posted
First of all, do you or have you ever heard of them and why are they Very Important of late? I was completely ignorant of them until I read December's National Geographic. And I kind of felt betrayed by the general media, that I *didn't* already know about them.
posted
Dagonee is on the right track. Before the article I didn't even know that much. I'll go into my Readers Digest version of the National Geographic article in a bit, but I'd like more general comments first to gauge what the Hatrack audience knows...
posted
They were kind of the ruling class of Afghanistan before the invasion, weren't they? A disproportionate number of them were Taliban, right?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the rugby team that my uncle plays on. They get drunk on Tuesday nights and usually end up fighting each other in the Walmart parking lot.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Taliban are ethnically Pashtun... I seem to remember that they came from Turkey or Pakistan or somesuch...
They are the dominant group in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't describe them as 'tribal' for all the connotations it implies.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I thought it was a rhetorical question.
Major ethnic group in Afghanistan, spreading eastwards into Pakistan and I believe into India as well (maybe just Kashmir?). Sometimes rendered Pushtun and once upon a time referred to as the Pathan. The Pushtun speak Pushtu, which is a language in the same family as Persian.
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tribal implies many more things than tracing of descent, describing them as a patriarchal ethnic group is probably more descriptive than just tribal.
I guess I'm just sensitive because I spend a lot of time learning about Africa, where tribal identities are often simplistic and misleading.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I strongly encourage everyone to read "Tracking the Ghost of bin Laden -in the land of the Pashtun" in December's National Geographic. They truly address the topic of these people in a "geography" fashion, and it seems very apolitical to my reading.
It does *not* discuss any right or wrong of the US's actions. There is a related article on gold, archeological artifacts that does discuss some corruption in Afghanistan.
What I gleaned from the article that is *extremely* important and yet not truly articulated well in the mainstream media IMO is the culture of "sanctuary" that is part of the Pashtun belief system. I learned more in this single paragraph which I quote here than anywhere on any network TV (maybe I'm not watching network TV enough and they have covered this, but it certainly isn't a frequent topic.)
quote: Even more forbidding than the rocks and snow are the locals, a bewildering array of tribes and clans, known colectively as the Pashtun, who number more than 25 million and are sometimes referred to as the Pakhtun, or Pathan. Living on both sides of the [Afghanistan/Pakistan]border the Pastun share a language (Pashtu), a love of guns and jokes, a deep suspicion of oustiders, a passion for the green chewing tobacco called naswar, and a belief in a strict and ancient code of honor, called Pashtunwali. One tenet of this code -- nanawateh, or sanctuary-- is particularly vexing to bin Laden's hunters. It means that every Pashtun is duty bound to help anyone who comes knocking at his door seeking refuge, even if it's his worst enemy. A Pashtun is expected to give his life defending a guest, and many have done so.
Later on, this quote (only doing small excerpts so as not to get in copyright trouble):
quote:The Pashtun may be the most ungovernable people on Earth. They are divided into dozens of tribes and hundreds of clans, which are usually at war with each other. The presence of an invader (even a pair of journalists from National Geographic) unites teh tribesmen just long enough to drive out the interlopers. Then they go back to shooting at each other. The only time the Pashtun are at peace with themselves, it is said, is when they are at war.
In the tribal areas, the typical Pashstun home is built like a fortress, with high watchtowers and 20-foot walls. And no self-respecting Pashtun would be without his personal armory. A powerful household might have an antiaircraft gun mounted in the watchtower, a mortar or two, a .50-caliber machinegun, a dozen or so AK-47s and a stack of rocket propelled grenades. With all this firepower, a spat between neighbors often turns into a pitched battle.
What saves the Pashtun from mutual anniliation is a tribal council of eldres known as a jirga. Chosen by their respective clans, these sages are the supreme interpreters of Pashtunwali, and their collective judgements on land disputes, blood vendettas, and the fine points of sanctuary are final and binding. Its a democratic system because every Pasthun refuses to accept anyone but the jirga as his superior.
There's a lot of good stuff in this article. Now I understand why Osama hasn't been found. And there are other people as precedents for why he may never be.
posted
Well, I think I knew a little bit about them, but just didn't remember their names... It doesn't really constitute any big surprise though. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I understand your sensitivity, the term has been debated since the 70s (at least), but and the issue was certainly debated in my anthropology classes when I was in college in the 90s. Nevertheless, I think the term's greatest utility comes in situations like this where the groups trace their ancestry to a common, specific, remote ancestor. In a hierarchical arrangement, it exists below Ethnic Group and above Clan. I have yet to encounter an alternative that has been widely-accepted, at least. There is a baby still in the bathwater, IMNSHO.
And there were many Pushtun Taliban. Or at least a brief web search indicates so.
posted
The article does discuss how the Taliban originated both internally and externally from the Pashtun culture.
Yes maybe the article is saying stuff that *should* be obvious, and isn't necessarily a *huge* surprise. But, at the same time, I was unaware of the true complexity of the situation. I mean it honestly makes a lot of the Israeli-Palistinian motivations look simple by comparison.
And given the hunt for bin Laden, you think all of the major networks should have glammed on and been discussing the Pashtun idea of sanctuary with respect to the bin Laden hunt. It's unfair to both sides not to. The US military for being up against a daunting task and the Pashtuns themselves for not understanding their motivations for why they are doing what they are doing. In otherwords to me this re-humanized the conflict.
posted
The media probably didn't want to erect a straw man, then get panned for not believing in the American troops, and by extension, not believing in America, if bin Laden got caught.
It's a reasonable fear. There is a segment of the population who think that the first debate between Kerry and Bush was a tie, or that Bush won. The media is accountable to those people, too, and those folks don't like hearing stories that "re-humanize" terrorists. I imagine that the news organizations have to pick and choose their battles if they want to appear fair, and this wasn't one of them.
To be honest, I think that there is something a little bit stupid in anyone who believes that either Afghanistan or Iraq were adequately planned invasions. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gone in, but all of these "suprises" are the product of having too many tacticians and not enough thinkers at the helm.
The Bush Cabinet, with all of the forethought of a misguided horny teenager, got afghanistan and Iraq pregnant, because the Admin didn't take the time or make the effort to think about it. It's absurd.
posted
Irami you are totally missing the point. I'm not talking about the US invasion really. I'm saying that before during Viet Nam, the US Populace appeared to have a far better idea of the culture of the people of Viet Nam (even if a lot of it was incorrect propaganda) than we have *any* information on the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is a distinct and staggering void of information either way. Until I read this National Geographic article I was *extremely* ignorant, and I'm not saying that one article has made me an expert by any stretch, but I'm saying I know a heck of a lot more about the culture and the region than I did before.
The only thing I knew before, other than ancient history and a little about the Russian mess, was the "never get involved in a land war in Central Asia" quote from a popular but definitely non factual movie!
posted
I don't know if you can blame the media, though. They are getting all kinds of flack, and they probably didn't want to educate the public to the point where the public just watched FOX all of the time. I think this is the Admin's fault for creating a culture where media is scorned.
And to an extent, this is our fault for not calling on the Admin's bashing of the media, and I don't think we should blame the messenger on this issue.
posted
Well, I dunno, AJ. I sure read an awful lot about Afghanistan and the Taliban in the years leading up to the war, even before 9/11. I gravitate to international news (and in particular read The Economist every week), so that might be idiosyncratic, but I felt like I knew a lot about the region leading into the war. The information was ambient in the media over the preceding years, at least.
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the tribal areas, the typical Pashstun home is built like a fortress, with high watchtowers and 20-foot walls. And no self-respecting Pashtun would be without his personal armory. A powerful household might have an antiaircraft gun mounted in the watchtower, a mortar or two, a .50-caliber machinegun, a dozen or so AK-47s and a stack of rocket propelled grenades. With all this firepower, a spat between neighbors often turns into a pitched battle
Ungovernable? Ummm, yeah... And I thought gated communities in America were anti-social.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Article A few weeks ago, George W. Bush noted during an interview that while he glances at newspaper headlines, he “rarely” reads the actual articles because “A lot of times there’s opinions mixed in with news.” So where does he get his info? Bush said he prefers to be briefed by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. “The best way to get the news,” he explained, “is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.”[/quote]
It's a short jump from this to, "The President has information I'm not aware of so I shouldn't be the one to judge. I should let him do his job, and I'll do mine."
There is someting exaggerated about the article, not that I disagree with the troubles in governing Afghanistan, but it's possible, it starts when we help Karzai with irrigation and speed these local elections along.
posted
I'm assuming that the media was hard on him. It's their job.
There it something small about Bush. It takes a small man to shun the media. It takes a small man to shun the NAACP. There is something small about him that makes him shun criticism. It's the press. You don't have to like them, but there is an extent to which he works for them because the press is an American institution.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I meant you're assuming that Bush's scorn for the media was the cause of their inaccuracy, not that historic bias and inaccuracy is the cause of his (and others') scorn.
posted
Intelligence3, I think you were the exception, not the rule. We have some pretty well informed people on Hatrack in compared to the average population, and the amount of blank looks gotten from them on the subject, seems to be a general indication. I thought I was reasonably aware of the region myself, but I found out how ignorant I was after this article.
posted
This isn't an issue of the media's inaccuracy. That's not the problen here. The problem is that the media doesn't engage in stories like this digest article.
If anything it's the media's negligence, which was brought about by the Admin's negligence concerning their responsibility to the media.
You are putting another step at the bottom. That it was the media's bias which led to the admin's scorn which led to the media's reservations to present news. I just don't think that's the case. I think we have a aggressive president and a contemplative media and the two were going to be adversaries from the start, and further, it's the responsibility of the President to be bigger than his critics.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, I was just agreeing with the article that the more firepower individuals have, the harder it is to govern them. Governments strive to have a monopoly on violence, and this is very difficult when citizens have such arsenals.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If anything it's the media's negligence, which was brought about by the Admin's negligence concerning their responsibility to the media.
Irami, for that causal statement you'd have to show the media was less negligent before this administration. And, just from the stories I've been personally involved with and seen reported, that's not true.
posted
In my opinion, there are serious flaws in the media (not like there weren't already but this makes it far more glaring to me) when as a result I know more about Scott Peterson's life history, than I do about the Pashtuns.
quote: In my opinion, there are serious flaws in the media (not like there weren't already but this makes it far more glaring to me) when as a result I know more about Scott Peterson's life history, than I do about the Pashtuns.
posted
Dag -- not necessarily. He could show that this administration was somehow less responsible towards the media than previous ones, and then show that the irresponsibility in the media in this case was caused by that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it was possible . You proposed a scenario he'd have to prove it by which is significantly improbable at best as well .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. And if the alternative means are impossible, then he can't use them. So he's stuck using the means I proposed if he wants to prove his point.
posted
My means require that negligence by the media be quantifiable. If it isn't then the whole discussion is moot.
Your means require that negligence be quantifiable and that the cause of the negligence be identifiable. In other words, to use your method requires resolution of the issue being debated.
quote: In my opinion, there are serious flaws in the media (not like there weren't already but this makes it far more glaring to me) when as a result I know more about Scott Peterson's life history, than I do about the Pashtuns
AJ, pre-Internet, you may have had a point. But with multiple ways to get free info, this says more about your (and America's) predelictions than about media. Media just feeds an appetite, and scandals are tasty.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm Online, I'll check google news, CNN and the canadian news agency with any regularity. As far as actual network TV, I watch very little, but the bits I have seen in passing all seem to be about Scott peterson.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. You proposed a scenario he'd have to prove it by which is significantly improbable at best as well ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
