Comments on: The war we have nearly forgotten http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/10/14/the-war-we-have-nearly-forgotten/ The independent newspaper of Washington University in St. Louis Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:42:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jerome Bauer http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/10/14/the-war-we-have-nearly-forgotten/#comment-2151 Jerome Bauer Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:44:09 +0000 http://www.studlife.com/?p=5754#comment-2151 Here is the 2004 and 2006 course description of "Fundamentalisms East and West," taught in the University College, 02, 04, 06: "Fundamentalist Christian. Islamic fundamentalist. Jewish fundamentalist. Fundamentalist Zoroastrian. Hindu fundamentalist. Fundamentalist Catholicism. Fundamentalist feminist. Fundamentalist anthropologist. Market fundamentalism. All these usages are attested. Why call someone a fundamentalist? Who call themselves fundamentalists? Should we all stop using the word? This is a course on the historical roots of religious fundamentalism, how it has changed over time, and contemporary understandings and misunderstandings of the term, from conservative Anglo-American Protestantism to the "War on Terror." My 2002 course description includes the following: "Is there really such a thing as "fundamentalism," or is this a modernist Protestant stereotype of conservative Protestants, reified and applied to the other religious traditions of the world? Should we all stop using this highly charged word, or does it, if carefully defined, have heuristic value as a comparative terrm?" Please see my Facebook Note, Fundamentalisms East and West: From Conservative Protestants to the War on Terror," http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=194935459828&ref=mf Here is the 2004 and 2006 course description of “Fundamentalisms East and West,” taught in the University College, 02, 04, 06:

“Fundamentalist Christian. Islamic fundamentalist.
Jewish fundamentalist. Fundamentalist Zoroastrian.
Hindu fundamentalist. Fundamentalist Catholicism.
Fundamentalist feminist. Fundamentalist anthropologist.
Market fundamentalism. All these usages are attested.
Why call someone a fundamentalist? Who call themselves
fundamentalists? Should we all stop using the word?
This is a course on the historical roots of religious
fundamentalism, how it has changed over time, and
contemporary understandings and misunderstandings
of the term, from conservative Anglo-American
Protestantism to the “War on Terror.”

My 2002 course description includes the following:

“Is there really such a thing as “fundamentalism,”
or is this a modernist Protestant stereotype of conservative
Protestants, reified and applied to the other religious
traditions of the world? Should we all stop using this
highly charged word, or does it, if carefully defined,
have heuristic value as a comparative terrm?”

Please see my Facebook Note, Fundamentalisms East and West: From Conservative Protestants to the War on Terror,” http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=194935459828&ref=mf

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Liz http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/10/14/the-war-we-have-nearly-forgotten/#comment-1541 Liz Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:19:50 +0000 http://www.studlife.com/?p=5754#comment-1541 "our struggle against Islamic fundamentalism is an essential fight to preserve and spread the values we cherish" As powerful as our Armed Forces are, they are a blunt instrument and they cannot fight an ideology. Nor can they spread democracy. Democracy spread at the point of spear (or a ballistic missile) is not democracy, it is tyranny. I agree wholeheartedly that any decision in either Iraq or Afghanistan should require a deep re-assessment of our responsibilities and our abilities (not to mention what we think "winning" will be). I for one would start with re-assessing the American belief that we need to wage a war on broad, intangible concepts and to "spread democracy". We should not construct this as "our struggle against Fundamentalist Islam." It is a pointless waste of time and our Armed Forces. We can and should work towards a stable Afghanistan (and Iraq), especially considering how destabilizing out past policies have been. Landmines, intimidation, lack of running water, rampant corruption, poverty, malnutrition, and illiteracy (and so on) are what we ultimately face in Afghanistan. Religion is just the rhetoric for power hungry men (and not just in Islam) use to mobilize a poor, hopeless, uneducated and frustrated people (and not just in Afghanistan). As long as we continue to act like this is a "clash of civilization" or "a struggle against Fundamentalist Islam" we miss the point and throw more fuel on the fire for men who would subvert religion to hide Machiavellian motives. “our struggle against Islamic fundamentalism is an essential fight to preserve and spread the values we cherish”
As powerful as our Armed Forces are, they are a blunt instrument and they cannot fight an ideology. Nor can they spread democracy. Democracy spread at the point of spear (or a ballistic missile) is not democracy, it is tyranny. I agree wholeheartedly that any decision in either Iraq or Afghanistan should require a deep re-assessment of our responsibilities and our abilities (not to mention what we think “winning” will be). I for one would start with re-assessing the American belief that we need to wage a war on broad, intangible concepts and to “spread democracy”. We should not construct this as “our struggle against Fundamentalist Islam.” It is a pointless waste of time and our Armed Forces. We can and should work towards a stable Afghanistan (and Iraq), especially considering how destabilizing out past policies have been. Landmines, intimidation, lack of running water, rampant corruption, poverty, malnutrition, and illiteracy (and so on) are what we ultimately face in Afghanistan. Religion is just the rhetoric for power hungry men (and not just in Islam) use to mobilize a poor, hopeless, uneducated and frustrated people (and not just in Afghanistan). As long as we continue to act like this is a “clash of civilization” or “a struggle against Fundamentalist Islam” we miss the point and throw more fuel on the fire for men who would subvert religion to hide Machiavellian motives.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>