Dubai Is Nuts!!!!

[laurentius]

Re: If you don't have enough fish

Originally posted by pchang
throw a wider net

Exactly!


And as Molly demonstrated us earlier there is no need to trawl on other peoples waters, the Arabs have enough heritage of their own.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



As I recall when Japan was the hate figure (or hate country) in the 1980s, some Americans came out with that very nonsense, even supposedly having 'scientific' research that showed that the Japanese brains were hardwired genetically without some alleged creative ability.


Of course this was before the filthy Aye-Rabs, Aye-Rackeys and Al Kider became the new hate kids on the block.


Whatever did happen to the nasty ol' Japan that was buying up all of America and erecting those hateful trade barriers and buying Van Gogh paintings for ludicrous sums ?

It did, after all, give us the masterful literary work that is Michael Crichton's 'Rising Sun'...

The irony in the above post is just overwhelming.

A post about hateful stereotyping of threatening foreign countries. Really. That features taking what "some Americans" came out with. That mocks a particular American regional accent.


Before Japan was the ogre, there was "la defie Americain"

[:) Smiley]

Ah, this is only the mild stuff.... see this thread for the real insanity:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=104891

a project that re-creates skyscrapers from around the world - including Dubai itself - , actual size:



One eiffel tower per city isn't enough:


You thought Los Angeles did some incredible things in the desert, you seen nothing:


and finally, since there's nothing left on Earth to copy...

[Arcite]

Was in Dubai last week and took this photo if the indoor ski hill...pretty amazing, if not a little tacky

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Smiley
Ah, this is only the mild stuff.... see this thread for the real insanity:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=104891

a project that re-creates skyscrapers from around the world - including Dubai itself - , actual size:

Looks like some of my cities in Civ4.

[Proteus_MST]

The Skyscraper project reminds me of Minidomm,
a famous entertainment parc near Dusseldorf
where you had lots of models of famous
german and international buildings (including their surroundings) in 1:25 scale
(for example the Eiffeltower, Brandenburg Gate, the Zwinger in Dresden and lots more).
But in the end, after ~30 years of operation,
the parc closed its doors in 1990 and the models were sold,
because the expenses to maintain the parc
by far exceeded the revenue gained by visitors.

http://orbisenterprises.com/Heusch-1/Heusch-2/Heusch-3a/Heusch-4a/Heusch-6d/heusch-6d.html

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minidomm

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom


al Biruni was of Iranian origin.

I fail to see how his opinon of Indian architecture has any bearing on the Marib dam. Let's see the quote in context in any case.

I'm sure you can tell us in great detail which Indian construction projects he had in mind.

You're going to love the irony here - he was talking about . . . . . . a dam !

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Molly:

we're talking great civilizations here with populations in the hundreds of thousands. Every Arab is a descendent of one of these ancient peoples whether Canaanites, Egyptians, Babylonians, or something else.

No, what you're doing is claiming non-Arab civilizations that predated the Caliphate by thousands of years for modern day Arabs.

Did they speak Arabic in Ancient Assyria, the city states of Tyre and Sidon, Babylon, Akkad or Mitanni ?

Did they have an 'Arab' culture ? Is there any kind of distinctive Arab or Arabic continuity that you can show from the time of Sennacherib or Hiram of Tyre or Rameses II to show the relationship between say, the modern day state of Iraq (a Franco-British creation made up of provinces from the former Ottoman Turkish empire) and Sumer, Elam, Babylon, Assyria ?


Just because you've bought into Sadam Hussein's ludicrous posturings as Sargon doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

Oh, and by the way- I thought that conversion to Islam meant only that one's profession of faith changed.

Amazingly, you have Assyrian Christians converting to Islam, and as well as becoming Muslims, their genetic make-up and ethnicity changes! :

Those Assyrians, Christians until the 16th century, are now Muslim Arabs.

Do you know, I'm sure that when Turks and Uighurs and Indians and Uzbeks and Mongols and Africans converted to Islam that they didn't actually also change into Arabs. Can you explain how this is possible ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The irony in the above post is just overwhelming.

Yes, possibly why you're having such difficulty with it. As I recall from previous encounters, you do seem to struggle with irony and sarcasm.

That features taking what "some Americans" came out with. That mocks a particular American regional accent.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Imagine, paraphrasing what 'some' (as opposed to all) Americans said about a foreign country where the language is different, the culture is different and the ethnic make-up is different.


And imagine doing it in such a way as to make fun of their mispronunciation of the names or nationality of peoples.


Gosh, I couldn't possibly be making a point about wilful ignorance, stereotyping and stupidity, could I ?


Still, a good way to steer the discourse away from the current anti-Arab sentiments.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


You're going to love the irony here - he was talking about . . . . . . a dam !

Amazingly funny.


What's even funnier, and to me more ironic still, is that you still haven't provided the original quotation, in context.


And haven't shown what al Biruni's (973-1048 A.D.) comments about Indian architecture have to do with a pre-Islamic dam in Yemen which was built and added to between 3000 B.C. to 610 A.D. .

A dam, moreover, which you haven't yet shown al Biruni was even aware of- other than possibly through his reading of the Koran, where it's final breach is mentioned.


Gosh yes, those Arabs really couldn't build, could they ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


You're going to love the irony here -

I like this irony even more. This is a direct quote from al Biruni:

" The Hindus believe that there is no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner.

Their haughtiness is such that if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khorasan or Persia, they will think you both an ignoramus and a liar. If they travelled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is."

al Biruni's 'Kitab al Hind' quoted in 'The History of India: as Told by its Own Historians' edited by Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi

[Al B. Sure!]

Molly Bloom:

I'm going to go real slow and careful here. Please, at each point, tell me where you agree and where you disagree and why.

Of course conversion doesn't changes genes! But what does change is one's self-perceived ethnicity. To be an Arab isn't just about genes. Arabic is an ethnicity and ethnicities are self-defined!

The Arabs of Arabia numbered no more than a few thousand as the harsh deserts of the peninsula couldn't support a large population. In the space of a century, they conquered one of the most populous areas of the world, a region inhabited by millions of Canaanites, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Jews, Persians, etc.

Today, the peoples of the Middle East are mostly Arabs. Excepting Turks (late arrivals anyway), Kurds, Jews, and a few others, the middle east is Arabic, thanks in part due to the Pan-Arabist nationalist movement which has been very successful in the area in dominating the politics of many countries.

But, the peoples of the middle east have been calling themselves Arab long before the modern Pan-Arabist movement. In fact, perhaps as long ago as the Islamic conquest, the peoples of the middle east, formerly Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc. began to call themselves Arabs? Why? Well, the medieval Arab sociologist Ibn Khaldun had the reasoning:

The defeated nation, again erroneously, attributes its defeat to the cultural superiority of the dominating nation, thinking that “the superiority of the victor is not the result of his asabiyya or great fortitude, but his customs and manners.” Therefore, “the vanquished can always be observed to assimilate themselves to the victor in the use and style of dress, and weapons, indeed, in everything.” (V. I, p 299). Ibn-Khaldun especially emphasizes that conquered/colonized nations are forced to abandon their native languages and learn the language of the dominating nation. (Section 22, Chap. 4, V. 2). The psychological effect of defeatism goes so far that the dominated people recreate the cultural aspects of the dominating nation in their own artistic activities. (See V. I, p. 300). Presumably, Ibn-Khaldun is the first thinker to compare the docile character of the colonized to that of children and to establish the assumption that they try to identify themselves with their rulers. “The ruler dominates those under him. His subjects imitate him, because they see perfection in him, exactly as children imitate their parents or students their teachers.” (V. I, p. 300)

Now of course differences lingered... the Damascene Arabs were seen as a bit too "Greek" for other Arabs and so forth but for the most part, there was a linguistic and cultural unity througout the middle east, in fact, throughout all of Dar es-Islam. Even the proud Persians converted their written language into an Arabic text and added a rich Arabic vocabulary. In short, the myriad peoples of the past, the Canaanites et al, became Arabic.

I looked up Arab on Wikipedia and got this:

On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:

"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."

Perhaps the most startling thing about this description of a people is that I, genetically Arabic [although with ancestors from Lebanon and possibly Egypt, I would also be genetically Phoenician and Egyptian], would not be considered ETHNICALLY one as I do not speak Arabic.

You may say what does this definition mean coming from the Arab league? But ethnicities are self-defined. If an Arab is defined as an Arabic speaker than Arabic speakers are Arabs.

Therefore, the peoples of the middle east, the old Babylonians et al, converted to Islam and, as Ibn Khladun made clear, converted to the Arabic language as well and Arabic customs. In short, they became Arabized, though genetically, they were still Babylonians.

This is nothing new, of course... these same peoples had earlier been Persianized and then Hellenized and finally Romanized. The only difference this time perhaps was that Arabization was more permanent and the peoples of the region consider themselves Arabic.

As for the outliers, the remnant peoples like these Christian Assyrians and Copts... I am sure Christian Assyrians are 100% Assyrian. They have segregated themselves from the Islamic population that surrounds them.

However, does that mean that their neighbors in the next town, Muslims who call themselves Arab (they speak Arabic, after all) are not perhaps 50% Assyrian? They've mingled more and have lost their pure blood, but surely, they are still descendents of the ancient Assyrians though they have long been Arabized.

again from Wikipedia:

However, some members of groups which fulfill both criteria reject the identity on the basis of the genealogical definition; Lebanese Maronites, for example, may reject the Arab label in favor of a narrower Phoenician-Lebanese national identity (although Maronites originate from the Syrian interior and Phonecians lived on the coasts of Syria and Lebanon), as do many Coptic and Muslim Egyptians who embrace the continuation of their ancient heritage. Groups using a non-Arabic liturgical language are especially likely to consider themselves non-Arab.

Lebanese Maronites, Coptic Egyptians, Christian Assyrians... what do they have in common? As the last sentence says "Groups using a non-Arabic liturgical language are especially likely to consider themselves non-Arab". Lebanese Christians who consider themselves Phoenician (like the Assyrians) do so because they have not been Arabized perhaps mostly because they have not converted. The rest of the population of Lebanon long ago converted and became Arabized but these Christians remained distinct and clung unto their ancient identity.

Therefore, the ancient culture of and the genes of, let's say Phoenicia, is not the sole 'property' so to speak of Maronite Lebanese just because their resistance to Islam fostered a seperatist ethncity identifying with their ancient ancestors... but rather, Phoenicia is a legacy for all Lebanese, including those who would call themselves Arab.

In sum, Arab is not a genetic term. It is a self-perceived ethnicity. The ancient peoples of the middle east are the ancestors of today's Arabs. Considering the small population of 7th century Arabia, todays Arabs are genetically likely more Assyrian et al than Arabian as the small population of the Arabians would figure less profound on their ancestry. Nevertheless for socio-political-linguistic-relgious reasons, these peoples call themselves Arabs.

[chequita guevara]

There are plenty of Jewish Arabs, even in Israel.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Molly Bloom:

I'm going to go real slow and careful here. Please, at each point, tell me where you agree and where you disagree and why.

Of course conversion doesn't changes genes! But what does change is one's self-perceived ethnicity. To be an Arab isn't just about genes. Arabic is an ethnicity and ethnicities are self-defined!

Arabic is a language; what Islam did was to unite disparate peoples under one 'church' and one state with a common language- but not a common ethnicity or culture.

What you're choosing to do is overlook the fundamental differences between, say, Bedouin Arabs and city Arabs, between Christian Arabs and non-Christian Arabs and you're making spurious links between 20th Century notions of nationality, nationhood and identity and pre-Islamic civilizations.

When Turks converted to Islam why didn't they (a non-Arab people) become, like the Christian Assyrians you mentioned, Arabs too ? Or the Iranians of the Sasanid Empire who converted, changed their script into an Arabic form of writing and used Arabic loanwords in their vocabulary ?

Because religion isn't ethnicity and it doesn't genetically alter you.

But, the peoples of the middle east have been calling themselves Arab long before the modern Pan-Arabist movement. In fact, perhaps as long ago as the Islamic conquest, the peoples of the middle east, formerly Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc. began to call themselves Arabs?

In fact, you're not offering any proof that the indigenous non-Arabs of the Middle East did or have done any such thing; certainly when the armies of the Caliphate conquered the area, some people were eager to identify with the winners, embracing the new faith. That the new faith expressed itself in a language that was related to existing tongues certainly helped, and that the new rulers often came from similar backgrounds to some of the indigenous populations was a benefit too.

But then so was the distinctive religious and national identities of Egyptian Copts and Armenian and Jacobite and Nestorian Christians- all of whom had been taxed or persecuted by the Imperial Byzantine forces. They could identify therefore as non-Greek ethnically and non-Greek Christian .

That the new rulers didn't care what Christian sect they belonged to and didn't force conversion on them, was also a blessing.

None of what you say shows that, for instance, that the Egyptian Copts, who possessed a distinctive non-Arab non-Muslim identity at least until the times of the Ayyubids identified as 'Arabs' because their rulers spoke Arabic or identified as Arabs.

I know several Muslim Egyptians who regard 'the Arabs' somewhat contemptuously because their own 'heritage' as Egyptians is so much more ancient and distinguished than that of the Arabs.

In short, the myriad peoples of the past, the Canaanites et al, became Arabic.

As I said before, Arabic is a language....

Oddly enough you seem to gloss over the rather obvious point that when the much older, much richer Perso-Iranian culture superseded Arab culture under the Abbasid Caliphate none of the supoosedly now homogeneous Arab peoples became Persian or Iranian, despite using Persian court ceremony, poetry, art forms, clothing, architecture, science, medicine, cuisine- in short, most things that impinge on daily life directly or indirectly. And of course when the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks succeeded in their conquest of the area in question, the peoples don't seem to have become Turco-Persian, despite their new rulers being of Turkish origin.

Perhaps the most startling thing about this description of a people is that I, genetically Arabic [although with ancestors from Lebanon and possibly Egypt, I would also be genetically Phoenician and Egyptian], would not be considered ETHNICALLY one as I do not speak Arabic.

No, perhaps the least startling thing about this is that you choose to identify as an Arab out of political expediency, or obduracy.

Having failed to show that there was even a 'Phoenician' national identity, let alone a genetic grouping, you also miss the salient point- that the Arab League was making a political point out of Pan-Arab brotherhood.

As we've seen in the 20th Century, you can have an Arab League and even pan-Arab sentiment but they frequently (like your yoking together of ancient historical empires and modern national identities) have little to do with harsh realities.

How long have United Arab Republics lasted ? Hardly any time at all, because the language of holy scripture and a common enemy still aren't enough to make all Arabs or 'Arabs' identify with each other.

[Ecthy]

Blood-wise descendance is less important than cultural descendance.