Exercises in Maybe: Absolutism

"What do you mean?  Why don't you believe in the Truth?" a student asked a colleague of mine when she said she wasn't a Muslim.  You get that a lot here-- people confused by others not believing in what to them is clearly the Truth.  It's not specific to Islam.  Many Christians I've met feel the same way.  It's not hard to imagine those devoted to other faiths believing in the absolute truth of their religions either.  I think a lot of people though, myself included, have a hard time with this.  We find ourselves somewhat skeptical of "organized religions" and people who claim to know, without question, that the edicts passed down to them through holy scripture and religious leaders speak the infallible word of God or whatever higher power they happen to believe in.  I guess you'd call us agnostic, at least to some degree.  Many of us might consider ourselves to be spiritual.  We might even attend church services regularly, but I think that for the most part we kind of pick and choose the truths that we are most able to relate to.  We find our own truths in sermons and the allegory of religious texts, sometimes in more than one religion, and it might even be the areas where religions overlap and that enforce what we believe to define being a good person that we assign truth to.  We don't take every word passed down to us as being the unquestionable truth.  That's how I feel at least.  I have no problem with faith, or religion, or with houses of worship.  All can be beautiful ways to find peace and build community.  It's the absoluteness of religion and doctrine that I have a hard time with.  So let's try supposing I don't.

Without getting into the specifics of Islam, or any organized religion or ethos for that matter, it seems that most world religions are based on the teachings of one or a handful of enlightened individuals-- prophets let's say.  While there have been many, quite seemingly contradicting prophets, to suppose that there have been some folks that happened to be more tuned in than the rest of us isn't all too difficult.  The major monotheistic religions even share some of the same prophets like Moses and Jesus, and while assigning them different levels of importance, they still recognize the fact that these guys knew what was up.  So the idea that the teachings of individuals who were more in touch with the truth of our world, the human experience, and maybe even much beyond both into the realm of the metaphysical isn't too much of a stretch for me.  In the same vein, if we were inclined to believe in a singular God, a higher power, or an absolute truth, to suppose that that truth is accessible to us on Earth, or that that higher power has facilitated that access isn't too hard either.  That He/She/It could have spoken through individuals, and even later through subsequent individuals it seems, then, very well could have happened as well.  And if your willing to make even the smallest leap of faith, why not?

Then there are the acts that people take in the name of their religion fueled by the fact they consider it to be the absolute truth.  I'm gonna leave out the actions of countries and armies as it is my belief that religion is often used as justification for the very earthly aim of conquering lands and peoples, but the actions of individuals can definitely be attributed to absolutist ideals.  Converting others is something many people have undertaken in the name of the truth of their beliefs.  Again, supposing that what they believe just so happens to be the truth, it's not hard to understand wanting to share that with others, especially if the recipient's eternal soul is on the line.  I mean, geez, we should only be so lucky to be converted if that's the case.* The acts of murder and suicide on the part of true believers though, are just too hard for this particular blogger to try to understand, no matter how much of a leap I try to make.  But suffice it to say that if they can be justified by some higher truth, maybe I don't want to be privy to it.

The hardest thing for me to suppose might be true is the idea that the messages of enlightened ones and prophets haven't been distorted and have been passed on, ruled upon, and interpreted correctly and in line with that same absolute truth by so many people down the line in the course of human history.   At least part of human nature it seems is to wield power to one's own ends, and the power that would come with deciding how the reported teachings of probably the most influential people in history will be interpreted and passed on seems to be too tempting a possibility for the wickedly inclined to pass up.  It's very possible that the reason the world's major religions are such powerful things is because they express some absolute truth, but the idea that people at some point with the influence to do so haven't distorted that power in their own interest remains to be my biggest objection to the absolutism of religion.  The fact that there have been so many disagreements that so often have resulted in sectarianism and violence only furthers this reservation.

Still, at the end of the day there is a reason they call it 'faith' and not 'knowledge'.  The leap of faith may come in believing that God or whom or whatever is facilitating the dissemination of truth has done so through so many people and generations, and that that truth has remained intact and pure ever since the prophets bestowed it upon the world.  It may also come in believing enough to pass it on to others or to take the very biggest leap by putting yours or someone else's life on the line.  But it's not a leap that's easy to make, for me, all things considered, especially when people are hurt or subjugated as a result. I'll take comfort in the fact though, that I can't blame people, not for the desire for truth, not for believing it's been given to them, and not for wanting to give it to others.  I'll, however, continue to find it on my own, and hope that the truth that others find can be more along the lines of peace and togetherness as opposed to conflict and separation.


* An idea I've heard a lot here is that of "Reverting" as opposed to "Converting".  It supposes that everyone is in fact born a Muslim, so if you go from being a non-Muslim to being one, you are actually coming back to your true religion.  

Assorted

Four months in the desert allows a lot of time for reflection.  And while I'm not exactly living in a tent wedged between a couple of sand dunes, it sometimes feel like I am.  Here are some things I've noted recently when looking back on my time here, my blog, and when looking forward.

Four months is not that long of a time.  It flew right on by.  It really is true that the older you get, the quicker time passes.  I mean it makes sense mathematically-- a year is a much smaller percentage of my life than it was even 10 years ago-- but there's something else to it too.  The more you've lived the more you understand that no matter what, the time will pass.  You obsess much less about the future, about not being able to wait for certain things.  You live much more in the present and as such, it's always fleeting.  Now maybe there are fewer landmark moments to look forward to, or it's more understood that those will come when they do and there's no use driving yourself crazy waiting.  But for me at least, I'm much more comfortable with the present, and it's making time fly.

I've had the thought more than once that I'm right where I should be.  It's a really good feeling.  Don't get me wrong; I miss my friends and loved ones like crazy, but they understand, as do I, that my time here is about opening my eyes, and open they have.  I hope it's not too selfish a process though.

I've noticed how my blog has changed a lot in nature.  It's gone from being more about personal experience to about my thoughts on regional politics.  I hope this hasn't turned too many off, but at the same time I could never apologize for writing about what's on my mind.  And considering the amount of Al Jazeera I watch and the lasting impact the unprecedented events of the last few months in the Arab world will continue to have, it should come as no surprise.  Plus, I love this stuff.  More personal posts are good for me as well though, and I'd like to rededicate myself to more reflection, observation and things specific to my experience here.  But we'll see.

I've also noticed that a lot of things I've written aren't entirely accurate when I've gone back and reread my posts.  Sometimes almost immediately after posting, I'll have a conversation or learn something that makes me realize what I wrote about a certain topic isn't exactly true.  For the most part though, I've decided to leave it how it is.  I think those things say a lot about my impressions and my experience at the time which just so happen to be the only things I've ever claimed to relay.  Also, I wouldn't have realized that those things weren't true unless I had written them.  The act of writing, or speaking for that matter, gives one the opportunity to reflect on the words you put together.  You're able to hear or read the words and then compare it to the feelings you're trying to describe as well as the reality they relate to.  It's a way of creating and facilitating a dialogue, even if it's only with yourself, and it's from dialogue that the best questions come and some bit of truth can be ascertained.  Therefore, saying something, saying anything is such a worthwhile process, and the fact that afterwards you happen to find things you don't agree with or that aren't accurate only helps to prove this point instead of the opposite.

Along these same lines though, it would be fun to conduct some actual research for some of the pieces I write.  So many of them have very little other than my personal thoughts and feelings based on my limited experience.  Expanding that experience through more deliberate conversation, interview, formal research, and travel would only stand to improve my writing, at the risk of people assuming it to be more objective.  Being in Saudi Arabia, on a visitor's visa to work and teach, and with none of the protections afforded to international media in the middle of a regional political crisis might not be the best situation to start playing journalist though.

I've been able to accomplish some of the goals I set out for myself as far as personal development and self-improvement are concerned.  My struggles with some of them though, like learning Arabic and starting to floss, have highlighted two things I find to be true:  1) It's always best to take on one new hobby, activity, desired habit at a time.  Trying to do them all at once is a recipe for at least partial failure. 2) It's much easier to quit something than it is to start.  When all you gotta do is nothing in order to feel like you've done something good, it's much easier to accomplish.

Most of the novelty of this place has worn off.   I'm much more rarely surprised and unfortunately, most things I encounter seem to reinforce ideas that I've already developed as opposed to creating new ones.  It's also easy to be cynical.  My hope is that surprise will come when those generalizations are dispelled and I can again be confronted with the idea that things aren't always what you think.  I'm still excited about being here though.  It's still an education.

A Different Model

The wave of protests in the region continues to grow in strength and scope.  Just look at a map and it's obvious that an idea is a powerful thing.*  Arabs across the Middle East and North Africa have had that idea reinforced by the successful ousting of governments in Tunisia and Egypt; things very recently thought to be impossible.  Yemenis, Bahrainis and now even Syrians are wielding the power their very existence endows them with-- the power of numbers.  Only time will tell how far the wave will spread; how powerful it will become.  The model that the countries in the Middle East have created is compelling.  They've shown that people can come together, forget about sectarian, political, and religious divisions and focus on the issues that unite them:  unemployment, rising prices, ending corruption, being sick and tired.  The model itself is powerful.  It makes you wonder who outside the Arab world will take notice and be inspired; who will start to take to the street; which countries' governments will be forced to feel the pressure of their populations.  I think most people are looking at countries dominated by authoritarian regimes, but the model doesn't restrict itself to dictatorships.  The power of mass protest can be wielded anywhere, and what I'm really wondering is if and when, in the face of such trying economic times, Americans will start to take notice.

We have a history of mass protests-- labor riots, anti-war movements, the struggle for civil rights-- but it's something we don't really do anymore.  The attack on the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in the Mid-West and many other states has offered an opportunity for people to come out and be heard, and the public's reaction has been noteworthy.  It's effectiveness is yet to be seen though, and after all, a hundred thousand isn't a million.  So what would it take to get people coming out in the millions, demanding that their voices be heard?  What would it take to unite Americans so seemingly divided by so many issues accentuated and exasperated by the so-called "news" media?  What would it take to change the way things are done in America?  Aren't the elements short of authoritarianism that were and are present in the Arab states experiencing mass demonstrations present in the U.S. right now:  unemployment, rising prices, a widening of the gap between the rich and poor, cronyism, slashing public services, a disappearing middle class?  Shouldn't Americans be sick and tired?   

So why are so few coming out against policies that are sure to pass the burden of an economic recession caused by the unregulated, irresponsible behavior of financial institutions --who have since been bailed out with tax payers' dollars-- on to America's poor and middle class?  Why are so few outraged that city and state budgets that pay for things like education, transportation, libraries, garbage collection, and healthcare are being gorged in a year that saw record earnings for huge corporations and the number of billionaires continue to increase?  To me at least, it seems like there are two major, mutually reinforcing factors:  a lack of reliable information, and partisanship. 

People aren't informed of the impact of policy-makers decisions on their lives, and they're not aware of what feeds into those decisions.  It's not as though economic policy is simple to understand. Nor are the secretive processes of lobbying and campaign finance that feed so much into what our elected officials decide to do once in office.  So a big problem becomes with what and where do people come out to voice their discontent .  So much is done that effectively confuses the issues and thereby the public at large who might, if properly informed, be incensed enough to participate in protests and demonstrations.  This is as much a product of the capacity of ordinary Americans to understand complex issues as it is their willingness, but nevertheless, where and from whom could willing people get reliable, non-partisan information is still yet to become obvious.

People also take at face-value the words of the politicians and news media that supposedly represent them.  Americans are so effectively divided by things that have no bearing on their lives as individuals and are so convinced which side they're on that the idea that they actually have more in common with people on the other side of partisan lines in the face of of such trying economic times fails to reach them.  Buzzwords like 'terrorism', 'socialism', 'patriotism', and 'fascism' are thrown around like Molotov cocktails inciting people and stoking the flame of  'us vs. them'.  Meanwhile we're made to believe that the place to fight these battles is at the ballot box where the leaders on either side represent the will of their constituents.  If anything was needed to dispel this notion it has so far been the presidency of Barrack Obama, who has failed to live up to the expectations of change that his supporters fervently projected onto his, in hindsight, actually quite limited campaign  promises.  What we can learn from this failure is that either the current system is so entrenched in the political process that the hands of those who might champion the rights of the many over those of the few are effectively tied, or that those people just simply don't exist in government.

We as a population have a responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable.  We as Americans have the additional responsibility to the rest of the world of keeping in check a government whose decisions have such far-reaching and dramatic implications.  It doesn't seem to me that these responsibilities are possible to uphold at the ballot box.  Seemingly then, the only method left is in the streets.  It's my hope that poor, disaffected and unrepresented Americans on both sides of the partisan divide will look upon what's happening in the Arab world with envy and will find inspiration in it.  Obama has shown that he's amenable to the demands of the populations of countries in the region-- even if not all of them.  So maybe he'd be more likely than most to implement policies that people demanded if the chains that bind him could be shaken loose by popular will.  There still remains the question of what people should demand.  Simply being upset isn't enough to get things done.  It's easy for people under authoritarian regimes to cohesively demand something: an end to authoritarianism.  But until there can be some unity in that regard in this country and with the population in general in the midst of complex issues, it's my fear that any popular will, even when voiced on election day, won't have any positive effect on the lives of so many troubled Americans.  So maybe it's time we implement a different model.

* a comprehensive interactive map of the uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa 

    http://www.slate.com/id/2288928/?from=rss

The Language

Any learner of the Arabic language must first decide which Arabic it is they want to learn.  While some form of colloquial (spoken) Arabic is the first language of over 280 million people mainly across the Middle East and North Africa, many of these dialects are not mutually intelligible.  In addition to the spoken forms, Modern Standard Arabic, based on Classical (Quranic) Arabic, is widely used in schools, universities, workplaces, government and the media throughout the Arab world.  So naturally you have to ask yourself: Which form of Arabic do I want to learn?  Do I learn some form of Gulf, North African, or Mediterranean Arabic?  Where do I want to travel, work, or spend the most time?  Should I learn Modern Standard Arabic so that I can engage in intellectual, political, or philosophical conversations with educated people across the region?  Should I learn a spoken form so that I can interact with people on the street?  Which is the most widely understood colloquial form? Is it possible to formally study a colloquial language?  How do I want to be identified when I open my mouth?  The task can seem quite daunting, and has deterred many a potential learner of the language, myself included.

In my experience so far, I've been picking up mostly what I can of Najdi Arabic-- the colloquial form spoken in the central region of Saudi Arabia called Najd.  Originally I thought that learning Modern Standard would be the best, since it's used across the region and because I'm often want to engage in political and philosophical conversations (not that that's obvious to you all), but in the process of developing even the most basic vocabulary, I quickly ran into a problem.  No one I actually spoke with outside of an academic environment could understand what the heck I was saying.  Cab drivers, shop keepers, and even my students all looked at me pretty quizzically and kind of shaking me off would correct me with colloquial words and phrases.  My first crisis of the Arabic language had occurred.  So now, having decided that in my present situation learning the local spoken dialect would be best, I was immediately confronted with my next crises:  Well what happens when I travel?;  How well will I be understood?; and Do I really want to be identified by my Saudi dialect?  I felt like I was back at square one.

I can now say though, that it seems the best course of action is to learn a colloquial dialect, especially if you plan on living and working in the region.  It will be the easiest to pick up through interactions and the best to converse with.  Once some level of fluency in that spoken form is reached, I get the impression that differences, especially between dialects that are close geographically to each other, can be picked up more easily and mutual intelligibility isn't as difficult.  You will be identified by the words you use and your accent, but this seems to be unavoidable and unfortunately would mean that people wherever I'd go in the Arab world would know I'd spent time in Saudi and assume I've got money.  Modern Standard Arabic seems to only be useful if you plan on being highly involved in academia or government, and while it is the language of mass, pan-Arab media and literature, I don't get the impression that it would take you very far on the street.   You would be bound to run into somebody who speaks it, but for the most part people would assume that you've studied Islam extensively since it's based on the language of the Qur'an.  If you're not planning on living and/or working in a specific part of the Arab world, I've been told that Egyptian Arabic is the most widely understood spoken form, thanks to the popularity of Egyptian movies and television programs, and would take you the furthest while travelling.  

Regardless of which dialect of Arabic one decides to learn, the language on the whole seems to have some unique qualities.  The thing that I've found to be the most interesting is how someone fluent in both Arabic and another language will transition back and forth between the two seamlessly and without giving it any thought, sometimes in mid-sentence.  It's crazy to be sitting next to someone conversing entirely in Arabic when they'll suddenly say "about 20 kilometers give or take" and then continue again in Arabic.  The same goes for someone speaking English interjecting Arabic into the conversation based seemingly on which language is best suited to express their sentiment.  It's cool, and while a lot of the words and phrases from Arabic that are used frequently by speakers of other languages (like "inshallah") have religious connotations, the fact that people switch back and forth so frequently raises interesting questions about different languages' ability to express different feelings and ideas.  Which things are better said in one language?  Which in the other? It seems like it would be nice to have more options.

Words after all, are the building blocks of our thoughts. So the language your given shapes the thoughts you can make. Learning another language gives you the opportunity to experience a different way of thinking.  It allows you to think using a different set of tools-- someone else's set.  In addition to offering rare insight into how other people think, it also gives you the opportunity to use more of your brain. Studies done on multilingualism's effect on the brain have shown that multilingual people have a higher proficiency in cognitive function and are less likely to develop age-related mental diminishment.  The additional acts of learning new alphabets and systems of writing can only mean more mental exercise with more benefit to the brain.

For right now though, I'll take delight in the cultural understanding and experience that my own adventure with Arabic and other languages allows for, and let the other stuff take care of itself.  But still, it's pretty cool to think about.  

This Week in Arabia

So not much came of the last weekend's Day of Rage.  On Thursday night, 3 Shiite men were shot during protests of a couple hundred people in the Eastern Province.  The official statement said the officers were returning fire and the men's injuries were not life threatening.   But on Friday, the day which coordinated protests were called for in cities across Saudi Arabia including Riyadh and Jeddah, everything was sufficiently locked down and the day passed without incident.  There were police and security personnel checking identification and searching cars in key positions in towns all over the country.  They were set up outside of mosques in the Olaya district of Riyadh when midday prayers let out-- the place and time set for demonstrations on social media sites including facebook.  My students complained about the police being everywhere and stopping people, but they seemed more annoyed at the inconvenience than outraged at the violation of their "universal right" to peaceful demonstration.

Demonstrations and clashes with security forces in Yemen are continuing to increase in scale and violence.  Yemen has seen scores of people killed and many more injured over the last four weeks.  Promises of reform are being seen as too little, too late.  The situation is growing less and less tenable for President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and considering all the talk in recent years of Yemen being a breeding ground for Al Qaeda, more concerning to the U.S. and its allies.

Protests have taken place in Syria, surprising many observers.  And in the West Bank and Gaza, tens of thousands gathered to show solidarity in the normally politically divided occupied territories.

The Sunni royal family in Bahrain must have been impressed with the how the Saudis handled their calls for protest, because they've enlisted the help of the Saudi military as well as that of other Gulf Cooperation Council countries to help "protect"  its citizenry.  One thousand Saudi troops as well as over 500 Emirati police were seen crossing into Bahrain on Monday.  The situation there has continued to progress in scale and violence as well, something which is extremely worrying to the house of Saud, whose own Shia population just across the causeway have been the only within the Kingdom to conduct demonstrations.  The U.S. is in a tough position as a close ally of both KSA and Bahrain, and the injection of Saudi military forces has come as an unwelcome surprise to the Whitehouse.  The State Department had been calling on the Bahraini ruling family to seek resolution through political means, so Saudis sending in troops demonstrates just how divided Washington and Riyadh are in terms of their reactions to the region's unrest.  So far all that has come out of Washington officially are calls for "restraint by all parties" but it is clear that the situation is tense.  Yesterday, emergency law was declared and an intensive campaign to uproot the demonstrators has already begun.  

It's pretty crazy being right smack dab in the middle of all of this.  Not only to be in the middle of the Middle East during this historic period, but also to be in Saudi, which is itself bordering 7 countries that have experienced unrest ranging from peaceful demonstration to popular uprising.  The royal family has to be feeling the same.  Still though, it does seem like an island unto itself, like a place properly equipped to weather the storm for the time being.  I'm sure this fact is welcomed by those concerned for friends and family living in Saudi (like me!).  But while you've always got to be careful what you wish for, and while it's nice to be in a place that is relatively secure where I can generate dialog with a number of Arabs, Muslims, and Westerners with a tremendous amount of interest in the region, I am honestly a little disappointed.  I would like to be experiencing a little more history first hand-- and not just so my blog gets more interesting.   I would like to engage the local population.  I'd like to know to what extent the local population is engaged.  I'd like to witness real democracy.  In the meantime though, I'm safe, secure, and sitting perfectly comfortably in the eye of the storm, with a front row seat.

But...

After re-reading "Smoke" and having a nice long chat with a Canadian friend of mine whose lived here for quite a while, I've decided that my previous post is in need of significant critique.  Statements like that Saudi is "by no stretch of the imagination in danger of revolution," or that no one here "is operating under the belief that anything will come of these calls to action", were put in way too absolute of terms.  Also, my generalizations about the situation here and the Saudi public at large were based on limited experience and don't give the voices of dissent or the many disaffected people here in the Kingdom any credit whatsoever.

My sampling of Saudi youth consists of 18-20 year old university students who come across as significantly spoiled and content in their lives and their ideas about the future.  I'm not sure that they would be in favor of bottom-up reform, but it also is very true that they most likely would not share those opinions with me and certainly not in a public or school setting if they did happen to hold them.*  Also, the Westerners I'm most likely to encounter are fed the same party line about people being happy and that the state is in complete control and wouldn't be well informed of any popular dissent-- quite similarly to your humbled blogger.

The truth is that there are a lot of people who I don't encounter who are young, unemployed, don't feel represented by the government, and lack the opportunities that the Saudi Arabia of as recently as 10 years ago offered them.  Sixty percent of the population is under 30, and unemployment figures are sharply skewed to mask the problem.  A vast majority of the population is not "pacified", as I put it, and it was unfair of me to make such a hasty generalization based on such limited exposure.  The old remedy of handouts and benefits is outdated and unsustainable and most likely will cease to be effective.   People want jobs.  My students even, who seem so carefree and contented, will find that the jobs simply won't be there when they graduate.  The world they will enter is not that of their parents when there was more money to go around to a lot fewer people.  Rising food prices and inflation have compounded these issues and wages and benefits in many peoples' case are not sufficient enough to start and support a family.

It should also be remembered that there have been voices of dissent even among the Saudi royal family, which itself is experiencing fractioning, and that this is a recent phenomena.  People high up have joined voices with influential Saudis living abroad in making calls for changes including more freedoms for women and implementing a constitutional monarchy.  These voices obviously face strong opposition from the many influential clerics and imams as well as a majority of the royal family, but their existence is something that needs to be recognized.

It is also impossible to predict how the government will react to demonstrations if they do take place, and it is even more difficult to say how and if Saudi police and military will take action against their own people including arrest and/or violent repression.  Additionally, the international community including the White House and U.S. based Human Rights Watch have called for Saudis to allow peaceful protest which may prove to further temper the governments reaction and will, at the very least, put a spotlight on it.

Personally though, I am still skeptical that much in the way of revolution will come from the actions being planned for this month or in the immediate future.  In addition to the power that the Saudi government itself will wield in order to limit demonstrations and any resulting uprising, the international community, especially (needless to say) the U.S., has a lot to lose if the power structure here is disturbed.  If things were to start going down here like elsewhere in the Arab world, it's hard to imagine that the U.S. would play as passive a role as they have in other countries.

In my last post, I overreacted to the what I felt was being portrayed in the U.S. media.  And while I don't retract any of the statements I made condemning those who stand to benefit from such propagations which still as of yet are patently false, I was much too hasty to assert that an uprising similar to those in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya or protests like those in Bahrain, Yemen, or Oman won't happen here and that they wouldn't find support amongst a pacified and/or scared population.  I still believe that there hasn't been enough fire to warrant the kind of smoke being blown around on U.S. televisions, but I will say that it is impossible to know what will serve as or if there will be a spark.  I should also iterate that the situation will continue to grow more contentious in the future, and while this might not be the time for dramatic change in Saudi, that time might not be too far off.

*  A teacher at my school was fired for discussing protesting with his students and we have been expressly warned in sternly-worded emails and an all-faculty meeting that such topics are never appropriate and are grounds for immediate dismissal.  

Smoke

While it seems that Saudi Arabia isn’t entirely immune to the wave of protests sweeping through and forever changing the Arab world, it needs to be understood that Saudi is not by any stretch of the imagination in danger of revolution.  The small protests in the Eastern Province, mainly by Shias demanding the release of political prisoners and more access to government jobs and benefits, have not been on a scale anywhere near that of even the smallest protests in neighboring countries in the region.  We’re talking hundreds of people.  Not thousands, not tens of thousands and certainly not millions—hundreds.  Present during both instances of protest last week were more security forces than demonstrators.  A few people were arrested but there was no need for violent crowd control.  Any mention of “eminent upheaval” and resulting $12 a gallon gas prices should be viewed with enough scrutiny as to seriously question the speaker’s sources, their sanity, and last but certainly not least, their agenda. 

That is not to say, however, that the Saudi Government is taking the threat of protest lightly.  They’ve recently released a statement reiterating to the public that any form of demonstration, protest, or sit-in is illegal, against Sharia law, and will be dealt with using all necessary force by security personnel.  There have been calls on facebook for mass protests, or “Days of Rage”, to take place in larger cities such as Riyadh and Jeddah, and more than 17,000 people have reportedly hit the ‘like’ button.  The first of such days is this Friday, immediately following the midday prayers as has been the modus operandi of protesters throughout this entire period of unrest in the Middle East. To be honest, I am more than a little curious to see what will happen.  But please don’t let that be any indication that anyone here, myself included, is operating under the belief that anything will come of these calls to action or of any protests that may happen to take place, or that they will reach a scale to put anybody here in danger. The idea to many, is laughable. 

First of all, they will in no way be able to get the number of people to come out as has been the case in the other Arab countries experiencing popular uprisings.  As I’ve written in previous posts, I feel that the general public is either too pacified, too scared, or both, and given the $37 billion benefits package the king has recently promised to roll out as well as the “reminder” of what the state’s response to protests will be, neither feeling is without justification.  The people who are pacified-- the large majority in my opinion-- assign the unrest to the small Shiite minority and some even agree that demonstrations against the king are not only against Islam, but unjustified.  Why would they want to upset a power structure that, after all, has benefitted them?  The ones who are scared-- and this basically comprises the rest of the population-- have very good reason to be.  Dissent will not be tolerated, especially on the days mentioned via social networking sites.  I fully expect there to be, like in the Eastern Province, more security personnel than protesters, even if somehow protesters manage to gather in the thousands.  I’d guess there will literally be enough police and military to arrest everyone present without much trouble and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s exactly what happens, if there are even gatherings at all.  The capability of the state’s security to largely outnumber protesters will almost guarantee that deadly force won’t have to be used-- if the Saudis aren’t altogether inept-- and therefore further protests and days of rage will not gather momentum as they have in other countries.  Bottom line, I and every single person, Arab or Western, Teacher or Cab driver, Muslim or not, that I have talked to can’t even fathom any sort of unrest or public demonstrations that would have any sort of destabilizing effect on the government or security.

So then why am I getting messages from friends and family in the U.S. asking me with great concern if everything is still OK in Saudi?  Why am I reading that the wave has finally reached the Kingdom?  Why am I hearing about news reports predicting worldwide economic collapse when the Saudi monarchy falls and oil exports dwindle?  The answer, I believe, can be found by looking at who is to benefit from the propagation of such falsehoods.  It’s hard to show that oil companies don’t reap the most profits when oil prices are at their highest due to fear in the market.  I also can’t help but point to the American media who have turned fear and “breaking news” journalism into profitable entertainment that is meant to enrage and incite audiences without any thought presumably being given to the idea of informing them.  I also wonder about neo-conservatives whose worldwide as well as domestic political, military, and economic agendas would stand to benefit from a more unified and fearful electorate in either the anticipation or wake of the next great shock.  

Regardless of these factors though, no one can say that any government in the Middle East no matter how effective their power apparatus is out of the woods just yet.  It's also worth noting that no one in Libya or Egypt thought revolution could happen there either.  But please, in the meantime, don’t believe everything you hear or read about what’s going on in the Kingdom.  Because for all the smoke, there doesn't seem to be any fire.

Brits

One of the opportunities that teaching English abroad allows you is being able to spend a lot of time with our cousins from across the pond.  For me, it's an especially interesting cultural and linguistic exchange for the reason that we have so much in common and yet it's our differences that we so often give weight to.  I've been given some fascinating insight into British culture, their sense of identity, as well as into the unique relationship that exists between our two countries.  I also generally think their accents and use of English are awesome and hilarious and seem to be straight out of a movie, something which I'm sure goes both ways.  Plus, having plenty of opportunity to work on my own impression can only come in handy down the road.

A lot of the British blokes I've been meeting around campus and in our accommodation are second or third generation immigrants to the isles from the subcontinent.  There are lots of Pakistanis and Indians.  It's given me a lot insight into the nature of the U.K..  I could definitely tell from my time in London that at least that city is a truly international metropolis, but what I'm learning is that the whole of Great Britain seems to have the identity of a melting pot and has for quite some time.  Imperialism has of course played a large role in this and it's interesting to talk to both Anglo-Brits and those of various ethnic backgrounds to get some perspective on how it's shaping the country today, and how people feel about it.  I've gathered that while there is an acceptance among white Brits that their country is a multi-cultural one and they even take a certain amount of pride in that aspect of their identity, there is still a pretty strong resistance to immigration, especially that which is done so illegally.  I've also found that a lot of the Indian or Pakistani-Brits I've met identify much more with the U.K. than they do with their parents' homeland and consider themselves British above all.  The effects of Great Britain's imperial past seem to be carrying over, and it' position as a hub for business as well as education in the modern world means that people will continue to try to move there and make it their home.  Sound familiar?

Linguistically, I could never tire of exchanges between British and American English.  The debate over which is more relevant, more useful, or better to me is ridiculous.  We both have to accept that our language has always been as much of a hodpe-podge as it is today and it is its nature to flow, adapt, give and take.  Modern English has been affected by no less than 30 languages including, Angle, Saxon, Celtic, Norman, French, German, Norse, Latin, Spanish, those of various native American tribes and far too many more to name.  There doesn't even exist a governing body over the language and the whole of the language's existence has freely allowed for adaptation and evolution. Neither is more correct and both have taken liberties in how they've developed over the years.  In some ways American English is more Elizabethan than what the Queen's English is today and words and expressions have been flowing both ways across the Atlantic ever since the New World was colonized.  So in my opinion all there is left to do is inquire, appreciate, and find hilarious one another's own quirky little expressions which often vary as much within one country as they do between the two.  Just the other night we had quite the time comparing anatomical euphemisms, and suffice it to say that I've grown a new appreciation for British wit.  I'm also thoroughly entertained by Cockney Rhyming Slang and for those of you who aren't familiar with it, it's the way that the Cockneys of the East-End of London use rhyming words to express ideas in a round-a-bout way.  A lot of it is still in use today.  Some has even crept into American English and I recommend doing some wikipedia'ing for some interesting tidbits.

More than anything though, I've come to develop a better understanding of how exactly the States and the U.K. really are similar, although this doesn't always come as a welcomed opinion when I've shared it with British folks.  The history of the U.K. is one where people from mainland Europe were constantly coming, invading, fighting, conquering, leaving their mark and taking off.  It really was kind of a mini and more easily accessible New World, centuries before the "discovery" of the Americas.  The point I've made that to some Brits seems so contentious is that the U.K. actually has much more in common with the U.S. than it does with the rest of Europe.  I've even gone as far as to say that it's not Europe at all.  And as much as they hate to admit it, most of the people I've talked to are willing to concede as much after further explanation.  It is hard to argue the fact that there is an Anglo-American  ideological and political alliance.  It's also quite obvious that the U.K. doesn't want to let go of it's independence from Europe. Add to that the facts that the military and economic exchanges with the States have made our two countries inextricably linked in world affairs and that these links only encourage further cultural interrelation creating that much more of a sense of "us", and it's pretty easy to see how much we are connected.

Still though, I would never say that we are the same.   The U.K. is a pretty fascinating place with a unique history that's inseparable from our own.  Its use of our common language while sometimes bringing about tension with the American variety is equally intriguing and as native speakers ourselves we're in the perfect position to try to understand and appreciate with just what kind of flavor and creativity they've developed it.  I thoroughly enjoy the process of dispelling our mutual stereotypes (i.e. that Americans are stupid and Brits are pretentious) and while I never thought I'd care to know as much about cricket as I do right now, I can say that it's been more than a worthwhile exercise in cross-cultural understanding.