Is there a growing rift between the Islamic Middle East and the Christian West?

[Obi Wan Asterix]

Or was the rift always there?

I spend my childhood with no rift. I lived in a muslim country and adored the positive effects of its culture. For me much more of the modern problem that we label as the (I think idiotic concept) Clash of Civilizations is actually a mix up concepts.

I see the problem of immigration and cultural assimilation much more relevant than any dogmatic or religious differences.

Comments welcome.

Fellow moderators please do not close this thread as covering the same issue we need this angle to the discussion.

[bbcrackmonkey]

I think there is definitely a growing rift. Islamic countries are becoming more Islamic and religious and anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment is increasingly rising due to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as American support of Israel.

I've talked to many Arabs and Persians who say that when they were children they almost never saw a woman wearing the veil, especially in Iran and Egypt, and that wearing the hijab has become much more common among the Islamic world in the last 2 decades.

Look at the recent elections in Middle Eastern countries. The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining ground in Egypt, Hamas won the elections in Palestine and plan to institute Sharia Law, religious Shiite parties won the elections in Iraq including Muqtada al-Sadr, and Mahmoud Amedinejad won the presidency of Iran (although how legitimate his election was is debatable) and he is purging all reformers from their government, right down to the bankers and local governors. Mein Kampf has become a best-seller in Turkey, where Erdogan won the elections, a man who was tried and convicted of inciting religious hatred in 1998 and has been widely criticized for promoting an Islamist agenda during his presidency. Hezbollah has won a lot of seats in the recent Lebanese elections as well. Opinion polls consistently show that Osama Bin Laden is more popular than George Bush in many Islamic countries.

I think that in large part, a lot of this has to do with US foreign intervention, and a lot of it has to do with the poverty in the Islamic world relative to the rest of the world. They have lagged behind in economic development and political freedoms, and when people feel disenfranchised by the system they often turn to religion to comfort them. Many of the secular leaders of the Middle East have failed to deliver their promises of a better life and so people think that turning to Islam will allow a less corrupt government. The corruption and failure of secular leaders like Mubarak, Assad, Musharraf, and the Saudi Royal Family has led many Muslims to think that Islam will bring about a better government, and many of these secular leaders use propaganda against Israel and the US, saying how evil we are and how we are the cause of all their problems, to deflect attention away from their own failures.

Also, the fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, Bosnia, Kashmir, and Chechnya has drawn a lot of Muslims more towards the radical Islamic side as the see their religion being oppressed or meddled with by outsiders, many believing that it is a conspiracy against their religion as a whole. Many Muslims feel like they have lost pride because their fellow countries have been attacked repeatedly and suffered some historical humiliations and colonialization by European powers, and they have repeatedly lost wars with Israel and America. This breeds resentment as everyone wants to think that they have a proud heritage and a glorious history, and the colonialism and constant losing of wars has left a lot of people feeling humiliated and angry. A lot of young Muslim men who cannot get good jobs also see their fellow Muslim countries being attacked or at war and they look around and they don't see any other Muslim countries helping to defend the Dar al-Islam, and so many of these men become Mujahadeen or Jihadis because they want to help defend Islamic land from the infidel invaders.

Saudi Arabia also spends immense amounts of its oil money on building mosques and madrassahs in poorer Muslim nations like Pakistan to teach them the Wahabist/Salafist school of Islamic thought, which is quite radical in itself. It is difficult to get an education in a lot of these poorer countries and so some parents are forced to send their children to a radical madrassah if they want their children to learn how to read.

The Western and Islamic media definitely plays no small part in this, making the Israel/Palestine conflict much more important than it really is. The West and the Islamic World have both chosen which side they want to support with all their hearts, despite the fact that it is a minor conflict with comparatively very few deaths. Really, Israel and Palestine comprise a tiny strip of land the size of New Jersey, and the fighting there is very low-intensity and has only killed a few thousand people over the span of several years, yet it is in the news all the time, and depending on the news outlet, you always hear about how evil the Palestinians or Israelis are. More people have died in all the Islamic conflicts I mentioned in the above paragraph, yet none of them get the same kind of attention that Israel and Palestine do. In contrast, the fighting and genocide in Sudan has killed millions of people yet you barely ever hear about it on the news. Hell, it looks like Sudan is trying to instigate a war with it's neighbor Chad by sending over Islamic groups and it's Janjaweed militias, and I bet nobody in this thread even knew about it.

Ever since 9/11 there has been a lot more attention being paid to the Muslim world and the Middle East, and many Westerners feel that their way of life is also threatened because of the terrorist attacks in America, Spain, Britain, and Bali, and the French race riots. Many other terrorist attacks have been stopped or prevented since 9/11 and some Westerners have grown suspicious and racist towards Middle-Easterners living in their countries. I think the American support of the Iraq war was largely due to risidual anger over 9/11. We had 3000 people killed in one day and it was the largest foreign attack on American soil in centuries, and so Americans were and many still are very angry about it and I think supporting the Iraq war, people talked about WMD, Saddam, Kurds, etc. but in the back of their minds they were really still angry at Arabs/Muslims over the terrorist attacks and wanted revenge and to show them how tough we are because we can hit back at their countries.

I'm not saying any of this is logical or a justification, I'm just trying to explain a phenomenon that I see happening because of the events that are unfolding. Very soon there might be another attack against an Islamic country because Israel, the US, and Europe are very afraid that Iran is making nuclear bombs and we might blow up their nuclear power plants because of this fear.

[Tiwaz]

I would say large part of this problem comes from west, willingly or unwillingly, trying to crawl into islamic world. People see their culture being under threat and, as is natural to humans, react to it in hostile way and turn even more furiously towards their own cultural system.

Same can be seen in west as well. French noticed how english is trying to worm (in their opinion) and corrode their beautiful (in their opinion, I do not speak single word of french so don't know) language. Reaction were language laws set out. Similar situation, I believe, we find from Quebec in Canada.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

I would say large part of this problem comes from west, willingly or unwillingly, trying to crawl into islamic world. People see their culture being under threat and, as is natural to humans, react to it in hostile way and turn even more furiously towards their own cultural system.

Same can be seen in west as well. French noticed how english is trying to worm (in their opinion) and corrode their beautiful (in their opinion, I do not speak single word of french so don't know) language. Reaction were language laws set out. Similar situation, I believe, we find from Quebec in Canada.

I can really agree with this Tiwaz.... I work in the "development" field, and often feel frustrated that efforts for development are benefiting the privileged classes of societies as well as the countries doing the "development" ... large parts of the field are in fact neo-colonialism.

[bbcrackmonkey]

I can really agree with this Tiwaz.... I work in the "development" field, and often feel frustrated that efforts for development are benefiting the privileged classes of societies as well as the countries doing the "development" ... large parts of the field are in fact neo-colonialism.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying Asterix. What development field do you work in where you feel that all the benefits are going to the upper classes or developers, and how do you feel this is neo-colonialism? Some details are always helpful in explaining your position.

Tiwaz, although you provide a very good answer, I feel that you simplify the issue a bit too much.

[Tiwaz]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying Asterix. What development field do you work in where you feel that all the benefits are going to the upper classes or developers, and how do you feel this is neo-colonialism? Some details are always helpful in explaining your position.

Tiwaz, although you provide a very good answer, I feel that you simplify the issue a bit too much.

Generally no I do not. West is culturally, and due to US fumblings militarily, pretty much invading rest of the world. In words of Rammstein "Coca-Cola und Mickey Mouse". This will invite natural counterreaction from populations perceiving their culture to be in danger. Usually such reactions take form of turning to more extreme version of the local culture to combat the outside influences.

Most of this invasion is not necessarily meant to be such, it is simply attempt to find new markets, but that does not change the reality of those under the "invasion" and their feeling of being attacked. Same tends to take place with immigrants who, in new and alien place, turn to their fellow countrymen and other familiar practices. Resulting in things like Little Italy or Chinatown as we see in USA. These also serve as cultural safehouses by insulating as much of outside culture from effecting residents as possible.

Partly the problems rising now is due to end of the Cold War, freeing resources formerly used in the "war" to go to other purposes thus speeding up the cultural "invasion" and causing stronger backlash.

[bbcrackmonkey]

Generally no I do not. West is culturally, and due to US fumblings militarily, pretty much invading rest of the world. In words of Rammstein "Coca-Cola und Mickey Mouse". This will invite natural counterreaction from populations perceiving their culture to be in danger. Usually such reactions take form of turning to more extreme version of the local culture to combat the outside influences.

Most of this invasion is not necessarily meant to be such, it is simply attempt to find new markets, but that does not change the reality of those under the "invasion" and their feeling of being attacked. Same tends to take place with immigrants who, in new and alien place, turn to their fellow countrymen and other familiar practices. Resulting in things like Little Italy or Chinatown as we see in USA. These also serve as cultural safehouses by insulating as much of outside culture from effecting residents as possible.

Partly the problems rising now is due to end of the Cold War, freeing resources formerly used in the "war" to go to other purposes thus speeding up the cultural "invasion" and causing stronger backlash.

You're pretty much right on the money when talking about globalization and the effect that US capitalism and cultural hegemony has on the developing world, but many nations are embracing it instead of turning to extremist forms of provincialism. Many other countries, particularly in Asia, are attempting to mimic Western models because they see us as successful and want to be more like us. The Middle East is rather unique in its rejection of Western culture and social mores, and not just of the US but Western culture in general. It is also unique in its turn towards extreme local ideals, as no other region of the world has so vociferously (or violently) defended its culture against slights real or percieved, as shown by the uproar over Danish cartoons of Mohammed, Korans in toilets in Cuba, banning of the Hijab in French schools, etc.

There is a resentment that goes far deeper than Mickey Mouse or Coca-Cola in the Middle East, and even deeper than the Iraq War. If you are a European (I'm assuming because of the flag in your sig), I can completely understand why you think that it is all about American Capitalism. I have heard many Europeans/Canadians echo the same sentiment about US Cultural Imperialism, but I think you might be projecting your own views onto the Middle-Easterners when your views don't really paint the entire picture.

From what I've learned of Middle-Easterners I've met that have immigrated to the greater Detroit area here in the US, they are very patient and have very long memories. When I went to a local tailor, the Palestinian man who fixed the zipper on my leather jacket was talking to me about how King Hussein of Jordan massacred Palestinians during Black September like it happened yesterday. I could still see the anger mixed somewhat with sadness in his eyes and hear it in his voice.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying Asterix. What development field do you work in where you feel that all the benefits are going to the upper classes or developers, and how do you feel this is neo-colonialism? Some details are always helpful in explaining your position.

Tiwaz, although you provide a very good answer, I feel that you simplify the issue a bit too much.

Development always carries with it a cultural package, especially since "developing" communities have a greater concious reliance on their culture.

[Ummon]

I would say large part of this problem comes from west, willingly or unwillingly, trying to crawl into islamic world. People see their culture being under threat and, as is natural to humans, react to it in hostile way and turn even more furiously towards their own cultural system.

Same can be seen in west as well. French noticed how english is trying to worm (in their opinion) and corrode their beautiful (in their opinion, I do not speak single word of french so don't know) language. Reaction were language laws set out. Similar situation, I believe, we find from Quebec in Canada.

It's Islam which wants to take over the west. The west only wants to spread democracy. Of the two, the least ambitious agenda. Both agendas though, are wrong.

Oh, and, before the objection. Islam is about expansion. Even "moderate" muslims do think so. They just don't tell it openly.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009986.php#comments

Professor Richard L. Rubenstein has kindly sent me these personal reminiscences of the late Dr. Zaki Badawi, a renowned moderate Muslim who grabbed headlines last summer by being denied entry into the U.S. and then drawing a reversal and an official apology. Dr. Rubenstein offers a little cautionary tale about how vexingly difficult it is to identify genuine moderate Muslim spokesmen -- the one thing the world wants most these days, but can't seem to find in any great number.

I learned this week of the passing at 83 of Dr. M.A. Zaki Badawi, K.B.E., (Knight Commander of the British Empire), and the most influential Muslim religious scholar in Great Britain. His was a career of extraordinary achievements, the details of which are available from the obits of the Guardian, the Times (UK), Aljazeera.net and many other sources. Among those who praised him when learning of his passing, were Jonathan Zacks, the Chief Rabbi, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prince of Wales, and Tony Blair.
I came to know Dr. Badawi in the 1980s and early 1990s. He and his wife Mavis attended some of the same international conferences as did I and Betty. Because of his sophistication and the range of his knowledge, Betty and I would often sit at the same table at dinner with Dr. Badawi and Mavis. We enjoyed his company until one day the subject of Israel came up. He said to me, ”But, of course, you know that sooner or later the Israelis will have to go.” In his mind, the matter was a foregone conclusion and discussion was out of the question. Mavis chimed in, ”Like the Crusaders.” Understandably, I lost any interest in Zaki Badawi as a dining companion.

This year I learned from a non-Jewish British friend who is a leader in the realistic human rights movement in the UK (supportive of Israel) that Badawi had recently told him that he had never taken out citizenship in spite of more than 30 years as the Establishment spiritual leader of British Islam. He told my friend he remained an Egyptian citizen. He also said that he had no interest in Darfur because those sub-Saharan Muslims were not really Muslims but polytheists.

To these reminiscences I add some material uncovered by Dr. Andrew Bostom:

Mervyn Hiskett (1920-1994) was an important scholar of the Hausa (Hausa-speaking) Muslim population of Northern Nigeria and the adjacent areas of Niger. Hiskett chronicled the jihad campaigns of Usman Dan Fodio in the early 19th century (described in The Sword of Truth), and in the twilight of his career, he became very concerned about both the resurgence of jihadist thought amongst contemporary Nigerian Muslim scholars and the parallel intolerance of the burgeoning Muslim community in his native Great Britain. In a chapter entitled “Theocrats in a Secular Society” from his 1993 Some to Mecca Turn to Pray (p. 235), Hiskett warned of the “ominous” sentiments expressed by Dr. Zaki Badawi, the scholar and one time Director of the Islamic Culture Centre of London, who had written openly about his ultimate desire to see Britain under the Shari’a:

A proseletyzing religion cannot stand still. It can either expand or contract. Islam endeavors to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims at bringing its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community, the Umma.

Thus Badawi didn’t see himself as a citizen of the country that bestowed upon him the title, Knight Commander of the British Empire—Badawi was a citizen of the worldwide umma!

But because he wanted to see this worldwide Islamic state come to the West without violence, or at least without violence in the contemporary situation, he was embraced as a moderate. But this universalist desire he expresses cannot be understood apart from Sharia, with all its denials of rights for women and non-Muslims. Even if that comes to the West peacefully, I will resist.

I will too. :wink:

[Rhah]

It's Islam which wants to take over the west. The west only wants to spread democracy. Of the two, the least ambitious agenda. Both agendas though, are wrong.

Oh, and, before the objection. Islam is about expansion. Even "moderate" muslims do think so. They just don't tell it openly.

Most religions are about expansion. Because most religions (and im going to use Christianity as an example) believe that they believe in the "one true god", they also seem to think that they are helping there fellow human beings by converting them. Im not sure if it is written in the Bible that Christians have a duty to convert "unbelievers", where as i'm fairly sure it does say that in the Koran. (But then again, i may well be completely wrong on both counts).

Anyway, using Christianity to "fight" the spread of Islam is like using petrol to fight a fire.

[Ummon]

Most religions are about expansion. Because most religions (and im going to use Christianity as an example) believe that they believe in the "one true god", they also seem to think that they are helping there fellow human beings by converting them. Im not sure if it is written in the Bible that Christians have a duty to convert "unbelievers", where as i'm fairly sure it does say that in the Koran. (But then again, i may well be completely wrong on both counts).

Anyway, using Christianity to "fight" the spread of Islam is like using petrol to fight a fire.

While God is very likely one and true, our visions of him are limited and fallacious.

I do not propose to use Christianism to fight Islam. Nor do I propose to fight Islam, in truth.

I propose to be mindful that Islam is a dangerous, dangerous thing, and not to allow it inside the west beyond a certain superficial threshold.

[KingOfTheIsles]

If Islam is invading the west, it would be interesting to compare the amount of Islamic countries invading western democracies to the amount of western democracies invading Islamic countries in the past 50 years. That utter fallacy does not even have a leg to stand on.

Not totally. But Christianity is not a political system, and doesn't kill apostates, or make non-christians into taxpaying lower-caste subjects.

Contemporary Christianity, or ever? I think that you'll find many historical examples of Christians doing just that.

Christianity is not embracing intolerance. Infact, many Christian authorities, including the catholic Pope, are preaching exactly the opposite.

Rubbish. Has the Bible changed? Has the Vatican decided to do away with milennia of Christian teachings to suddenly become liberal and wishy-washy? No, and rightly so. The Bible still orders believers to stone homosexuals, it is only the tide of Enlightenment and Secularism principles that have advanced the religion.

This is ridiculous american silliness more than Christianism.

Who are the religious extremists, comparable to the Islamic equivalent. You wish to compare a moderate christian to an extremist muslim; this is why you believe there is a huge difference, certainly not because of vast, irreconcilable differences in scripture.

Ehm, they are much different, luckily. More or less depending on the Christian faith, that is.

They are as different as the individual interprets them.

Check your birth rates. You are doomed to extinction. You are your own worst enemy.

Right, I forgot how birth rates are a constant, and cannot change, ever. Silly me.

I propose to be mindful that Islam is a dangerous, dangerous thing, and not to allow it inside the west beyond a certain superficial threshold.

But we should constantly interfere in the east, to spread the light of democracy? It's the white man's burden, all over again, and yet again the real motivation is mineral resources. Your views are, quite frankly, as extremist as any extremist Muslim, preaching against the Zionist infidels in Palestine, lazy hate-mongering rhetoric. It is unsurprising that many Islamic countries are religiously fanatical, when you consider the factors:

A lack of any real period of rationalism and secularism, preventing the same need for adaptation of religion present in Christianity.
The worse economic conditions of many islamic countries, caused by corrupt dictatorships. It is only natural that totalitarian states, combined with povery, should produce religious extremism and close-mindedness (although it isn't omnipresent). It's the same conditions present in pre-enlightenment Europe, and god knows how similarly intolerant that society was towards external cultures/religions.
The current culture of many Middle-Eastern cultures is strongly patriarchal and traditionalist, which obviously doesn't help the development of new, secular values.

In conclusion, to pretend Islam is somehow inherently more dangerous than other religions is utterly nonsensical and ridiculous. It is in the state it is in because of other factors, of the cultural and economic status of the areas in which it is most predominant, and ultimately, as any religion, it is up to each individual believer to interpret the religion as they see fit. That's the beauty of not being automatons.

[Aristophanes]

I would say large part of this problem comes from west, willingly or unwillingly, trying to crawl into islamic world. People see their culture being under threat and, as is natural to humans, react to it in hostile way and turn even more furiously towards their own cultural system.

Same can be seen in west as well. French noticed how english is trying to worm (in their opinion) and corrode their beautiful (in their opinion, I do not speak single word of french so don't know) language. Reaction were language laws set out. Similar situation, I believe, we find from Quebec in Canada.

You know, you say this, but immigration keeps going one way. I hardly see how your argument makes sense in this context.

I just want to point out that there is no such thing as 'christian west' and there hasn't been for several generations.[declining to non-existent church attendance in most of Europe and Canada] What we're seeing is a secular west; let me be the first to say that christianity has a lot more in common with Islam than does the secular state.

THERE IS NO 'CHRISTIAN WEST'!!!!![not even in our idyllic fantasies]

[Tiwaz]

You know, you say this, but immigration keeps going one way. I hardly see how your argument makes sense in this context.

I just want to point out that there is no such thing as 'christian west' and there hasn't been for several generations.[declining to non-existent church attendance in most of Europe and Canada] What we're seeing is a secular west; let me be the first to say that christianity has a lot more in common with Islam than does the secular state.

THERE IS NO 'CHRISTIAN WEST'!!!!![not even in our idyllic fantasies]

What makes you think I was talking anything about christian?
Do you honestly think there is no culture beyond religion?

[Carach]

I would say large part of this problem comes from west, willingly or unwillingly, trying to crawl into islamic world. People see their culture being under threat and, as is natural to humans, react to it in hostile way and turn even more furiously towards their own cultural system.

yes blame the west, its all our fault for letting them in our countries, letting them take our jobs, letting them have a more than equal right in their new homes and societies....allowing them to criticise our cultures, allowing them to change our cultures......oh! and allowing them to incite racial hatred, preach in their holy buildings how evil the west are (while living here) and encourage people to go out and bomb their new homes...

We are so cruel and evil.

[Tiwaz]

yes blame the west, its all our fault for letting them in our countries, letting them take our jobs, letting them have a more than equal right in their new homes and societies....allowing them to criticise our cultures, allowing them to change our cultures......oh! and allowing them to incite racial hatred, preach in their holy buildings how evil the west are (while living here) and encourage people to go out and bomb their new homes...

We are so cruel and evil.

And they, when they look at their homes, see "invasion" of western companies, values and culture and feel same way as western people with immigrants moving to our nations. Only difference is, in the end west is more efficient invader. In Europe for example the result of immigrant problems is bit overblown. Each successive generation of immigrants tends to be more and more secular and less likely to cause problems. As long as there is no immense ECONOMICAL rift which leaves them out to dry. That was main problem with french riots for example.

[Tiwaz]

You're pretty much right on the money when talking about globalization and the effect that US capitalism and cultural hegemony has on the developing world, but many nations are embracing it instead of turning to extremist forms of provincialism. Many other countries, particularly in Asia, are attempting to mimic us because they see us as successful and want to be more like us. The Middle East is rather unique in its rejection of Western culture and social mores, and not just of the US but Western culture in general. It is also unique in its turn towards extreme local ideals, as no other region of the world has so vociferously (or violently) defended its culture against slights real or percieved, as shown by the uproar over Danish cartoons of Mohammed, Korans in toilets in Cuba, banning of the Hijab in French schools, etc.

There is a resentment that goes far deeper than Mickey Mouse or Coca-Cola in the Middle East. If you are a European (I'm assuming because of the flag), I can completely understand why you think that it is all about American Capitalism. I have heard many Europeans/Canadians echo the same sentiment, but I think you might be projecting your own views onto the Middle-Easterners when your views don't paint the entire picture.

You are not necessarily wrong overall, and nowhere I said it was only american capitalism which is to blame since it goes way beyond it. (europeans simply have less globally well known corporations and perhaps in some cases less intrusive products like Nokia mobile phones) Or that the resentment would be concentrated on USA. USA simply happens to be the foremost western influence, not only one.

When we look at the world we can see South America where we see leftist trend growing up. In this case it's often fueled by dislike towards USA than usually (over there Europe has rather little problems).

Africa, I fear, we cannot count in since they are so deep in their problems and they do not have money to be interesting for corporations beyond being sources of cheap resources. They are not prime target of western cultural invasion and even then have no power to put up to same level.

Asia is interesting one in it's ability to deal with things. But now we have to take into account cultural differences. Asian religions overall are, relatively, pacifist. And even then they do not embrace western ideals without problems. Even if they overall tend to embrace many western values without great problems. But we have to remember that even there old traditions are deeply attached. For example India and it's cast system.

So if we look at world we see South America starting to show some level of resentment, and then we have fiercely religious Middle East (and muslim societies elsewhere). It is natural that the problem first and foremost appears in muslim area. Their religious principles, history of being under rule of europeans and notable wealth of oil in their most important areas make them more capable of showing their dislike. It is not impossible that the problem would spread out eventually. Though even I do not right off believe it unless western nations make more huge blunders abroad.

Like I said it is not only ME though. Problems have existed even before with french speaking areas where increase of english has already caused backlash. But those have been smaller situations and more diplomatically solved.

[bbcrackmonkey]

There is indeed a lot of resentment in South America towards the United States, and it is not without justification, but South American terrorists are not trying to commit mass-casualty attacks in the US, nor are they having a backlash against Western Society in general. Many people consider South America part of Western Society.

Although they have suffered through corrupt US sponsored dictators, US military interventions, European colonialism, American cultural Imperialism, etc. there are still many South American countries whose leaders and populations are largely pro-US like Chile and Colombia. There is indeed a leftist backlash against the US in South America but I think it is temporary, and I think the Islamic backlash against Western society is on an entirely different scale and isn't going away any time soon.

And just to clarify about India, the caste system is pretty much non-existent in most parts of it nowadays. In my Comparative Study of Religions class in college my professor asked the Indian students what caste they were from and not even their parents who were from India knew. They had to ask their grandparents to find out.

[Tiwaz]

There is indeed a lot of resentment in South America towards the United States, and it is not without justification, but South American terrorists are not trying to commit mass-casualty attacks in the US, nor are they having a backlash against Western Society in general. Many people consider South America part of Western Society.

Although they have suffered through corrupt US sponsored dictators, US military interventions, European colonialism, American cultural Imperialism, etc. there are still many South American countries whose leaders and populations are largely pro-US like Chile and Colombia. There is indeed a leftist backlash against the US in South America but I think it is temporary, and I think the Islamic backlash against Western society is on an entirely different scale and isn't going away any time soon.

And just to clarify about India, the caste system is pretty much non-existent in most parts of it nowadays. In my Comparative Study of Religions class in college my professor asked the Indian students what caste they were from and not even their parents who were from India knew. They had to ask their grandparents to find out.

Why you think backlash in South America would be temporary? One has to take into account that they have had tendency to drift to left all the time and often that has been "righted" with intervention from USA.

As for the indian students, apparently they do not come from rural areas? That is where plenty of the people still live and where many problems are most pressing. I am not saying that cast system is not being demolished but it is far from non-existent.

Caste in India today

Although The God of Small Things takes place in 1969, the caste system is still present in India, especially in rural areas. Today there are about 250 million Untouchables. Caste discrimination has been against the law since 1950, but prejudice continues. The United Nations estimates that there are 115 million child laborers and 300 million starving people in India, most of which are Untouchables. Government programs and quotas have tried to raise the living standards of Untouchables by reserving places in the legislature, government jobs, and schools. These government actions often result in an increase of violence by caste members. Urbanization, economic development, and industrialization benefit Untouchables by breaking down caste barriers. In the cities of India members of different castes are constantly in close contact and forced to interact with one another which helps to weaken the strict rules of the caste system.

Untouchables have also become a strong and organized political force who refer to themselves as Dalits. In a recent interview with Emily Guntheinz, Arundhati Roy was asked to comment on the caste system. Her reply follows: It's the defining consideration in all Indian politics, in all Indian marriages...The lines are blurring. India exists in several centuries simultaneously. So there are those of us like me, or people that I know for instance, to whom it means nothing...It's a very strange situation where there's sort of a gap between...sometimes it's urban and rural, but it's really a time warp. (n. pag.)

http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/caste.html

[Rush Limbaugh]

I would say large part of this problem comes from west, willingly or unwillingly, trying to crawl into islamic world. People see their culture being under threat and, as is natural to humans, react to it in hostile way and turn even more furiously towards their own cultural system

This is a two way street. Many see Islam, especially in europe, to be crawling into the christian world. They react just as you suggest Musims do. Problem is europe isnt very christain anymore. Still though there is a backlash.