Trashing the remains of Babylon to spite satan?

[advancedatheist]

I'd bet money that christian superstitions about Babylon and this stupid "end times" delusion play a role in this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1391042%2C00.html


Babylon wrecked by war

US-led forces leave a trail of destruction and contamination in architectural site of world importance

Rory McCarthy in Baghdad, and Maev Kennedy
Saturday January 15, 2005
The Guardian

Troops from the US-led force in Iraq have caused widespread damage and severe contamination to the remains of the ancient city of Babylon, according to a damning report released today by the British Museum.

[badger3k]

I'd bet money that christian superstitions about Babylon and this stupid "end times" delusion play a role in this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1391042%2C00.html

Personally I doubt it. Most of it is probably from the general tendency (esp in combat arms) to not give a shiite about anything not their own, especially in combat situations. Most of the people involved probably have no idea or don't care about the damage or the history of the site.

Now, I can't say anything about what moron decided to use it a depot, but it lacks any thought in the realm of history, politics (very smart to camp out, desecrate and/or destroy a national treasure - which it is even after Saddam screwed around with it), and what have you. I seem to recall that there were walls up around it (or within it), meaning the military probably saw it as one more means of defense they didn't have to put in. They may also have thought that the history would make it less likely that they would get attacked (I know, really stupid if they did think that).

While I think it possible that the vandals religious chauvanism may contribute to the lack of concern, I don't think it was the major portion.

[anders]

I don't think it is a question of Christian whatever, but a case of USAmerican ignorance of culture. I get quite mad when I read reports of USAmerican destructions of sites of our common cultural heritage.

Q. What's the difference between America and a pot of yogurt?
A. After 200 years, the pot of yogurt will grow a culture.

[Chaupoline]

It would be better if you do not try to make jokes like that. It defeats the feeling of the post. It is a post about trashing architectal structures not anti-American sentiments. Although the claim is that Christian beliefs have a reason for this, I still think that this would be better argued in PD.

[Veovis]

It would be better if you do not try to make jokes like that. It defeats the feeling of the post. It is a post about trashing architectal structures not anti-American sentiments. Although the claim is that Christian beliefs have a reason for this, I still think that this would be better argued in PD.

Even so, it's a good one! :notworthy

[MonCapitan2002]

I doubt religion had any motivation it the military's carelessness about setting up a military depot in Babylon. I think chalking this up to Christian bias of anything not Christian is would be an inaccurate assumption.

[Vorkosigan]

I don't think it is a question of Christian whatever, but a case of USAmerican ignorance of culture. I get quite mad when I read reports of USAmerican destructions of sites of our common cultural heritage.

Q. What's the difference between America and a pot of yogurt?
A. After 200 years, the pot of yogurt will grow a culture.

One thing I've found in 20 years of living as an expat is that foreigners are absolutely clueless about the US and the complexities of its culture and history, although they often think they know a lot, mistaking the reality of their ignorance for the reality of American culture. Case in point....

Vorkosigan

[jbernier]

It would be better if you do not try to make jokes like that. It defeats the feeling of the post. It is a post about trashing architectal structures not anti-American sentiments. Although the claim is that Christian beliefs have a reason for this, I still think that this would be better argued in PD.

A hypothesis was put forth to explain the acts of destruction. A counter-hypothesis was posed. What is wrong with that?

[jbernier]

One thing I've found in 20 years of living as an expat is that foreigners are absolutely clueless about the US and the complexities of its culture and history, although they often think they know a lot, mistaking the reality of their ignorance for the reality of American culture. Case in point....

Vorkosigan

There is undoubtedly truth to this. It is the same thing that I see when non-Canadians critique Canadian domestic policy, particularly about same-sex marriage - a general ignorant of the complexity of our history. Nonetheless, I think that Americans (and Canadians, as well) suffer from historical myopia. It comes, I think, from the fact that our great cultural monuments are only 2-3 hundred years old. For instance, I have attended two universities which are considered old by Canadian standards: Both are about 150 years old. By European standards, that is young. My grandparents got married in an 800 year old church back in England - a church that, at the time, still had mass, etc. I think that, in Europe, one is surrounded by antiquity - medieval castles and churches, Roman aqueducts, etc. It is harder, then, to devalue history. In North America, this is simply not the case. I suspect that this has something to do with it - much more than some sort of attempt to foil Satan's plots (btw, most evangelicals who would interpret Revelation in the way suggested in the OP would also believe that it is inevitable, that nothing they do can prevent it from happening. The suggestion that this was their motivation just does not make sense, given the worldview of your average evangelical).

[Vorkosigan]

There is undoubtedly truth to this. It is the same thing that I see when non-Canadians critique Canadian domestic policy, particularly about same-sex marriage - a general ignorant of the complexity of our history. Nonetheless, I think that Americans (and Canadians, as well) suffer from historical myopia. It comes, I think, from the fact that our great cultural monuments are only 2-3 hundred years old. For instance, I have attended two universities which are considered old by Canadian standards: Both are about 150 years old. By European standards, that is young. My grandparents got married in an 800 year old church back in England - a church that, at the time, still had mass, etc. I think that, in Europe, one is surrounded by antiquity - medieval castles and churches, Roman aqueducts, etc. It is harder, then, to devalue history. In North America, this is simply not the case. I suspect that this has something to do with it - much more than some sort of attempt to foil Satan's plots (btw, most evangelicals who would interpret Revelation in the way suggested in the OP would also believe that it is inevitable, that nothing they do can prevent it from happening. The suggestion that this was their motivation just does not make sense, given the worldview of your average evangelical).


I don't know. I used to think that too. But basically, history is construction, a construction of the modern world, imposed upon the past, that we use to define our own identities. So often all over the world I've met this same myopia, even among people living among spectacular ruins and fabulous civilizations. The real difference isn't between Americans/Canadians and others, but between the educated and the uneducated, a difference that transcends nationalities and cultures.

If you want to attribute it to culture I actually think you are looking in the wrong place. The Americans trashed Babylon because there is in US culture a strain of rowdyism and irreverence that manifests itself in bold destruction and profanation of the sacred. Positively, this produces the dynamism and making-new that people so envy about the US. Negatively, well, you get the destruction of Babylon. Those people who ran tanks over an archaeological site knew full well that it was a sacred site. They did not suffer from myopia -- you could hardly fail to recognize it for what it was. They did it because it amused them. Because they could experience themselves as powerful in doing so.

Finally, let me point out that there is nothing specifically American about this. The Germans blew up castles in France in two world wars, and the Allies retaliated by destroying whole cities in Germany -- like Dresden, for example. China was extensively looted by the Powers, and later, by Japan, signified by the British destruction of the Summer Palace as punishment for the upper classes.

Vorkosigan

[mirage]

Nice posts jb and vork,

I agree that it is all too easy to generalise about national tendencies, and that whatever these are they pale in significance to educational differences. It is a well established practice for an invading (or liberating) army to trash a few cultural treasures of the land. It's how soldiers behave en masse.

On the other hand, I would be extremely critical of the higher echelons of military but particularly political command, amongst whose stated aims were to preserve cultural heritage. Important in terms of political expedience as much as anything else. These people are incompetent. It is quite clear that insufficient resources and care were devoted to the task.

A further point is that the culture of a nation may not be nearly as significant as the particular culture of its army. I'm in no position to comment on this though.

[jbernier]

The real difference isn't between Americans/Canadians and others, but between the educated and the uneducated, a difference that transcends nationalities and cultures.

If you want to attribute it to culture I actually think you are looking in the wrong place.

I am not sure that one can distinguish 'education' from 'culture,' as it would seem to me that the structures which produce education are by definition cultural and social phenomena.

The Americans trashed Babylon because there is in US culture a strain of rowdyism and irreverence that manifests itself in bold destruction and profanation of the sacred. Positively, this produces the dynamism and making-new that people so envy about the US.

The question becomes "Where does this come from?" Unless one wants to suggest that there is some sort of quintessential, ahistorical, American "personality" then one must ask what historical processes, trajectories, etc., have led to this "rowdyism" and "irreverence." I would suggest that such a history would be tied closely to America's colonial and (later) revolutionary foundations. That is to say, the American colonies and later the American nation was founded largely by separatists and separatists, almost by definition, are going to have an irreverence for that from which they are separating.

This separatist impulse is, I think, the genesis for the "making-new" of which you speak and, really, for the myopia to which I refer. The "making-new" consists of a constant sense of making a complete break from the past. This is where we see the separatist impulse and the revolutionary impulse as really the same thing: A sense of a new beginning, a New World, new frontiers, etc.

Negatively, well, you get the destruction of Babylon. Those people who ran tanks over an archaeological site knew full well that it was a sacred site. They did not suffer from myopia -- you could hardly fail to recognize it for what it was. They did it because it amused them. Because they could experience themselves as powerful in doing so.

Fair enough. However, is not the idea that they did it for amusement itself evidence of myopia, in that they could not see beyond self-gratification in the now? "Never mind that I am destroying something that has been around for the better part of 3 or more millenia. Never mind that I am robbing the future of this monument. Never mind any of that because, in the now, I am amused and that is that matters."

Finally, let me point out that there is nothing specifically American about this. The Germans blew up castles in France in two world wars, and the Allies retaliated by destroying whole cities in Germany -- like Dresden, for example. China was extensively looted by the Powers, and later, by Japan, signified by the British destruction of the Summer Palace as punishment for the upper classes.

Fair enough. However, this was German or Allied troops in France or Germany in two world wars. If we want to understand the dynamics at work in this particular instance I do not think it inappropriate to look at larger trends and trajectories in American thought and practice, particularly as these are manifested in the military. Events of this sort are always going to be about larger forces than the individuals involved. They may be the immediate cause, but there will always be larger structures involved (even the simple fact that they are even there, in Iraq, involves the larger structures that exist in the world of international politics). Indeed, the OP starts from that assumption by attempting to put this on the shoulders of evangelical Christian thought and practice.

[jbernier]

A further point is that the culture of a nation may not be nearly as significant as the particular culture of its army. I'm in no position to comment on this though.

This is important, I think. I used to work for a historian working on the development of 'military culture' in early modern England - fascinating stuff, which I barely understood.

You are right, though. This incident and Abu Gahrib suggest a gap between what the military and civilian leaders say their troops are going to do and what their troops actually do. We are left with three alternatives to explain this gap:

1) The actions of the soldiers on the ground reflect the orders that they have been given, in which case the orders which had been given were inconsistent with the policies which the leaders publicly articulated;
2) The actions of the soldiers on the ground do not reflect the orders that they have been given, in which case the orders which had been given were either never received or were ignored by said soldiers;
3) A combination of #1 and #2.

Each of these alternatives is more than a little troubling. However, I simply do not see any other possible explanations for the gap between what is said the troops will do and what the troops actually do.

[badger3k]

This is important, I think. I used to work for a historian working on the development of 'military culture' in early modern England - fascinating stuff, which I barely understood.

You are right, though. This incident and Abu Gahrib suggest a gap between what the military and civilian leaders say their troops are going to do and what their troops actually do. We are left with three alternatives to explain this gap:

1) The actions of the soldiers on the ground reflect the orders that they have been given, in which case the orders which had been given were inconsistent with the policies which the leaders publicly articulated;
2) The actions of the soldiers on the ground do not reflect the orders that they have been given, in which case the orders which had been given were either never received or were ignored by said soldiers;
3) A combination of #1 and #2.

Each of these alternatives is more than a little troubling. However, I simply do not see any other possible explanations for the gap between what is said the troops will do and what the troops actually do.

Don't forget #4 - that the story may not be entirely accurate. Remember that Saddam did make his own "modifications" to the site, sealing walls up, covering walks with concrete, and others as well. I have heard from a soldier who is in Iraq (and was stationed there) and she has said the article is more one-sided. While some things have been done, it is probably not as bad as the article suggests.