Integration is a condition that is not solely restricted to individuals. As in the case of Egypt and Libya, we find two countries, one with sufficient integration to undergo the demanding processes of revolutionary change, while the other - Libya - is suffering civil war and possible partition. Libya and other near Middle Eastern countries are better described as a collection of tribes. They are not in the sense that Egypt - who first invented the term - a nation state, namely a "political territory whose population shares a common identity." Egypt is struggling to overcome its religious and political differences and with the strength of integration transcend its history (autocratic, central rule) and diversity form a democratic government.
You need to be a member of Depth Psychology Alliance to add comments!
My perception is that there is a devaluing of history afoot in our understanding of world events, or even in daily experiences. Your opening paragraph speaks to the historical perspective as a determiner of current national events in Libya and Egypt. For example, you place Libya in the list of Middle Eastern countries where my high school geographic image is that Libya is northern Africa. Would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the placement of Libya in the Middle East and a bit of comparative history as to why Libya and Egypt, both Middle Eastern countries, appear to be following different paths. Also, which is harder in your thinking, to change a tribal nation to central rule or autocratic to democratic.
Ed, forget high school maps - we live in a geopolitical environment that is based on things like energy needs. Libya is one of Europe's central suppliers of crude oil, placing it among the oil rich nations of the Middle East. Unlike Egypt, Libya never evolved into a unified nation-state, (something that was invented by the ancient Egyptians) i.e. "a political territory whose population shares a common identity." Libyan tribes maintain cultural differences that have not given way to an integrated nation; only a strongman like Kadafi has been able to hold these tribes together by appealing to what these tribes know: fear. By contrast, Egypt has significant diversity which it now seems ready to put aside for the greater good, namely, a unified, political nation that may be ready for democracy. When Coptic Christians encircle their Muslin brothers in the name of symbolic protection, when protesters stand side-by-side holding up Bibles and Korans and people say to each, "lift your head up (out of shame) for the new Egypt," then we are literally seeing the emergence of an integrated, democratic state.
Ed Koffenberger > Thom F. Cavalli, Ph.D.April 19, 2011 at 12:28pm
An integrated, democratic state that we might have much to learn from as they wrestle with the emergence of such a state. Also, thanks for the images of Muslims and Christians standing side by side. Sadly, the image is not so readily picked up in the West.
Replies
Thom,
My perception is that there is a devaluing of history afoot in our understanding of world events, or even in daily experiences. Your opening paragraph speaks to the historical perspective as a determiner of current national events in Libya and Egypt. For example, you place Libya in the list of Middle Eastern countries where my high school geographic image is that Libya is northern Africa. Would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the placement of Libya in the Middle East and a bit of comparative history as to why Libya and Egypt, both Middle Eastern countries, appear to be following different paths. Also, which is harder in your thinking, to change a tribal nation to central rule or autocratic to democratic.
Thanks.