Gamal Abdel Nasser had a colorful—and controversial—history: helping depose King Farouk, modernizing Egypt, nationalizing the Suez Canal, cracking down brutally on the Muslim Brotherhood (one of whom tried to assassinate him), building the Aswan Dam, making war on Israel, giving women the right to vote, imposing strong censorship on Egypt, and finally, dying of a heart attack at 52. In other words, he did both good and bad things, but on the good side of the ledger is his defense of women’s rights.
I don’t know much about the talk from which this two-minute snippet comes, but it was apparently delivered in 1958. He’s recounting his attempts to negotiate with the Muslim Brotherhood in 1953, one of whose demands was that all Egyptian women be veiled. You can see both Nasser’s and the audience’s incredulity at this demand, which at the time seemed ridiculous. (Do note, however, that Nasser implies that men are in charge of whether or not their wives and daughters are veiled.)
How different things are now! If you don’t think veiling women in Egypt, Afghanistan, or Iran is a regressive trait, remember that this speech was given 58 years ago. Enlarge it to read the English subtitles.
(A “tarha” is a scarf that covers the head.)
Nasser’s charisma, which helped make him a wildly popular president, is quite evident from this clip.
sub
A friend of mine graduated from med school at the University of Cairo in 1961. It was then a high quality school, with men and women. Modern, liberal, open.
Use of past tense is noted.
That is a great piece. Maybe in this instance and on this subject we could say – Ah, the good old days. Someone in the audience yelled out – let him wear it, in reference to the leader of the brotherhood.
I read somewhere that when Nasser first discussed this in parliament, there were many who didn’t even know what a hijab was – perhaps that’s why he’s using the word “tarha” here instead.
Makes you wonder that if Nasser couldn’t extinguish radical Islam from his own country, what hope is there?
Why so defeatist?
Even Jefferson couldn’t bring liberty to all Americans — nor could Lincoln guarantee to everybody equal protection under the law.
The world’s not perfect. It never will be. But since when is that reasonable justification for despair?
b&
It’s an opening for a discussion, not a conclusion.
Nobody would despair by the fact that the world is not perfect. However, it seems to be becoming less and less perfect, and this interferes with positive thinking. Let me cite the remarkable blogger Nizo, a gay Palestinian residing in Canada:
“I am scared. Not only do I already feel culturally excluded here in the West, my own Arab world, a long time insurance policy in case I ever want to go back is being pulled from under my feet. Do not speak to me about the faraway lands of Andalusia and of the once-upon-a-time Muslim tolerance of minorities. Those days are long gone… Before you call me alarmist, how many of you have actually lived in the Arab world?… We used to have neighbors who were Palestinian like us and nominally Muslim just like we were nominally Christian… We used to live 2 floors apart and the visits were frequent… Then the day came when their daughter, who was a pre-teen at the time decided to wear a veil. Her mother, a working mother of three, who dressed as any Levantine woman of the time, was horrified. She fought her daughter tooth and nail. But the daughter prevailed and kept her head covering… The effects were corrosive. In the beginning, the veiled daughter would not join our family evenings since alcohol was served. To accommodate her, the Arak was kept in the cupboard… Later on, it was the mixing of men and women that bothered her, so the men came over to our living room and the women to theirs… Over the years, the mother started wearing the veil, first during Ramadan and later every day of the year. The father and son started attending Friday prayers at the local mosque. The girl is now married and living in Jordan, she wears a Niqab (full face covering). What once was a beautiful friendship between our families was reduced to mere exchanges of courtesies in the building’s elevator. And it all started with a simple piece of cloth…”
http://nizos.blogspot.bg/2015/04/the-saw-of-islam.html
A very sad story, and unfortunately one I’ve heard variations of before.
The process of modernization in the Middle East followed a similar pattern to the one that it had already followed in Europe.
Modern ideals of freedom and liberalism were first implemented in Europe by Napoleon who, like Nasser, had a controversial legacy: he gave equal rights to the Jews in France and supported the ideals of the Enlightenment but he also started wars which lead to thousands of deaths and acted like a petty dictator for most of his reign.
After Napoleon was defeated the reaction was a temporary (and tormented) return to the Ancien Regime. Counter-revolutionaries supported regressive ideas and violent reactionary movements like the “Cristeros”.
The authoritarian but socially progressive middle eastern regimes have now collapsed after the fall of Communism, for one reason or another.
The Assad regime is pretty much the last survivor of a long series of authoritarian communist/socialist/baathist regimes which tried to modernize their countries while they engage in violent repression of any dissent and in many illiberal actions.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (supported by the US) and Iran (now once again supported by Russia) have heavily invested money and propaganda in propping up Islamist groups which have fought against both the local authoritarian strongmen and “the West”.
Islamist groups have portrayed themselves as freedom fighters. They’ve become popular because of the authoritarian methods of their enemies, and because of the gradual resentment towards the West for a series of reasons.
What we’re witnessing in the last year is the violent reaction against modernity which one inspired the “Cristeros” or the Vandean rebellion.
The only difference is that many in the Western “left” have allied themselves or are sympathetic of the reactionary forces of regressive Islamism. The “West” has also allied itself with hotbeds of regressive barbarism like Saudi Arabia, the United Arabic Emirates, Qatar or Kuwait.
It’s well over 200 years since the US Constitution was written, and there have not only been changes to it as it’s been recognized that they’re needed, but there are plenty of people who are still objecting to the First Amendment. They insist the country is a Christian Nation. Ted Cruz is running on a platform of Dominionism.
My point is there will always be a range of views. The trick is not letting extremists take control or even seem to be more important than they are by dint of being the squeakiest wheel. Often, because of their strong views, they are extremely well organized – that’s how the Muslim Brotherhood were able to win the initial post-Mubarak election in Egypt even though their policies were not what most wanted.
This US had a built-in mechanism to change, but it doesn’t seem like most of these countries have such mechanisms.
I think they do. The advantage the US has over Egypt is that people, despite the problems with it, trust the rule of law. In any country where that is seen to be compromised (such as via corruption), there is a lack of stability and people tend to look to authoritarian leaders to fill the gap as a way to feel secure.
That’s the way I see it anyway – I’m open to other suggestions.
I’m not sure they do believe in the rule of law or at least not secular law. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a theocracy, even though they say they don’t.
That’s what I’m saying – they have the mechanism, but, for good reason, they feel unable to rely on it.
The Muslim Brotherhood was very well organized. When the Mubarak government was failing to do things like rubbish collection, they stepped in and did it. They were like a Mafia-type organisation looking after the neighbourhood. They were ready to take over in a way no other group was, and people believed they were a good choice because of it.
As always, most people don’t think of the consequences of giving power to extremists, whatever their religious, political, or ideological stripes. The communists seemed good to many in Russia after the Czars too.
One of the problems with the Muslim Brotherhood government is the secular constitution they promised wasn’t what was established. It’s why the military took over again. (Not that that’s an ideal situation either.)
I don’t think we can mention Nasser without talking about his attempts at Pan-Arabism. His moves in this direction stirred up hatred for minority cultures (like the Berbers) and led to wars (specifically with Israel) that caused nothing but death and destruction. It pushed him (and others) into the Soviet camp and helped military strong men gain or maintain power in several Arab nations. The people would have been better off if he had stated, “Frankly my dear, I’m going to go build a dam” and left it at that.
I didn’t put up this post to say that Nasser was an all-around good guy. I was specifically concentrating on the acceptability of the hijab back then.
We owe the regression to the USA funding of the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan against the Commumist goverment. After that regression and who was worried about women then?
I think that neither Egypt is much influenced by Afghanistan nor the world is much influenced by the USA.
The world isn’t much influenced by the USA? Have you seen a list of countries with US military installations or which live under US financial or military hegemony?
I do not see countries living under US financial or military hegemony. Instead, I see countries with overall developmental level corresponding to early Iron Age kicking the a*s of the USA, apologies for my language.
Try this:
http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-military-presence/
Added to which, New Zealand for example should certainly be included because, notwithstanding our well-known stoush with the US over our Nuclear Free legislation, New Zealand is, disgracefully, home to an electronic snooping station at Waihopai which montors every signal it can get its hands on and sends them all to the NSA.
Don’t even get me started on the financial side though that should possibly be retitled ‘Wall Street/multinational’ hegemony, backed up by bought-and-paid-for-by-lobbyists US government officialdom.
cr
From that article:
“Altogether, based on information contained in the DoD’s latest Base Structure Report (BSR), the US has bases in at least 74 countries and troops practically all over the world, ranging from thousands to just one in some countries (it could be a military attaché, for instance).”
This explains why Ukraine is indicated on the map; but if someone says that Ukraine is under US military domination, I’ll consider this a dark joke inappropriate in these hard times.
Yet the Ukraine was contemplating joining NATO.
But leaving out Ukraine, there are certainly more than enough countries dominated by the US, one way or another, to falsify your statement that “the world is [not] much influenced by the USA”. (Really? The Iraq invasion had no influence on the world? We wish…)
That doesn’t preclude that *some* iron-age countries may be kicking the USA’s ass, as you put it.
cr
My country is also there, and also we have US bases on our soil, I claim that we are not dominated by the USA in one way or another. These bases are a material expression of the obligation of the USA as our NATO ally, an obligation that I wonder for how long will persist.
Iraq is in my list of “countries at the level of early Iron Age that kicked the a*s of the USA”, not a country dominated by the USA. Others are Vietnam, Somalia and Afghanistan.
“Although”, not “also”.
Whether or not your country (Bulgaria??) is ‘dominated’ by the USA, I don’t think you can claim it is not ‘much influenced’ by the USA (your original statement).
To claim the world as a whole is not much influenced by the USA is an even more rash claim which I doubt anyone on this site would agree with.
‘Countries that kicked the ass of the USA’ – well, certainly Vietnam, but at what cost to themselves?
cr
While we have made a civilizational choice to be in the US camp – and so you are right to say that we are much influenced by the USA – the USA able to influence anyone no longer exists. This is my point. Time will be needed for the world to adapt to the new reality, and statesmen will often have the funny look of a person trying to take a seat that is no longer there.
Of course, Vietnam was not alone. From Wikipedia:
“Due to the urgency brought on by Operation Rolling Thunder, and until North Vietnamese missilemen could be trained, Soviet PVO SAM Anti-Aircraft Missile operator/instructors were quickly deployed to North Vietnam in 1965, and through 1966 were responsible for downing approximately 48 US aircraft during the course of defending North Vietnam.”
So, to me, the Vietnam War reminds an episode at the end of Adams’ “Life, Universe and Everything” where a forest dweller complains of two hostile powers that always come to fight out their disagreements in his forest, making his people collateral damage.
However, the contribution of the USSR and China in the Vietnam War is little known among the public. Somehow, the public also forgot all Vietnamese who did not want to live in a crazy communist dictatorship and formed a massive refugee wave when the USA lost. The dominant tale is about a heroic little nation defending its independence about the big bad imperialistic USA. Such tales, even if very different from the truth, are very important because they determine future events. This view not only contributed to losing the war but also doomed subsequent wars by automatically making the USA/West the bad guys and the other side the good guys.
“a forest dweller complains of two hostile powers that always come to fight out their disagreements in his forest, making his people collateral damage.”
I take the point, but that was never in LTUAE. I think you mean the end of Restaurant at the End of The Universe.
And it wasn’t hostile powers, it was the pax of the Golgafrincham Ark B, who adopted the leaf as their unit of currency, so by burning the forests their personal holdings became worth much more. Sort of reverse inflation. And the forest dwellers didn’t complain, they just died out.
But it is noticeable the the USSR spread communism, and the USA fought it, always by destroying someone else’s country.
cr
“The USSR spread communism, and the USA fought it, always by destroying someone else’s country.”
Well, we should probably praise the Soviets in this respect – they destroyed their own country first :-).
What is wrong with western liberals – is it the metaphysical/ideology cum religious righteousness elements that can b made out of philosophy because we are so addicted to making an moral tribe that is right Regardless of individual circumstances where we (especially men) can feel dominant all the time. Its always men that make these grand philosophies (or even the realist assumption that war can be rational and absolute global control is both possible and rational) ????
The US has been aggressive and no angel but for whatevers sake the USSR wanted to be a global power ditto Maoist china. Ive said elsewhere that the freedoms in Afghanistan 50 years ago were always going to be transitory – a pashtun king educated, of course in the west thought this was a good way forward and this is what prevailed in Kabul on the surface at least – accounts from a western woman married to (and eventually escaping from) her Afghan husband at that time reveal otherwise. Even that started being unwound by the kings successor, but then the Soviet puppet who supplanted the Pashtun rule instituted a more secular order of things that sparked massive violent resistance – which he brutally suppressed with soviet help. Even if when the soviets invaded, the mujahaddin had been defeated (i.e. no US or Saudi help)and secularism prevailed and the Soviets started pushing thru to Baluchistan and their much desired port on the Arabian sea – its hard to imagine that they would not have been eventually overwhelmed amongst much bloodshed. The Afghans have resisted invasion after invasion over several thousand years and retained the religion. Moreover Islam goes after whatever power is perceived most dominant as it considers itself the natural sovereign of the world hence attacks by Afghan Mullah Omar on WTC.
China has now accomplished what the USSR couldn’t – a highway from its territory to port on the Arabian Sea in Pakistan. China announced about 10 years ago it wants to build military bases on islands or atolls, real or created, to control the pacific in 3 rings – one close to it in China sea (which its just about completed militarily occupying) another on the other side of Japan and then another ring close to the West coast of the Americas. China has achieved great things since Mao but its still one of the most unequal societies around – there are plenty of examples for this – far more unequal than the US. Also thoroughly corrupt and racist again if you look around you will find plenty of references. Many Han Chinese actually believe they evolved separately from the rest of humanity and never came out of Africa.
Of course the West has not been wonderful to China in the past (I’m thinking British in 19thC) Hopefully Chinese intentions are OK but looking at history the west is NOT the only culture/nations to have tried in a concerted fashion to dominate or exploit others. Every civilisation and almost every society has done this and it has happened thru history. Even if u look at Africa (John Reader, Africa, Biography of a Continent) Europeans never captured African slaves and were never paid for actually doing so – only other Africans and sometimes Arabs did that.
Life is not a grand narrative any more than evolution leads to progress – its messy and its fragile. There were some extremely good things that modern science enables us to escape traditionalist patterns of domination which without advanced science providing food security, health security so infants 0-5 don’t die at ridiculous rate mandating even more births, health security reducing general mortality and boosting overall productivity, and finally control of rate of reproduction from contraception (most recent) You get
1. dichotomous gender roles and subordination of women. All society types
2. Acceptance of groups which have absolute authority in return for moderation of some excesses by those (usually hereditary) individuals and groups. Religion usually plays a key role in this. Occurs all types societies
3. (in agricultural and post agricultural societies) class stratification. Related to 2.
… I believe its a male characteristic to prefer some grand identity that fixates on historical injustices of their (or some other) ethnic or national group real or imagined, or on their dissatisfaction with their lot, or class grievances etc to propose some imagined justice where only they are right – an absolute ideal which ignores actual constraints and means they are always right no matter what happens. The world doesnt work according to the ideal so you can always claim that the group you say are in absolute power (or your preferred reformers) didn’t behave according to the ideal in some particular.
I knew the hijab was a retrogressive sign of repression of women, but I hadn’t realized how laughable the concept had been more than 50 years ago. The video is a very good reminder of what can happen to *any* society when fundamentalism becomes the norm rather than the exception. An apt reminder to us all to be on guard against emerging fundamentalism.
“how laughable the concept had been more than 50 years ago”
Laughable to a small group of elites.
Judging from the crowd it’s not that small. 🙂
Fifty thousand would be small.
I just went Googling for pics of Egyptians in the 50’s and Alnitak is right, the hijab would have been considered laughable by most Egyptians then. Besides which, Nasser was presumably being broadcast, I doubt he’d be making jokes on the subject if he didn’t have the majority of listeners with him.
Try e.g. this:
http://egyptianstreets.com/2014/04/05/egypts-golden-years-in-23-vintage-photos/
The situation today is just tragic. Still better there than bloody Saudi Arabia, though.
cr
Nasser was a semi-dictator and likely could make jokes about whatever he wanted. And pictures only show what some people did, not what most people believed.
Seriously, you’d need a poll to even begin talking about this subject with objective data. It seems unlikely to me that you’d see conservative Islam triumphant today without some reservoir of sympathy for the point of view in the supposed liberal past.
Semi-dictators don’t get into power, or stay there, by pissing off the majority of people.
And all the photos in the link I posted and any other links you care to Google? Are they no evidence of anything?
We *know* there was a reservoir of sympathy, else why would Nasser have bothered to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood? Just like we know there’s a reservoir of sympathy for fundie Xtianity in the US. That certainly doesn’t indicate they were in the majority.
Incidentally, the link I posted suggested much of the Islamisation came from returning Egyptians who had been working long-term in Saudi Arabia – yet another indication that Saudi Arabia poisons everything.
cr
And if we look at the situation in the Iran and Afghanistan also of that time period this would further seem to undermine Sam Harris’ monocausal attribution of today’s Islamism almost entirely to the text of the Koran and strengthen Omer Aziz’s contention that it is all quite a bit more complicated and politics play a much larger role than Harris, with his disinterest in local and geopolitics, will ever be able or willing to grasp.
I don’t know enough to judge whether you characterised Sam Harris accurately, but I do agree that there’s far more than ‘just the Koran’ involved. If for no other reason than, the Koran has been around for a thousand years, the Bible for rather longer, but the behaviour of Muslims, Christians and others has fluctuated wildly from century to century. If it was just controlled by their holy books this wouldn’t have happened.
cr
I am puzzled by the implications of such early dates for the origin of life. If it happened so early in earth’s history, life must be very easy to evolve, under the right conditions. Yet if that were the case, shouldn’t we expect multiple independent lineages and chemistries, originating over time in various isolated microhabitats?
Oops, wrong thread…
“making war on Israel”
If you are referring to the Six-Day War of 1967, it’s not obvious that Egypt started that war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
And of course Egypt had been attacked by Britain, France and Israel in 1956.
This nutjob was the Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptians finally had to hang him to shut him up. He spent some time in the States as I recall.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwiN9eGHtrbMAhUB0xQKHUn8AysQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fintheshadeofthequran.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F09%2F22%2Fabolishing-man-made-laws%2F&psig=AFQjCNGBxerUQiRn088qlluagxqI7O-PhQ&ust=1462107762896014
Followed the link but there wasn’t much to see. I didn’t browse further.
I’m opposed to capital punishment but if I was going to make an exemption for anybody, it would be fundamentalist religious leaders.
What worries me more is, having clicked on that link, I’m probably on some NSA/TSA list by now. The worry being mitigated only slightly by the thought that, if I’m not already on all their lists, they must be slipping…
cr
(sigh)
That was, as always, a reply to Mike at #9
WP…!
cr