One of the most personally challenging concepts I have come across is that of cause and effect, and to what extent you can reasonably apply it. From a purely scientific perspective, for example - X reacts with Y to form Z, which reacts with A but quickly decomposes into B. That is a series of logical and analytical causes and effects.
But when we consider events that are linked, but in a somewhat more abstract way and over a longer period of time, a dilemma arises.
I struggle with this when it comes to historical events - how far does one event cause another, and can one event be responsible for another event far into the future. An example for historical events leading to another can be seen in 20th and early 21st century major world events. So we can start with Gavrilo Princip shooting Franz Ferdinand, > World War One > Versailles > World War Two > Cold War > 9/11 and the War on Terror. Is it right to blame Princip for the War on Terror? Can we attribute the events of the Cold War to the Treaty of Versailles?
It is a troubling dilemma. If we are willing to accept that one event is contingent on the one before it, then we create this infinite chain of contingent events, which can't be right, surely? An alternative interpretation of the problem however, is to address the 'causes' of each event. All these events were not solely caused by the cause noted, and in some cases it is arguable the event would have happened anyway had the cause not occurred.
Firstly, lets look at Princip shooting dead the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, widely attributed as the event that triggered the first world war, but we have to look at the wider context. The first world war can best be described as various different wars occurring for different reasons that occurred in common areas. Yes, Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia as Princip's actions gave a justification, but it also meant war with Russia. The Germans wanted to fight Russia before they had become too strong to defeat - as well as being Austria-Hungary's ally. France went to war with Germany because they were allied with Russia, and Britain entered the war because of the German trespass of Belgium. This complex series of alliances and motives for war shows that Europe was primed and ready for conflict, and Princip's shot was, merely, a trigger for this conflict that was destined to happen anyway, as soon as another justification was found.
We can also look at why the Cold War began - to some extent caused by the Yalta conference and division of Europe, but primarily due to the two largest powers in the world emerging with deeply opposing ideology - capitalist liberal democracy in the west, and totalitarian communism in the east. So if we follow this idea of cause and effect, we can apply the failure of Operation Barbarossa, and the failure for a decisive Axis victory in the west and Africa. And what caused this?
This thought process it abrasively logical. The issue is that it ultimately reaches a point where a minute action - one soldier's death - apparently caused the Cold War. For this reason, it is troubling to look at history as a series of causes and effects.
Something will always be affected by something else, no matter how small - the snowflake is responsible for the avalanche.
So, we need to look at individual events and the events surrounding it. Yes, it must be recognised that all of history is interconnected, but as far as understanding why an event occurred, the only productive measure to take is to look at what surrounds an event, and work from its context - not from a cause and effect basis.
Friday, 21 October 2016
Saturday, 1 October 2016
Life in a Glasshouse
After the first world war, the Ottoman Empire finally ceased to exist. A strong Arab revolt began to swell in the middle east and former Ottoman territories. When it came to sit down and carve the region up, however, the independence movements fell flat. In fact, very few territories in the middle east had independence. Syria, Lebanon and some south-eastern Turkish areas went to the French, and Britain had control of Mesopotamia (Iraq), and Palestine & Trans-Jordan, which would eventually become Israel and Jordan.
But when you look at a map of the middle east after its division, and compare it to the map of Europe from the same time, something appears remarkably different.
These are borders which were drawn solely in the interest of the empires they used to belong to, not the inhabitants of the regions. Back in the 19th Century, when Goldie travelled down the River Niger signing deals with local tribe leaders, he didn't consider the effect it would have when they were all made into one big country under British rule. Just look at what happened in the territory formerly known as Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The different parts of the nation had vastly different needs and extremely different economies. Rhodesia had a signigicant and growing European population, but Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and Nyasaland (now Malawi) had extremely small populations of Europeans, which was a cause for racial tension until the state's dissolution.
The carving up of the middle east after the first world war can generally be considered as one of the worst long term plans emerging from the war, along with the League of Nations. The region was partitioned with little regard to the people's culture and how they live their lives, and largely in the economic interests of the Empire. The Kurdish still today live in a position of purgatory. The division of Israel and Palestine caused horrible conflict in the region and still does today within the nation, with no solution appearing to be sustainable.
Today, the region is still destabilised. You can make an argument that it was caused by the Iraq War, which itself was caused by 9/11. The issue is that you can go as far back as you like looking for a root cause, but that itself is a flawed approach. Today, culture wars still exist in the region, be it Turkey's current war on secularism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the Syrian Civil War. It's difficult to see a way out. As Dan Carlin puts it, the world seems to be in self destruct mode, and has been for the last century.
But from this it's important to remember that people are different. The Culture War in America is one of conservative values vs liberal values. When we look at that nation's current political state, there is certainly a worrying picture. More people than ever are voting out of distaste than desire. The public are largely choosing, in their minds, the lesser of two evils. Donald Trump's potential reference to an assassination of Hillary Clinton was a worrying moment. Not only for security concerns and expressions of violence. It showed a very basic intolerance. An intolerance of democracy and an intolerance of another culture. Interestingly, liberals are the ones who have grappled with democracy far more than conservatives, as can be seen in the UK's exit from the European Union. Economists, business leaders, and leading civil servants have all warned against brexit, but the people chose to leave, So what does that mean for the liberal? If it does more harm than good, are they justified in actions that fly in the face of democracy? But then how can these champions of freedom claim their people are free?
It is a troubling dilemma. And it may be wishful thinking, but we need to remember that we are more similar than we may seem at first. The most important part of a good and free world is tolerance. Tolerance of ignorance and of malevolence. Tolerance of ingenuity and brilliance. Once tolerance is out of the window, everything that is just follows. It is wishful thinking that we can simply tolerate others, because some of us can't. Then what? Do we tolerate the intolerant? The world around us is clearly fragile, and this is a question that will stop waiting for us to answer it soon.
But when you look at a map of the middle east after its division, and compare it to the map of Europe from the same time, something appears remarkably different.
The borders are almost entirely straight in the middle east. And this isn't just a middle eastern thing. It's an empire thing.
The borders of some nations in Africa are similarly straight. Look at the borders of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Namibia and Angola.
These are borders which were drawn solely in the interest of the empires they used to belong to, not the inhabitants of the regions. Back in the 19th Century, when Goldie travelled down the River Niger signing deals with local tribe leaders, he didn't consider the effect it would have when they were all made into one big country under British rule. Just look at what happened in the territory formerly known as Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The different parts of the nation had vastly different needs and extremely different economies. Rhodesia had a signigicant and growing European population, but Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and Nyasaland (now Malawi) had extremely small populations of Europeans, which was a cause for racial tension until the state's dissolution.
The carving up of the middle east after the first world war can generally be considered as one of the worst long term plans emerging from the war, along with the League of Nations. The region was partitioned with little regard to the people's culture and how they live their lives, and largely in the economic interests of the Empire. The Kurdish still today live in a position of purgatory. The division of Israel and Palestine caused horrible conflict in the region and still does today within the nation, with no solution appearing to be sustainable.
Today, the region is still destabilised. You can make an argument that it was caused by the Iraq War, which itself was caused by 9/11. The issue is that you can go as far back as you like looking for a root cause, but that itself is a flawed approach. Today, culture wars still exist in the region, be it Turkey's current war on secularism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the Syrian Civil War. It's difficult to see a way out. As Dan Carlin puts it, the world seems to be in self destruct mode, and has been for the last century.
But from this it's important to remember that people are different. The Culture War in America is one of conservative values vs liberal values. When we look at that nation's current political state, there is certainly a worrying picture. More people than ever are voting out of distaste than desire. The public are largely choosing, in their minds, the lesser of two evils. Donald Trump's potential reference to an assassination of Hillary Clinton was a worrying moment. Not only for security concerns and expressions of violence. It showed a very basic intolerance. An intolerance of democracy and an intolerance of another culture. Interestingly, liberals are the ones who have grappled with democracy far more than conservatives, as can be seen in the UK's exit from the European Union. Economists, business leaders, and leading civil servants have all warned against brexit, but the people chose to leave, So what does that mean for the liberal? If it does more harm than good, are they justified in actions that fly in the face of democracy? But then how can these champions of freedom claim their people are free?
It is a troubling dilemma. And it may be wishful thinking, but we need to remember that we are more similar than we may seem at first. The most important part of a good and free world is tolerance. Tolerance of ignorance and of malevolence. Tolerance of ingenuity and brilliance. Once tolerance is out of the window, everything that is just follows. It is wishful thinking that we can simply tolerate others, because some of us can't. Then what? Do we tolerate the intolerant? The world around us is clearly fragile, and this is a question that will stop waiting for us to answer it soon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)