shorter stints I would spend as a private military contractor for a large humanitarian NGO. I was, at this time, serving in the reserves as an instructor and range safety officer while going to college on the GI Bill. I was also the regional rep for a national-level veterans' organization and on a first name basis with my congressman. I'd gone into the Navy a pissed off 20-something looking for a fight, and come out almost a decade later still believing in the cause, but deeply pessimistic about the US in general and the current administration in particular's ability to see it through. It was clear to me that the sort of idealized liberal democracy that the administration seemed to have in mind wasn't going to work in Iraq. There just wasn't the sense of legitimacy or cultural background to support it.
It's a popular refrain that we all want the same things. To be warm and safe with full bellies and for our kids to have a better life than we did. To a degree this is true, I think it's fair to say that almost everyone wants these things. That said, different people will prioritize them differently. So even in discussing these fundamentals there is the potential for disagreement, and that is before we start talking about the best course of action to attain our fundamental wants. This is where the "disbelief in foreigners" comes in. Culture matters and it runs deep. Culture is not just about how one dresses or what they eat. It carries assumptions of language, social structures, flora, fauna, climate, and all sorts of unexamined axioms and assumptions about how the world works.
On Paper, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Rod Dhrer are much the same. They're both conservatives. They're both journalists. They're both Orthodox Catholics. They both lived in the American north-east. And they both made thier names writing about the crimes of Communism and the Soviet Union. That said Solzhenitsyn was Russian to his bones and Russians expect to get screwed. One of my favorite bits in Scott's Unsong was when Lake Baikal was revealed to be a portal to Hell and the Russian response is basically "whelp, that figures". That moment cracked me up because it really does figure. When viewed from ground level Russian history is basically a long string of things going wrong in new and revolutionary ways. When Jesus returns to Earth in The Grand Inquisitor he doesn't save the righteous or establish the kingdom of heaven, no Russian would've bought that, least of all Dostoevsky.
A sense of something akin to "the mandate of heaven" is baked into Iraqi culture the way "things go wrong" is baked into Russian culture. It's there in how they talk. "Inish Allah" literally "if God wills it", is used as a standard greeting/parting phrase, and at times almost like a punctuation mark. I'll see you again tomorrow if God wills it. Enjoy your lunch if God wills it. The train will arrive at 10:00 if God wills it. /u/HlynkaCG will share his stash of hot-sauce with us if God wills it. Emphasis on the If. Fact of the matter is that there is little in the Iraqis' history to suggest that they can trust a government to abide by it's word simply because it gave it's word. Yet we expected them to trust the government, and we expected a government comprised of Iraqis to be trustworthy. That was pretty stupid in hindsight, but understandable because we were thinking like Americans. People from a country that has had 200+ years of reasonably stable government that, even when it's corrupt, tends to be corrupt in fairly banal and predictable ways.
Coming back to 2012, my position gave me something of a front row seat to Romney's presidential bid and access to some of his advisors as well as state politicians. I had previously been aware of the Gell-mann Amnesia effect but hadn't really considered the implication of it. Namely that those who are supposed to be "in the know" often aren't. Having spent time in field some level of cluelessness and/or fecklessness on the part of politicians, pundits, and State Department weenies was assumed on my part. That said, I repeatedly found myself flummoxed by the ignorance and stupidity of highly intelligent people. Some corporate big-wig trying to get a pipeline built would be going on about how lazy the local workers were because they wouldn't work through the day. Meanwhile I'm thinking lets drop you in a place with 105 degree weather and no AC and see how much you feel like working. Someone else would be talking about backing some "moderate" Islamic group or another but then their rep would be a bearded Sunni man wearing a taqiyah and a black sash without a mustache. To translate this into a more familiar cultural equivalent here is a picture of some allegedly "moderate" American Jews. I used to joke about how HQ wanted me dead but the truth was in Hanlon's Razor. Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance and/or stupidity. This may come across as me complaining. Something to the effect of "If only they had listened, disaster could have been averted". That's not my intention, if anything listening to me would have fucked things up in a completely different way. Instead remember that you are ignorant.
I may have joked that my superiors wanted me dead, but there was also an understanding. It was right there on page 13 of my service jacket. I had formally volunteered for hazardous duty in exchange for additional pay. The numerology was not lost on me, and I suspect it was intentional. I would be asked to do something stupid and dangerous and I would do it, in return my Chain of Command would have my back. This is something that I feel like a lot of Americans, especially those who haven't been in the military or haven't worked a specifically dangerous job don't really grasp. There are two key elements to a functional hierarchy. The shit rolling down hill, and the fire climbing up it. Yes the guys at the bottom get shit on, so it goes. The Task forced commander tells a captain that observation post X needs item Y. That captain tells a lieutenant to make it so. That lieutenant talks to his Platoon Sgt and eventually the shit comes to a rest at the bottom of the hill when some Corporal tells some PFC "Hey, Abe I need I need you and Garcia to hump this heavy-ass box up the hill to OP X-ray". This aspect is well known as most people have some experience with being at the bottom of the pecking order if only from childhood. What gets less attention is the fire. If a PFC has a problem his team leader has a problem. If the team leader can't solve with it the resources he has on hand, his platoon/detachment leader has a problem, and so on up the chain till the fire reaches the appropriate level and the officer responsible drops a new load of shit.
To be continued...
edit: fixed broken link.
Do you have a source for that? Because that sounds very unlikely, given that the battles at the end of the Siege of Vienna happened on the 19th and 20th of Ramadan 1094 (9/19) and 9/11 happened on the 23rd of Jumada al-Thani 1422 (6/23) in the Islamic calendar. The correct date would have been the 5th of December 2001 (19th of Ramadan 1422) if the terrorists were after a symbolic message.
You mean aside from assorted Muslims that I've spoken to? No not really, but I could just as readily, ask you the same question. The downhill cavalry charge into the Ottoman flank that inspired both Tolkien and Sabaton is generally agreed by both sides to have happened on the morning of September 12th per the Georgian Calendar. Sure there are other calendars, but if the intent is to send a message you're going to use the one that is mutually intelligible.
Searching the web I can find literally no Muslim accounts while the only two sources supporting your interpretation are Lawrence Wright and Christopher Hitchens, who both present no direct evidence (e.g. statements by bin-Laden, Muslim scholars discussing the significance of the date etc.). In fact, your paragraph in the OP comes suspiciously close to simply remixing their claims with a bit of rhetorical flair.
That's only part of your original claim. I can buy that a westernized radical Muslim like Atta chose the 9/11 date for its historical significance in the struggle between Christendom and Islam, even if no direct evidence exists. What I take issue with and would like to see concrete proof for is the idea that 9/11 ..
How did 9/11 become a cultural touchstone for historical/geopolitical thinking east of the Bosporus when nobody outside of a tiny number of scholars concerned with calendars would even have a clue what the Gregorian date for it is, pre-1917? Further, we'd expect people who are especially concerned with the fate of Islam to be less likely to use a Western calendar than their traditional one. The main calendar for Saudi-Arabia, where the supermajority of the hijackers came from, is still the Islamic one, they switched to the Gregorian one for matters of paying civil servants only in 2016.
Have you ever had the occasion to sit down and actually talk to a Jihadi or Revivalist Sunni face-to-face? Not some westernized Muslim living in some big cosmopolitan center, or edgy teenager posting music videos to /r/combatfootage, but an honest to
GodAllah, chin-strapped, true believer.I ask because you seem weirdly wound up about this topic. So much so that you appear to be grasping at straws. For instance, where the fuck is this idiotic nonsense about "nobody outside of a tiny number of scholars concerned with calendars" knowing the date coming from? The Gregorian Calendar, that is the Calendar in use today throughout the English and Romance language speaking world, was codified and adopted by the Catholic Church and by extension most of the major governments in Europe back in 1582, a full century before the Siege of Vienna. Yes the Ottomans continued to maintain their own separate Calendar up into the 20th century (as did Imperial Russia for that matter) but that doesn't mean they were unaware of the Gregorian Calendar or what date a given event happened on.
Likewise, you say you didn't find anything on the web. Well no shit. Wahhabis don't exactly maintain much of an online presence, something about the internet being a Satanic construct. What presence they do maintain is typically in Arabic rather than English.
You can demand "proof" from me, but your attitude is giving me the distinct impression that there is nothing I can provide that you would accept. So with that in mind, what is your alternative theory?
Let me be precise about what my position is: of course there were lots of people in the Muslim world pre-modernity that understood the Gregorian calendar. However, the great majority of intellectuals and the general population would at most be aware of its existence, but not of how to use it or convert their own dates in the Hijri calendar that everyone of them would be using, just as I or about 99,9% of all westerners can't tell the Julian date of a particular day without consulting an expert or a web app. Because of this, the idea that the numbers or the date 9/11 hold special significance for Muslims is suspect to me. The date would have been announced as Ramadan 19 as heralds spread the news throughout the Middle East. Where would a tradition of assigning 9/11 with special importance have organically come from instead of 10/19, the actual date almost everyone would have been thinking about before the 20th century?
Sure, but people translating and writing about them might. I can't read classic Greek, yet I still have access to a great deal of Greek thinking and commentary on it. For example, the original writings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab survive and are available in English.
What exactly gave you that impression? I did directly mention things that would convince me: a statement by bin-Laden or someone else from the group responsible referencing Vienna and the context of the 9/11 date, writing by Muslim historians or scholars about the importance of the Battle of Vienna and particularly the (Gregorian) date it was on, basically anything that provides some evidence for the notion that the Gregorian date itself is really something that people paid attention to in the Islamic world other than hearsay or statements by outsiders like Hitchens or Lawrence.
I don't really have an alternative theory. My best guess would be that it was just random chance. For example, here on the Wiki it says that in a meeting in Spain in July 2001, a middleman expressed that bin-Laden wished for the operation to go ahead ASAP. This old CNN article about an Al-Jazeera documentary that talked with the same middleman before he was captured by US forces recounts the anecdote of how Atta revealed the final date of the attack to him, which has no mention at all of the significance of the date (while it does confirm that the date was in given in the Gregorian calendar). Both of these taken together imply to me that there was no or little group-wide discussion and that the date was chosen for practical reasons.
First I think you need to remember that I am an American writing to a predominantly American and English-speaking European audience. Using Hijri dates in my OP would've been pointless and the opposite of "speaking clearly". Second, I think you need to go back and reread the OP. I never claimed the the numbers 9/11 held special significance to Muslims. I claimed that the date, that is the anniversary of the siege, was significant. Speaking of which your dates are wrong. The date would not have been announced as Ramadan 19, it would have been the 22nd or 23rd of Jumada depending on your time zone. Likewise we're not talking about "pre-modern Muslims" either we're talking about Muslims in the 21st century.
As to your question of "What exactly gave you that impression?"
These sorts of weirdly specific assumptions/misreadings described above coupled with a generally confrontational attitude are what gave me that impression.
You ask me why I think a Wahhabi or some other flavor of Sunni Revivalist would care about the Seige of Vienna and that's how I can tell that you've never actually talked to one and that your alleged "web search" must have been half-assed or non-existant because when given the opportunity to talk about this stuff it seems like half of them wont shut up.
First off, if my posts come across as confrontational or angry I apologize and will try to tone it down. My thought process wasn't "ha, I'm gonna nail him down on a potential minor mistake in a huge effortpost" but more like "huh, this sounds interesting but conflicts with my background knowledge (i.e. Muslim calendar vs Western ones), let's do a quick search to see if it checks out". FWIW, I upvoted and appreciated the original post.
But the Muslim anniversary would have been on December 5, 2001, because that's Ramadan 19, 1422 and the battle at the end of the Siege of Vienna was on September 11/12, 1683 Gregorian or Ramadan 19/20, 1094 Hijri, unless my date conversion is mistaken (see below). That's where I got skeptical: I understand that it's not about the numbers but about the anniversary, but using the calendar religious Muslims follow there is no anniversary to speak of on 9/11, 2001. If Muslims care about the anniversary (and I can buy that there are Muslims who do), I'd expect them to do so on wherever Ramadan 19 happens to fall on in a given Gregorian year.
You did already mention that it might be about sending a mutually understandable message and that does make sense. However, I'd still like to see more direct proof that this is a thing in these circles. The conversations you had with people on the ground are no doubt illustrative, but not accessible by me. I had simply hoped that there would be more material evidence out there to support that statement, something like a famous cleric writing a fatwa specifically referencing the Gregorian anniversary or something like that.
I'm using this website for conversion and it spits out the dates I mentioned above. I double-checked by typing "september 11 1683 in hijri" into Google and it concurs. 22nd and 23rd of Jumada[al-Thani/al-Akhirah probably] seem to be 9/11 2001. It's probably because the way I worded it was bad writing, but in that paragraph I was always talking about the date of the siege, not the terrorist attacks. Accordingly, the news I mentioned would be that of the defeat at Vienna, not of the Twin Towers.
That's a bit of a misread of what I meant, most likely due to clumsy writing on my part. It's not the idea that such people would care about the siege that I'm skeptical about, in fact I find such obsessions rather likely given other things we know about e.g. al-Qaeda in particular, it's the notion that they would do so under the label 9/11 instead of thinking about the date in their own native tradition, which given the above should be Ramadan 19 or 9/19 (unless I'm mistaken).
I did search for about 20 minutes and found several forum/stackoverflow-clone-for-history threads talking about the same idea, which is how I found the contributions by Lawrence and Hitchens as well as the CNN article. I don't speak Arabic and accordingly don't have unfiltered access to the ideas from that part of the world. If you have a link to some kind of source, Western or Middle Eastern, to share I'd genuinely appreciate it, I'm a sucker for these kind of minor historical anecdotes and connections.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link