Isn't Obama's Nobel Participation Prize a synecdoche of Obama's whole life, which has largely consisted of him getting handed goodies by white people just for showing up, just for being the SWPL black man raised by whites thousands of miles from any black community whom whites have been dreaming about since the first Sidney Poitier movie? Obamamania is essentially the acting out of 21st Century white self-infatuation.
What Obama contributes is a non-SWPL lack of irony, a shamelessness that allows him to wallow in this sea of self-congratulation. His genius is that he seems like the kind of self-aware modern white guy who couldn't, say, bring himself to actually accept the Nobel Prize because he gets the joke, but Obama doesn't turn it down. On a certain intellectual level, he grasps that everything that's happened to him over the last eight years is a joke, but on a more fundamental level, he doesn't care: he feels he deserves it.
What Obama contributes is a non-SWPL lack of irony, a shamelessness that allows him to wallow in this sea of self-congratulation. His genius is that he seems like the kind of self-aware modern white guy who couldn't, say, bring himself to actually accept the Nobel Prize because he gets the joke, but Obama doesn't turn it down. On a certain intellectual level, he grasps that everything that's happened to him over the last eight years is a joke, but on a more fundamental level, he doesn't care: he feels he deserves it.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
52 comments:
The perfect thing about it is that both givers and receiver are motivated by pure vanity. The main motive for giving the prize is pure vanity - what it says about them - and of course it takes pure vanity to accept a prize for doing nothing.
Precisely Mr. Sailer.
The Nobel Prize gained legitimacy and international acclaim by recognizing scientific advances. They assured that scientists would revere the prize by paying them handsomely (for scientists) should they win.
The public respects that and it has conferred social capital on the words, "Nobel Prize". However like all institutions that aren't inherently right-wing, the Nobel organization has become left-wing over time through infiltration. The social capital that has been built up is now used to advance leftism by awarding the Arafats, Gores, Carters, and Obamas.
Who is next, Bill Ayers in education or the people who run the freshman orientation week at the University of Virginia?******
*****Steve, that frosh orientation at the University of Virginia was one of the most truly digusting things Ive ever read about. They made the white males stand up and told them about how guilty they should feel for all the pain they have caused historically and how much they have hurt their fellow students, etc, etc. It lasted for a week. Students were divided into racial and sexual groups (Asians here, Muslims there, Blacks over there). It was pure psychological conditioning designed to instill a guilt complex on the white males and to radicalize everyone else against them. I cannot believe that story hasn't recieved more attention.
Obama's whole life is the conflation of attainment and achievement. His getting for being rather than doing is somehow seen by many as actual accomplishment--AA as a kind of meritocracy. Nice work if you can get it. Even nicer if you don't have to work to get it but your getting it is nevertheless seen as the result of all your hard work.
"Obamamania is essentially the acting out of 21st Century white self-infatuation."
I'd say rather that Obamamania is essentially white self-congratulation on the fact of their infatuation with him. They aren't glad they love him. They're proud that they're able to love him.
I don't think Europeans really care about the black thing very much. They don't have the legacy of slavery on their soil to feel guilty about, and even those who did nasty things in the colonies did them to people of a wide variety of hues.
My understanding is they feel about blacks more like we feel about Hispanics: being very open minded and welcoming to any that want to immigrate is the bien pensant thing to do, but there's no deep emotional resonance to it.
I really doubt they feel any visceral pleasure in honoring Obama as a black man. It's all about not his not being Bush.
Obamamania is essentially the acting out of 21st Century white self-infatuation.
Yup.
I don't think Europeans really care about the black thing very much. They don't have the legacy of slavery on their soil to feel guilty about, and even those who did nasty things in the colonies did them to people of a wide variety of hues.
Whites in the former slave states are over it as well.
I was at Nevada Smith's today watching some of the World Cup qualifiers. http://www.nevadasmiths.net/ Obama was definitely the best fan there. He drank more beer but yet stayed the wittiest and soberest, picked up more of the mere dozen chicks there, and was way cooler and multilingual then all the other dudes. Everyone loved him. He, like, brought everything together. He even called Argentina's second goal. Amazing. What a guy! Everyone brought him beers. It was so cool.
being rather than doing
You mean seeming rather than being.
The last time I frequented this blog, it was a fairly well-written, compelling website examining race and culture. I see it has now become just another conservative ranting blog with nothing of any worth to say. Maybe you should get a radio show, Sailer.
One of the Anonymous':
I really doubt they feel any visceral pleasure in honoring Obama as a black man. It's all about not his not being Bush.
Imagine that McCain or Hillary won. Neither is very much Bush. Can you, even for a second, imagine one of those getting the Prize? If not, what's the real difference? There, that's your answer.
Undoubtedly the Obama Nobel win crystallizes the notion that he has succeeded not because of what he's done, but because of what he is, or at least what he purports to represent.
And, yes, SWPLness is more about self-satisfaction, and intra-competition between bourgeois whites than it is to do with genuinely helping the people it clsims to care about.
However, this is not a new phenomena. SWPLness is merely Christianity for a secular world.
It has the same dynamic of guilt-forgiveness-redemption, the same possibilities for holier-than-thou rivalry that was at the heart of Christianity. Its two main spheres - anti-racism and environmentalism - are borne out of these instincts.
Obama is indeed the SWPL pope, and the presidency, and the Nobel award are simply the puffs of smoke above the Vatican to signal his ascension.
I don't think Europeans really care about the black thing very much.
Europe, including Scandanavia, is being overrun with surly 3rd world immigrants. Here's a human interest story about day-to-day life for firemen in Goteborg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXzqVK6uY8I
Could be Obama's Nobel had no purpose other than to quiet Scandanavia's 3rd world guests.
"*****Steve, that frosh orientation at the University of Virginia was one of the most truly digusting things Ive ever read about."
If you think that's bad, wait until they pledge!
Obama's "win" (he didn't even know he was competing) undermines the entire Nobel enterprise, as commenter "headache" pointed out elsewhere.
What credibility have the Nobel committees now? Their choices are suspect, even in science. Why? Well, would you trust the Central Committee of the Communist Party to award truly meritorious persons in any field? (analogy) The hideous screeches of Kabalevsky are of a piece with the theories of Lysenko.
As Barry's bombs burst over Afghanistan, killing men, women and children, we can all say "War is Peace." "Truth is a Lie." "Black is White." "Hate is Love."
It takes two to tango. You omitted to mention that the joke's also on the Norwegians.
I'll bet this is a broad phenomenon: You have a prize that really means something in its area of expertise, and you expand it to make political statements. For example, Grammys actually mean something in terms of musical albums. But when they're essentially evaluating social or political ideas, they have all the meaningfulness of a Sophomore bull session or a discussion of politics over beers at a bar. Not automatically wrong, just not something to especially pay attention to.
Something similar happens with the Nobel prizes--they really mean something in the sciences, but then you have the peace and literature prizes, which have an enormously different flavor and meaning.
What other examples are there of the same things, I wonder?
Ah, if only David Stove were still alive. He would say that today even the White House has become a sheltered workshop.
Too much psychoanalysis. Heck, I'd take the Peace Prize were it offered to me - I'm certainly more of an advocate for peace than BO and I could sure use the dough!
Maybe you should get a radio show, Sailer.
That's actually a good idea.
yeah, it's bad form for him to not decline the award. others have.
anyway, like i said last week in another post, there is something very wrong with white people. the nobel peace prize committee shows every symptom of terminal SWPL. nothing about this is barack obama's fault. if white liberals do not change their ways in the next, oh, two decades, european peoples around the world are going to be in irreversible long term trouble.
Your analysis of Obama's Nobel Prize emphasizes the racial aspect, but there are others. The Norwegians and Europeans in general are fighting American international influence, and by giving Obama the Peace Prize, they are making harder for him to take reinforce American military presence in Afganistan, to keep fighting in Iraq, to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. They are trying to influence Obama to follow the pacifist, defeatist, leftist policy of the European Union.
Kabalevsky was a very good composer. His style is best described as a very Romantic and soft-edged modernism; Shostakovich by way of Rachmaninoff without quite reaching the level of either. "Hideous screeches?" If anything, he was too fond of sentimental melodies. He wrote lots of good music for children too. But don't take my word for it, judge for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKGDphA1bVY - violin concerto, 2nd mvmt, Oistrakh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z37Z2pXU6Xo - Piano sonata, Yakov Zak
The Soviet "official" composers were all pretty damn good. I'd take Kabalevsky, Khachaturian, and Myaskovsky over most of their western contemporaries. Bashing Kabalevsky as "overly modernist" is like confusing Somerset Maugham with Wyndham Lewis.
HTFH.
-bushrod
"They don't have the legacy of slavery on their soil to feel guilty about"
europeans were slaves in europe for thousands of years. how does any european know for certain that none of their ancestors were not slaves?
the history of slavery in europe is literally 10 times as long as the history of the african slave trade. the total omission of this from any discussion about slavery is one of the dumbest things about justifying african grievances and demands.
like ALMOST ANY TOPIC in modern political discussion, it don't count if it happened to some white guys.
One thing about this blog: you KNOW that people here know and start from the assumption that this award to Obama is a joke and a farce. You don't have to re-invent that wheel... (I mean really--almost half the commenters on sites like the Wash Post try to claim that the award is correct. Sheesh!)
Please. Obama can't wait to cut and run and insure defeat of the US by the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan. As far as "bombs in Afghanistan" most of those are Taliban/AQ. ROE are so restrictive that Marines and soldiers cannot call in arty fire when ambushed. Lest civilians get hurt.
Obama's paleo critics and his SWPL backers who gave him the Nobel Prize share the same delusion -- that if we are just "nice" to people they won't attack us, and that the US is immune to being nuked. Steve's intellectual blind spot is just this -- Pakistan's nukes.
The Nobel was designed to push Obama into a retreat in Afghanistan and according to HotAir it is succeeding -- US Military and Intel sources are feeding journalists info that the Obama Admin is lying about "the moderate" Taliban and the consequences of a US defeat in Afghanistan.
Anonymous said...
"being rather than doing
You mean seeming rather than being."
No, I mean Obama being what he is (black in an SWPL way and left-wing) rather than actually doing something that would merit commendation. For example, he's often lauded for being the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, less often is mention made of the fact that, unlike others, he contributed no articles to it. He followed a similar path in Congress, if I'm not mistaken.
He manages to persuade people to elect or appoint him to a position and then he's lauded for his "accomplishments" without actually doing much besides burnishing his Obama image--that, I grant you, he does very well, even recovering from his all-too-frequent missteps with alarming aplomb.
The relationship between SWPL whites and Obama is very much like that of two doting parents and their only child. Every time he doo-doos in the potty, they clap. Everything he does is not only wonderful but the first, the most and the best.
An Obama Oscars sweep wouldn't surprise me.
Excellent. But isn_'t this a class thing as well. Everbody hates the niveau-riche, the pretty working class girl who marries rich. They/she also feel they deserve it, and give a hoot about any generosity.
Why should he refuse what he gets by an accident of birth. Did Ted kennedy ever suggest he didn't deserve it, or Rajiv Ghandi (though he clearly knew the downside as well), or Napoleon III or George W Bush? The fault is more on the part of people who push such power on people without thought.
David sez:
"Truth is a Lie."
Yeah, I second that!
Blacks like Obama and John McWhorter know what this is all about, and they know how to manipulate the system to get as much mileage out of white guilt or Jewish compassion as possible. Obama utilizes just enough blackness to dazzle and woo the white audience, reining it in before it gets too threatening for whitey. He balances blackness with intellectaulity and dignity. Of course, he plays it both ways. He's also aware of the fact that many blacks resent successful oreo blacks who try to act too white--like Colin Powell--, so Obama has practiced a lot before the mirror to sound a bit Martin Luther King-ish and rapperish(even if just a hint of it).
Jews, unlike gentile whites, feel little guilt regarding blacks but prefer to blacks as fellow 'noble victims' of evil white Christian history and civilization. (This is useful for Jewish power and moral narcissism.) But, there has been a lot of trouble between Jews and blacks. So, Jews have latched onto Obama and John McWhorter(who now writes for the New Republic, a Zionist rag).
So, Obama is like Chance but he leaves nothing to chance. And, he certainly knows how to cultivate the mind garden of gulliberal whites. Besides, he has the vast money, influence, and power of the liberal Jews to help him at every step of the way. Just like Jewish Hollywood wrote, produced, and directed the movies of Will Smith, the Liberal Jewish Machine wrote, produced, financed, and directed the blockbuster starring Barack "Will Smith" Obama.
SWPLness is merely Christianity for a secular world. It has the same dynamic of guilt-forgiveness-redemption, the same possibilities for holier-than-thou rivalry that was at the heart of Christianity.
Wrong! L.F. Celine put it best:
"The major Christian religions didn't try to gild the lily. They didn't attempt to dull your senses. They didn't run after voters. They displayed no desire to please. Nor to wiggle their asses at you. Man, barely out of the cradle, had it laid on the line. He was immediately brought up to date: "Now hear this you putrid little monster! You'll never be anything other than a total sh*t... you were born a sh*t... Are we getting through? We'd have thought it was obvious, right... However... perhaps, if you're lucky... really lucky... but it's unlikely... there's a minuscule chance you'll be forgiven for being such a revolting, excremental, unbelievable sh*t... and you'll earn that by smiling at all the sorrows, travails, tests, diverse miseries, and assorted tortures that will come your way during your existence-be it short or long. Show perfect humility. You're a slave! Life, you slob, is but a bitter cup. Don't tire yourself out or look for answers in the wrong place! Save your soul! We're already offering you a bargain. And when your calvary is finally gone-if you've been completely, totally honest, never bitched once in your life... you'll shrug off this earthly coil... no one is making book though... a little less putrid than when you were born... perhaps you'll go off into the night smelling sweeter than when you arrived at dawn. But don't get too worked up about it! That's the most a turd like you can hope for... Don't even begin to think about greater things to come!"
Now that's what I call talking! Real Church Father spiel! They really knew how to use their tools and didn't offer any illusions!
What Obama contributes is a non-SWPL lack of irony, a shamelessness that allows him to wallow in this sea of self-congratulation
Nothing new here for anybody familiar with black African culture.
Regarding slavery... it has occurred just about everywhere on the planet and in nearly every epoch.
Usually slaves were just whatever people happened to be conquered. For example, in Rome in its (ancient) heyday, they had slaves of every description... conquered people, from Gaul and every other place the Romans subdued. In other words, people who could be enslaved, because it was convenient to do so, were.
Only in America was there a dividing line of race between the slaves and their masters.
I would say we have to go back at least to Eisenhower or Truman, maybe even to Hoover or Coolidge, to find a President who would have been humble enough to turn down a big award he didn't deserve. (Possible exception: Ford.)
"On a certain intellectual level, he grasps that everything that's happened to him over the last eight years is a joke, but on a more fundamental level, he doesn't care: he feels he deserves it."
Anyone who disputes this or thinks Steve is just taking a cheap shot at Obama needs to READ STEVE'S BOOK (in which he explains how it is all about race and inheritance, in case you hadn't noticed).
Something similar happens with the Nobel prizes--they really mean something in the sciences, but then you have the peace and literature prizes, which have an enormously different flavor and meaning.
The science Nobels are hardly clean. The fellow who invented the MRI was denied a Nobel since, in his spare time, he was a young earth Creationist.
Good thing Isaac Newton wasn't around to see that!
The only reason anyone even heard of that dustup is because the fellow in question is an able self-promoter and was able to get broad coverage because of his religious sympathies (you can imagine how this played out in the Christian press).
I assume without proof that at least half of the non-Peace, non-Literature Nobels have equally fascinating stories that never get told. I won't say the 'hard' Nobels, since economics is included, and that isn't a science.
the history of slavery in europe is literally 10 times as long as the history of the african slave trade.
Perhaps, maybe, possibly - if Europeans were enslaving others 17,000 years ago. The history of the slave trade in Africa dates back to AD 300, at least. They traded slaves with most parts of the known world, including India and Arabia, and in every African kingdom of historical note slaves were a major item of trade. The people most thoroughly descended from slave traders are black Africans themselves, including African-Americans.
For those above who took issue with my claim that Europe doesn't have our legacy of black slavery, what I meant was, unlike Europe, we have ~10% of our present day population who are clearly identifiable as being descended from slaves, and who are not doing well socioeconomically to the present day. These two facts and the nature of the relationship between them is an enormous taboo in our society (c.f. James`Watson's lack of defenders from either former slave or non-former slave states).
I went to a graduate program with a bunch of Europeans in it, and maybe I'm wrong about my legacy of slavery theory, but empirically I can tell you they feel absolutely no taboo when it comes to talking about black people. Now Europeans do have their own ethinic taboos of course. I recall a Spaniard getting very sad, leaning in, and dropping his voice to a whisper as the thought crossed his mind that maybe Gypsies aren't completely blameless in all their troubles
But they'd all happily generalize about black people's faults. You'd be sitting with one in a public place, and they'd say in a loud conversational tone, with an innocent smile, some remark about black people's intelligence or work ethic that would make James Watson gasp. And then they'd just merrily go on talking, as if they'd said nothing at all. I've never seen anything like it from Americans.
Basically what I'm saying is: think how much the typical American SWPL person cares about Gypsies, and that's how much the typical European bien pensant cares about black people. Sure, an SWPL might enjoy saying "the correct term is Roma", but there's no emotional depth to it. If a Gypsy were elected president of Spain, they would not feel euphoric. They would probably not feel moved to give him a Grammy.
Remember, SWPL's like to think that they're just like Europeans, but they absolutely are not.
the history of slavery in europe is literally 10 times as long as the history of the african slave trade. the total omission of this from any discussion about slavery is one of the dumbest things about justifying african grievances and demands.
Correct. Look up the phrase, "Non Angli, sed angeli."
I would say we have to go back at least to Eisenhower or Truman, maybe even to Hoover or Coolidge, to find a President who would have been humble enough to turn down a big award he didn't deserve. (Possible exception: Ford.)
All idle speculation, obviously. But would any of them have been arrogant enough to accept, in Obama's shoes? I mean, if we're speculating, let's at least keep it sensible - would any of these guys have gotten a Nobel for being white and elected?
Why should he refuse what he gets by an accident of birth. Did Ted kennedy ever suggest he didn't deserve it, or Rajiv Ghandi (though he clearly knew the downside as well), or Napoleon III or George W Bush? The fault is more on the part of people who push such power on people without thought.
Just so we're clear, do you consider yourself an anti-racist? I mean, you're looking to add the privilege of black ancestry to the privileges of inheritance here; effectively making being born black equivalent to being born rich (never mind that the rich pay out of pocket for their end, we can deal with that later).
"Ah, if only David Stove were still alive. He would say that today even the White House has become a sheltered workshop."
No President Left Behind.
The Nobel was designed to push Obama into a retreat in Afghanistan and according to HotAir it is succeeding -- US Military and Intel sources are feeding journalists info that the Obama Admin is lying about "the moderate" Taliban and the consequences of a US defeat in Afghanistan.
I always sed the Germans should get out of Afghanistan NOW. The US will withdraw eventually and the Germans have nothing to gain from their presence there. They are perceived too passive by the US, whilst if they were to beef up the military and really start fighting again, the US/British establishment will scream that the Nazis are coming again.
The Sabre Dance "stinks to high heaven," according to Sviatoslav Richter in his notebooks. But then he always preferred La Mer.
"To each his own" - one would say, except that phrase is wassist now, I believe.
Me, I like the boogie-woogie the kids are listening to.
"Only in America was there a dividing line of race between the slaves and their masters."
There are some uniquenesses about the American situation--particularly the North American, but that isn't really it. The most singular thing about American slavery is that a significant number of people belonging to the slave-owner side, believed it was morally wrong and were willing to do something about it eventually. They were not the first society to have slaves of a different race, but they were the first to fight a war at least partially on behalf of a different race's welfare.
Different ethnicities and races have been battling it out and taking prisoners and slaves for centuries. Their concepts of differences among them could be as strong as what we observe between black and white. However, the American situation was a perfect storm. Very stark dichotomy of race--black/white, in a land where democracy and egalitarianism were established as state principles for almost the first time in history. The irony.
The white Americans, especially the northern Europeans, were not first slavers, and certainly not the worst, but they were the least suited for the role. Slavery was weird and precarious and illfitted to the social moraes of Christian Europeans. It is as if they were under some sort of trance. The northerners shook themselves awake. It was easier for them, as neither the climate, nor the Puritan mentality was compatible with Africans as slaves. However, the southerners went in in their trance.
The whole story is very, very strange. There had been no slavery on such a scale in western Europe. WTF did the idea that dragging a bunch of sub-Saharan Africans out of their jungles and mixing them with Europeans was a good idea? It was a worth a curse we are still living with.
Slavery was weird and precarious and illfitted to the social moraes of Christian Europeans.
"Slaves, be faithful to your masters," said St. Paul. It's in the New Testament, I can't rmember where just now.
There's also a passage in Titus -- again, I can't recall exactly where, approving of slavery.
Secular histories of the early Church say that the early Christian leaders condoned slavery in order to avoid friction with the Roman power elite.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," etc.
Slaves and freemen could be brothers in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Christianity's very traditional European stuff, innit?
"Whiskey said...
Please. Obama can't wait to cut and run and insure defeat of the US by the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan. As far as "bombs in Afghanistan" most of those are Taliban/AQ. ROE are so restrictive that Marines and soldiers cannot call in arty fire when ambushed. Lest civilians get hurt."
I can think of no better way of being defeated by the Afghanis than by staying there, waiting to be defeated.
And imagine that - we are enjoined from bringing artillery down on people who ostensibly are our allies - how nit-picky can you get? Why, any decent ally would be happy to have high-explosive death rain down on their kith and kin. After all, it's all for the cause........whatever that may be.
We don't fight it like it's an important war, because it isn't an important war. Not any longer. We muffed it. And the people there are not our allies (which explains why they don't act like our allies). Best thing we could do now is cut stick and leave.
And if Obama's Nobel door-prize convinces him to do it, then it would have been worth while.
The Europeans very much do have the legacy of slavery on their soil. The only real difference is numbers, but the Arabs were acting as slave brokers to the Europeans (especially Mooorish Spain) since the 9th century.
Whisky sez:
ROE are so restrictive that Marines and soldiers cannot call in arty fire when ambushed. Lest civilians get hurt."
Funny I was watching some vids on the fighting in Afghanistan. It seems to be reminiscent of the old Soviet siege there. The US soldiers spend all day hunkered down in their fire bases, continually pestered by Taliban gunmen hidden in the mountainsides. Every now and then an Apache gunship comes along to spray the mountainside with machine gun fire and rockets. On more level ground they seem to prefer using bombs dropped by low-flying planes. All of this contradicts Whisky's statement.
The impression I got was that the US soldiers are either too timid to move out of their bases and engage the Taliban in the brush, or are ordered to hold back lest more of them should die.
The old South African Defence Force in Angola was successful there because they fought guerilla style against the Soviet, Cuban and Angolan forces and the terror organizations (ANC and SWAPO). Even though most South Africans were conscripts, they did not have any qualms engaging the enemy in the brush and facing them down in fast-paced dirty and close up fighting. They typically moved a lot on foot, by vehicle and by air, keeping the pressure on the enemy and cutting the costs of the war. It seems the US soldiers are avoiding this scenario but that means they will be forever be pinned down in their expensive bases and lose the war for sure.
The impression I got was that the US soldiers are either too timid to move out of their bases ...
Headache, you are making a very bad impression.
David Davenport said...
Headache, you are making a very bad impression.
Why, coz I'm not impressed with all that US fire power?
Dave Davenport refers to the New Testament and says that Christianity didn’t seek to overthrow slavery. It’s a bit more complicated.
Initially, Christians were a marginalised group and were concerned to clarify that they weren’t seeking to overthrow the State.
When Christianity became the established religion in Europe, its influence began to ameliorate the conditions of slaves.
Eventually this led to the mutation of slaves into serfs. (By the way, can anyone point to the formal legal statute or act that abolished serfdom in England?)
The trouble with the European enslavement of Africans is that it was served by then-modern technology, drew on an almost unlimited pool of potential slaves, and was fuelled by an insatiable economic appetite
Catholic moralists were always troubled by modern slavery, and Evangelical Protestants (William Wilberforce et al) eventually secured its abolition in the British empire.
"The only real difference is numbers, but the Arabs were acting as slave brokers to the Europeans (especially Mooorish Spain) since the 9th century."
How much slavery the Arabs perpetrated in the Iberian peninsula? Actually a lot of the power-brokers during Muslim rule, (about 900 AD to 1492) who set up the universities and mosques, were Persians, not Arabs; the Persians had a much richer tradition of building, embellishing and studying, than did Arabs, but they were nonetheless in awe of the Arabic language, which the scholars called "a bottomless abyss." To the east, the Turkish Ottoman Empire expanded into southern Europe, circa 16 c. I think, and the Turks imposed a sort of quasi-slavery on the entire Christian population of the Balkan area. The Greeks resisted and are bitter enemies of Turks to this day, to wit, the isle of Cyprus with its Christian and Muslim sides, as separate as East and West Berlin used to be.
The Turks didn't really want people to convert to Islam, because then they would not have to pay taxes. They required "tribute" from Balkan villages in the form of young boys to serve in their armies. These were called Janissairies, and their descendants are aware to this day of their origins, all over the Middle East. I met one from Libya who looked something like Michael Keaton.
Post a Comment