Amara wrote (in response to my citing the Lionel Tiger article):
> This article set off my "DANGER: Huge-bias" Detector. He's an
> anthropologist ... *of course* there's a scientific theory for the
> (Western) newspaper (of which, gives always highly accurate information..
> err...) so that the article is "credible" for the readers ...
> The article so biased, that it's almost a cliche.
Amara, as you probably know I tend to favor "nature" over "nurture"
unless there is a very large amount of well-intended "nurture" to
overcome the "nature".
Now, yes, I know that anthropologists have been called into question
over some of their methods and assumptions over the last decade.
But that doesn't erase the fundamental issues -- by and large
men start wars, not women. By and large it is for power that
they do this. I know of no point for accumulating power unless
it is some misdirected survival instinct. Since we currently know,
unless technologies change, survival is inherently limited and the only
rational (genetic) outlet for that instinct is reproduction it seems
logical that males would be willing to risk survival (in war) for
reproductive opportunities. Now the *wierd* thing about Islamic
fundamentalism is that it seems the reproductive opportunities
are being promised in the afterlife rather than this life.
While I question the numbers of women who may be monopolized by
wealthy Arabs (Suadis skimming from the state treasury) which
would trickle down to contribute to a shortage of potential mates
for the average Arab on the street -- I do not doubt the problem of
the Arab "baby boom" producing large numbers of Arab males in the
15-30 yr. age group resulting in a large population of unemployed
males who are inherently "undesirable" to women seeking a mate that
can support a family.
You can challenge the article on:
a) There is no Arab "baby boom".
b) There is no unemployment problem in Islamic nations.
c) Young Arab women are likely to marry young unemployed Arab men.
Or perhaps other criteria I'm unable to imagine at present.
You should make your objections clear with regard to concrete
falures of the article -- not simply claiming it is "so biased".
Everything I have read seems to indicate that there is
a pool of perhaps 50+ million young Arab males whose prospects
for a family life are rather poor and who can be indoctrinated
into channeling basic instincts into violent channels. If you
can make the case that that statement is inaccurate, then please
do so. In addition to this situation there seem to be cases where
wealthy Arabs are being extorted into, or even "rationally" in their minds
willingly, providing financial support for the export of terrorism.
Natural drives combined with indoctrination at a young age
combined with financial means. This is not something to be
taken lightly. And the fact that it has been occurring for
the last 20+ years and is becoming increasingly sophisticated
argues it is not going to go away anytime soon.
If we do not understand the trends and underlying motivations
that are producing this situation then we will fail to adequately
prepare for and respond to it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT