Did you ever know a Sunni personally who was hurt by a Shia Muslim, I asked?
“No. Just rumors,” he admitted.
I find this very peculiar. These aren’t rumors. This is the state of play in Iraq.
If you are in the wrong side of town (which is any side that a Shia militia happens by) and you are recognized as Sunni, you arent harassed, youre just kidnapped and killed. This American Life had a segment which interviewed a guy whose father was killed by the Shia, and came close to being murdered himself at the Shia-located hospital that held the body. It’s a way of life now in Iraq, that if you are Sunni, you venture into any Shia locale at great peril.
I don’t have the reference handy, but I recently read an opinion piece that shia/sunni conflict is (a) relatively new and (b) mostly a product of western influence. That’s not to say that shia and sunni don’t have disagreements going all the way back to the death of the prophet, but rather that the actual battle-lines didn’t match the sectarian lines until just recently.
I doubt that he ever ventured into the wrong side of town. His American counterpart is likely an American salesman with a mediocre education who lives in a small town or exurb in the Midwest, has never encountered a Muslim, and who watches far too much Fox News and buys gold and prepper buckets from their sponsors.
I thought that the historical consensus was that Eichmann was actually a complete fucking Nazi monster, full on raving ideologue etc. Not that Arendt’s concept wasn’t correct but rather that she chose the wrong Nazi as the prime example.
Unsurprising if true. The conflict in Northern Ireland which ended up along Protestant/Catholic lines can be traced back to the wars between the rest of Ireland and Armagh as long as 1500 years ago, and the settlement of Scottish invaders. These took place long before Protestantism even existed.
Yes, since her book came out other historians have pointed out that not only was he an ideological supporter of fascism and a proponent of racial pseudoscience but that he also personally participated in cruel acts at the camps. She chose him for the example because, in addition to those things, he was also a very successful careerist who thought “I was just doing what the boss told me to the best of my abilities” would be excuse enough in court – a depressingly universal and banal figure in human history.
Let’s face it, institutions are full of people who see membership as conferring power to dominate others, with the protection of the authorities. Their ability to do actual evil probably depends on their organisational level rather than the size of their innate tendencies. In another world Eichmann would probably be issuing parking tickets five minutes before the expiry time and then claiming that was “Brent Council Time” - as actually happened in the UK. Means, motive, opportunity are all necessary.
Agreed. Since he lived in our world, he also lived in Germany at a time when the culture there greatly rewarded hard-working careerist authoritarian arseholes and gave them means, motive and opportunity.
Egalitarianism is knowing that everybody is “in power”. Governments aren’t run by superheroes, they are normal people who just occupy an office which people believe in.
In the context you are outlining I think that means making some new institutions. Making new government which competes against the entrenched one. If you offer more real solutions to problems, then people will prefer it. It seems unstable, but it has always been this way, with some people pushing us forward. Power is not based upon having lots of violent friends, it is based upon knowing what works and having the discipline to realize it,
