Posts Tagged ‘crusaders’
Urban and warlike civilizations
Posted June 16, 2010
on:Lions and lionesses along the Fertile Crescent ancient Empires
Major civilizations built empires and cities along major rivers such as the Nile, Euphrates, Tiger, Indus (Pakistan), Ganges (India), and the Yellow River in China.
At the current rate of modernization and deforestations most of the aborigine tribes would disappear within a few decades. Many civilizations have vanished but a few have managed to survive precariously so far.
The best approach to explaining the succession of civilizations and Empires in the Fertile Crescent that raided and conquered the Near East civilizations such as in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria (Phoenicia, Canaan, Aram) is the analogy of survival among the lions and lionesses.
As a young lion attains two years, after being chased out of the clan, prowls the region for lionesses to mate and establish clans of their own. Old lions are attacked and displaced and the cubs are eaten and slaughtered by the new King to quickly attract the lioness in heat and then new progenitors are formed. The lioness fights valiantly to preserve her cubs but ends up giving up.
Since a lion lives to be 10 years old, on average, while the lioness can outlive him by 7 years and diffuse many progenitors of her owns then the survival of these mammal carnivores is mainly due to the survival of the lionesses. The lionesses chase and bring meat to the clan and care for the cubs.
Almost all the ancient civilizations in the Middle East, (the Nile River excluded because in Africa), were established along the Fertile Crescent of the main Rivers of Litany, Al Aassi, Euphrates and the Tiger (for example, the people inhabiting Lebanon, Syria, the southern part of Turkey, the Western part of Iran and Iraq).
The warrior Empires were Akkad, Babylon (Iraq), Assyria (Kurdestan of Iraq), Persia, Pharaonic Egypt, Hittite (Inland Turkey), Greece, Selucian, Roman, and later Byzantium, Sassanide, Arab (Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatemid), Seljuk, Crusaders, Mamelouks, and Ottomans.
The young male lions from emerging warrior Empires, during their conquests and expansion, reclaimed the civilized glory and achievements of the Near East people as their own proper. The Near East people were constantly behaving like the lionesses: they first fight valiantly for their cubs, and when they inevitably fail against the young lions then they mate with the conquerors after the invaders had tried to kill all their progenitors.
The latest archeological discoveries located developed urban centers around the borders of Syria and Turkey that were 10,000 years old; it is these centers that later established the Sumer Kingdom in southern Iraq around 5,000 years ago.
A few citizens of City-States like Byblos, Sidon and Tyr and much later Carthage burned down their cities and then set fire on themselves to avoid servitude and surrender. While these young lions were strutting and showing off in the regions and adapting to the new civilizations, it was the constant duty of the lionesses to chase and bring the meat to the table and care for the household: They fed and civilized the conquerors.
The Near East people were bringing the food to the tables and caring for the glamour and wants of the invaders whose sole job was to making war and killing on their war paths.
I read chapters from an Arabic book by Georges Masrou3a. Masrouaa asked an archeologist about the Achmoun Temple in Sidon “Saida”, built around 550 BC and he replied that it was a Persian design from King Kourush I period.
Masrouaa then asked the archeologist why he claimed that it is Persian and the latter said because that is what the archeology archives claim to be. Persia had no such Temple at Kourush’s time; even if the Persian King paid for it at the expense of the invaded people that should not be a basis to claim achievements of other civilizations.
This is the same story with the temples in Baalbak; the archeologists would claim that it was the work of the Romans since 200 BC but if this monument was of Roman style and glory then why the Romans failed to build something close to it in Rome or in Italy?
We have the same contentions for the impressive horse track and humongous amphitheater in Tyr (500 by 200 meters) that was built before 500 BC according to Herodotus; if this amphitheater was the work and style of the Romans then why did the Roman wait another three centuries to build their Coliseum? The same goes to the Jerusalem Temple even though the architects, builders and foramens and craftsmen and master workers were from Tyre during King Hiram or “Ahiram”.
Euclid, Zenon, Plotin, Tales, Homer, Pythagoras and scores of great thinkers were born and lived in our coastal City-States stretching from Palestine to Turkey such as Akka, Tyr, Sidon (called the eldest son of Canaan in the Bible), Beyrouth, Byblos, Ugarit, Antaqia, and so on and yet they were labeled as Greeks. Is it simply because we were under Greek dominion that our famous thinkers should be Greeks, even if they didn’t enjoy the privileges of Greek Athens City-State citizens?
Scores of our famous people were labeled Romans simply because we were under Roman hegemony. For example, the eminent legal masters, in the third century, Papinian and Olypian lived in Beyrouth (Beryt); Olympian is indeed the martyr of jurists because he adamantly refused to offer a legal opinion in favor of Emperor Caracala for the killing of his brother Jeita.
If this is the case then, why Jesus is to be simply a Jew and not Roman? St. Paul was actually a Roman citizen that he inherited from his father and great father and yet Paul is said to be simply a Jew. There is undoubtedly a systematic disinformation concerning the cultural heritage of the Near Eastern civilizations.
The Europeans purposely have chosen to start their civilization from Ancient Greek in 600 BC because they claimed Athens City-State to be democratic and they had to emulate the democratic system in Greek Athens.
Democracy was developed in the City-States of Byblos, Sidon, Tyr, Ugarit and Mary several centuries before Athens existed. These City-States had democracy within their city limits as Athens and Rome emulated later on because communication and transport were limited and the administration of such a complex democratic system was not feasible at a larger magnitude at the time. Thus, democracy was not translated to the colonies as Greek Athens also failed to do.
Theaters via their verbal communications in plays were the main medium for spreading democracy and the clashing of ideas of various opposition groups; plays created a citizen consciousness that is different from immediate civic consciousness of oratorical speeches. The Near Eastern civilizations were ahead of Athens several centuries in theater plays; Athens got the attention because a few of its written literatures were preserved and translated. For example, Aeschylus wrote over 90 works but only seven of his tragedies remained to prove the dynamics of Athens’ democratic system.
Although the City-States in the Levant developed commercial empires they never built theocratic warrior Empires because their citizens focused on civilized endeavors and opted in armed struggles to just defending their central Cities. Athens managed to defend its civilization outside its City limits and even asked the cooperation of other Greek City-States like Sparta and the famous Thebes that the Phoenicians had built centuries before Athens existed and which Alexander erased completely before launching his Asian campaign.
We can confirm that the Near East region was the bedrock of all the civilizations around the Mediterranean Sea in religion, philosophy, sciences, literature and arts.
Regardless of genetic sources, which are an amalgamation of many nations and which is not that important for the purpose of this article, anyone from current States in the Near East should take pride in their ancient civilizations and their original identity as the forefathers of contemporary modern democratic civilizations in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean Sea regions.
Note: Currently, we still have the ethnic Saamis (Norway and Finland), Inuits (Siberia, Alaska, and Canada), Ainous (Japan), Indians (USA and Canada), Zapotec (Mexico), Mosquitos (Nicaragua), Quiches (Guatemala), Cunas (Panama), Yanomamis and Guaranis (Brazil), Galibis and Akawaios (Guyana), Paez ans Guambianos (Colombia), Waoranis (Equator), Amueshas (Peru), Chimanes (Bolivia), Araucans (Chili), Touaregs and Bororos (Sahel in Northern Africa), Tigres (Ethiopia and Somalia), Dinkas (Sudan), Masais (Kenya and Tanzania), Pygmees (Zaire), Sans or Bushmen (Namibia and Botswana), Kalingas (Philippines), Kachins and Rohingas (Myanmar or Birmani), Hmongs (Laos), Santals and Gonds (India), Punans (Malaysia), Uzbeks and Tadjiks (Afghanistan), Aborigines (Australia), Maoris (New Zealand), Papous (New Guinea).
Modern Day Crusaders: The Ashkenazi Spearhead (April 26, 2009)
First, a brief ancient history for context:
The many waves of Crusading forces assembled in Medieval Europe with the avowed purpose of recapturing the Holy City of Jerusalem from the hands of the Muslim “Infidels” were mainly of trading nature: they were meant of securing the spice and perfume routes of India and the Far east Asia via Egypt.
The Crusaders failed to capture Egypt and the objective of investing money in order to securing cheaper spices and perfumes that were transported by land routes through Iran and Turkey did not generate any return and the campaigns stopped.
The maritime crusading campaigns restarted in the 17th centuries by Portugal and Spain.
India and the Far Eastern Asian sources of spices, perfume, and gold were colonized and maritime stronghold ports were established around Africa, India, Yemen, and the Persian/Arabia Sea. The British recaptured most of these colonies and “trading comptoirs” and secured the direct administration of Egypt.
Slightly Modern history:
Britain, France, and Russia realized that it is too costly to colonize the former empires of Iran and Turkey for no major returns since raw materials could be obtained relatively cheaply by maritime routes.
Their best strategy was to weaken these nations and nibble on their neighboring regions.
Russia got interested on the Caucasus triangle of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia.
France was interested in Syria and Lebanon.
Britain got mandate over Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine. And then oil was discovered in abundance in this region starting in southern Iran around 1906.
The First World War used mechanized troops; diesel engines were substituted to vapor engines as mechanical workhorse for industries. The USA got in the fray since 1920 for oil explorations in the Arabic peninsula and exhibited its colonial ambitions by conquering Cuba and the Philippines from Spain.
Modern history:
Britain enticed the Hashemite king of Mecca, supposedly from the same tribe of the Prophet Muhammad, to support the war effort against the Moslem Ottoman Empire. Britain quickly realized that the Near Eastern population would not mind a “nominal” nomadic king from Mecca but they were too independent and urban to relinquish their desires for autonomy.
Consequently, Britain and France decided that it would be too risky to allow the Near Eastern people to unite under a vital and critical Nation.
The alternative was found by using the Zionist movement as a spearhead to disrupting any unification in the region. The British Foreign Affairs Balfour issued in 1917 a declaration of intent favorable to the settlement of the Zionist movement in Palestine.
In the same year, Britain and France decided to split their mandates over the Near East.
Consequently, the Ashkenazi “Jews” of Central Europe, were encouraged to build agricultural colonies in Palestine in order to establish a “Jewish Homeland” with avowed purpose of re-capturing the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem.
The modern crusade of the western nations is cloaked in Jewish biblical claims to destabilize this strategic region.
Since 1920, the Ashkenazi Jews were directed by International Zionism to buy and settle Palestine and it was supported by the European governments of Britain and France.
The beginning of Nazi Germany persecutions of Jews in 1933 encouraged the European nations to transfer the Jews to Palestine in order not to alienate Nazi Germany and succumb to its demands for repatriation of the Ashkenazi “Jews” into concentration camps.
It does not mean that the plan to establishing a “Homeland” for the Ashkenazi Jews was inevitable or that the people in the Near East were not aware of the plan and its existential danger. The main troubles were:
First, this region had no credible institutions and lacked unified organizations to counter politically this harrowing plan;
Second, the surrounding empires of Turkey, Iran, and Egypt were struggling for survival and had no immediate interests in their backyard; and
Third, the mandate superpowers of Britain and France controlled and managed the region and its policies.
The people in the Near East are aware that the State of Israel is a western implant of the same kind of crusaders campaigns in the first millennia.
The Zionist ideology prevented the leadership in Israel in alleviating and changing this perception for over 60 years. There are indications that the USA and Europe comprehend that the game is over and are drawing plans for the counter immigration of the Ashkenazi to their original homelands.
The Sephardic Jews have practically nowhere to go and they will manage to integrate Palestine as they did for thousand of years.
It would be beneficial for the western nations to change their policies of “divide to dominate” in the Near East and start negotiating with the national resistance forces, even if they offer the image of religious resistance forces, because this is the most potent factor when secular conditions are weak.
The western nations need to negotiate with all resistances forces in the region as national resistance to a foreign implant so that the new emerging nation does not fall to the extremist conservative religious ideologies.
This is a long term fight of 20 years and the secular democratic forces in the Near East need to have an opportunity for a fighting chance.
Note: I am perfectly aware that many would use the dismissive “anti-semitism” cliché in emulation of the lazy media approach to hot issues. It is interesting to realize that effective and valuable communication is based on personal reflection with rational thinking as guiding rod.