5/12/2010 Readings: McNeil, “Special Report on the Arab World – Summer 2009”, & “Global Order & the Historical Structures of Dar as-Islam”

1. Summaries:

The “Special Report on the Arab World – Summer 2009” article discussed many different items concerning the Middle East. It started out by discussing how not much has changed in the Arab world when looking at the past 20 years. The government type and freedom have not changed much nor has what they rely on for their main economic income. There is still a lot of violence and disagreement between the countries in the Middle East along with the people of the different ethnic groups in the Middle East. The article discusses how George Bush forced or should I say attempted to force many of the Arab countries into democracy, which if anything, has only caused resistance to this idea. Although the idea of supporting other countries to become democratic governments, it has become clear that the change is going to have to come from the inside – and not be forced from the outside. The article also discusses many economic problems that the Arab countries face. The main one is that they have no other markets set up besides the oil market. Even given the fact that they greatly control the world oil market – this has definitely caused them many problems (ie the war in Iraq) because many countries are extremely interested in obtaining control of these fields. However, this control that they have has caused them to greatly rely on this market, which significantly backfires whenever the interest in this market decreases.

The “Global Order and the Historical Structures of Dar as-Islam” piece discussed three main principles that if stuck with, then the Muslim world could function as a unit. The author argues that these three principles would aid any global system to function with minimal interruption. The first principle is the idea of partial control. This principle really means that no one person or state should be in charge of a whole system. Bamyeh gives the example of Yemen how the state did not have unique control and knew this – and it worked! It becomes too easy for states to appear as though they are in control but too often decide between parties and govern by these decisions. This only pulls away from unity since one group has been chosen over another. The second principle given is free movement. This phrase has been applied more to goods and services, but not people. However the idea is for it to be people to be able to more freely as well – after all the market (business) is becoming much more globally focused, so people should be able to follow the things sold to other countries. The third principle is heteroglossia, or the existence of two or more voices representing different positions on the same issue. This principle can often be confused with diversity but Bamyeh distinguishes it by saying that heteroglossia is “where a single narrative imposes order, but not unity, on the variety of voices within it.”

The piece by McNeil mainly focused on explaining how global trading first started. It was written by someone with a different point of view than most Americans because the author was raised in Canada and grew up with pro-Canadian history classes. After he came to America, particularly Chicago, and learned the way we taught history, it became easier for him to gain a more universal understanding because he had been taught two different versions. McNeil goes on to discuss how things were before 1750, explaining the effects of European nationalism, and the changing forces politics has on our generation and how it has affected the world since the early 1900s.

2. What was interesting/what did you learn:

The thing I found to be most interesting from the “Special Report on the Arab World – Summer 2009” article was how it really showed how the United States has caused interruption and distraction when the goal was to encourage and push for democracy in Arab countries. I also found it to be really interesting that along with the political issues, the economic ones especially concerning the oil market, the growing populations, and the present world economy state. I find it so odd yet typical that from a monetary standpoint that a government would not pull from the money it makes from the oil market to create new methods of economic progress – especially when they know that the oil market will not last forever. I guess I am not surprised by it because it reminds me of the company I work at on co-op rotation – their fall back business is in repairs, yet when the new products are selling, no attempts at progression are made to better the repair side – even though it is known that this is what keeps the business alive in poorer economic conditions. I just cannot imagine though living in a society where the government does not strive to fix this problem and I would have no say in it! At least here, if I didn’t like the company, I could always go find another job.

The thing that I learned the most about from the “Global Order & the Historical Structures of Dar as-Islam” piece was what the term Heterglossia was and how the author compared it to the idea of diversity. Call me sheltered, but I had never heard of heterglossia before this piece and I found this to be really interesting. I would think that heterglossia and diversity were close to the same idea, but after carefully re-reading the comparison, I realize that I would have been wrong. I think it’s ironic that many Americans take pride in the fact that America is known for its diversity, but (according to this author) that would be the same thing in taking pride that we are proclaim disunity.

The thing I found to be most interesting from McNeil’s piece was that when McNeil came to America, he saw how biased some of his history classes had been in the past. I remembering growing up when I was in Spanish class in high school and hearing the name of the French-Indian war but from another country’s perspective – so of course it was not called the same thing. It had never before that point occurred to me that the names and more importantly the way we wrote/remember/teach history is the same as other countries.

3. Discussion Point:

The discussion point or question I would like to ask about the “Special Report on the Arab World – Summer 2009” article is about oil. Some people and some countries would literally kill to be in control of the oil market. Is this truly something to be desired though? For example, let’s say that the USA gained control of the oil market, what would stop other countries from attacking and trying to take over that land? I guess the real question that I want to ask is does the economic control of the oil market seem worth the curses or problems that could come with it? If the Arab world was not in control of this land (like the natural resources were located in another part of the globe) could/would other countries build up their other economic markets or purely rely on the oil market as the Arab countries have done?

The question I would like to ask with the “Global Order & the Historical Structures of Dar as-Islam” as inspiration is: does the principle of partial control apply not only to nations and government but to companies and other social groups as well?

The question I would like to ask with McNeil’s piece as inspiration is: does a country exist that could be completely self-sufficient in the future? By self-sufficient I mean they would not need to .trade or care about what all other countries were doing? Does such a country exist now?