tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post4611692945387804799..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Imperial collapse and cratering trust: the former Ottoman Empire, and Italyagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-747399882797983712021-07-25T02:30:49.944-04:002021-07-25T02:30:49.944-04:00This fool thinks the Saudis came from the Hejaz an...This fool thinks the Saudis came from the Hejaz and not the Najd! xD<br /><br />Take a look at the maps of the expanding Saudi state since the late 1700s, when the Arabian desert tribes had become encircled by the Ottomans on all sides (the Fertile Crescent, the eastern Arabian peninsula on the Persian Gulf, and yes, down into the Hejaz).<br /><br />The Saudis were so instrumental in destroying the Ottoman Empire, before and during WWI, that the other Arabic-speaking nations adopted the "Arab" identity. They were following the lead of the Arabians, after seeing them whoop the Ottomans and set the other Arabic / Semitic speakers free.<br /><br />That's why they all have / had names like the Arab Republic of Syria -- their own national identity, plus a tribute to their (Saudi) Arabian leaders against the Ottoman Empire.<br /><br />The Saudis have obviously run out of asabiya by this point, and are about as decadent and moribund as we Americans are. They enjoyed over 200 years of expansion, though -- pretty good for desert tribesmen.<br /><br />And therefore the other Arabic speakers are less and less likely to emphasize their "Arab" identity. They're Syrian or Iraqi, not "Syrian Arabs" or "Iraqi Arabs". Saudis are not leaders anymore, so nobody wants to follow them or pay them tribute.<br /><br />Only diaspora members of those nations still use the term Arab -- but it's not as a tribute to the Saudis (in their mutual rebellion against the Ottomans). It's just a catch-all ethnic term in their adoptive countries.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-82044883546789636702021-07-25T01:12:04.418-04:002021-07-25T01:12:04.418-04:00Saudi Arabia was not a frontier independent of &am...Saudi Arabia was not a frontier independent of & hostile to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans actually conquered Mecca & Medina. And the first time a Saudi state sprang up, the Ottomans smashed it. That does make it comparable to Russia under the Mongols, but not Iran. Speaking of which, Kemalist Turkey seems much closer to Iran in being a functional nationalist state than Saudi Arabia, which just has a lot of oil money. You don't hear of Saudi nuclear scientists being assassinated... because there are no Saudi nuclear scientists. Guest workers do all the actual work in the Gulf States, and they won't be doing anything in S.A. when the oil money runs out.<br /><br />"Italian unification only took place after centuries of lying at the meta-ethnic frontier with several large expansionist empires — Spain, France, and Austria"<br />That doesn't qualify as a "meta-ethnic frontier". Italian isn't that different a language from fellow Romance languages Spanish & French, and those are all Catholic countries.<br /><br />Shouldn't the southern Italian experience under Islamic rule have primed them for better things, a la Spanish reconquista?TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.com