Humanities desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 11

Were Ba'athist parties generally led by minorities?

I found it interesting that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party was led by the Sunni Arab Saddam Hussein and that the Syrian Ba'ath Party was led by the Alawite Assad family, with both Saddam Hussein and the Assad family belonging to minority groups in Iraq and Syria, respectively. This made me wonder--were Ba'athist parties in other countries also led by members of minority groups? Or was this something that was unique to the Ba'ath Party in Iraq and Syria--and, if so, why exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might have something to do with a frequent colonialist tactic of placing local administrative power (under the overall control of the colonisers) in the hands of a minority ethnicity within the territory concerned, so that they would enforce the colonisers' laws in order to protect their own position (and lives). I'm sure there is a term for this, but I don't know what it is. Both Syria and Iraq in their modern forms were of course created, somewhat artificially, by European powers in the earlier half of the 20th century following the enforced breakup of the Ottoman Empire. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.83 (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In a multi-party state the members of one party usually are a minority. I think one would also need to look at the respective sizes of the different parties. In Syria, Hafez al-Assad "organised state services along sectarian lines (the Sunnis became the heads of political institutions, while the Alawites took control of the military, intelligence, and security apparatuses)." Any information on why al-Assad put the military, specifically, under the control of his own sect? 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:A9B0:FBB2:63AF:F685 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was a strong-arm dictator, and such leaders need the military to support their authoritarian rule? --Jayron 32 13:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ba'athist parties are not particularly Islamic in nature. They are secularist Arab nationalist and Pan-Arabic parties. While the leadership of those parties may or may not be adherents to any particular branch of Islam, the parties themselves are not particularly religious in nature, certainly not much more than American political parties are Christian in nature; in the sense that there's a tacit endorsement of Islam as a broad faith, but not in terms of being theological in outlook. This is evident by the fact that The Alawites are a Shi'a-based sect, while the Iraqi Ba'athists are Sunni. The Jordanian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party descends from the Iraqi party, and Jordan is majority Sunni. The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party - Lebanon Region descends from the Syrian branch, and Lebanon is as close to a pluri-religious society as one can get (it is basically split into almost perfect thirds with Christians, Sunni, and Shia, along with a small number of Druze). The fact that the Syrian and Iraqi branches are led by members of minority religious groups in their countries is basically coincidence. There is no greater pattern to this, because the group is not particularly religious, as I noted. They are primarily concerned with a particular brand of Pan-Arabism. --Jayron 32 14:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, have you ever considered that minorities might be more attracted to secular parties because it takes the focus away from ethnic and/or religious issues? Futurist110 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My considerations are not relevant to this discussion. --Jayron 32 13:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the founders of the Ba`th party, Michel Aflaq, was Christian (as was George Antonius, the intellectual father of modern Arab nationalism), but Ba`thism has never been particularly Christian, as far as I'm aware -- and when Aflaq died, the Saddam regime circulated a dubious story that he'd undergone a deathbed conversion to Islam. Also, Saddam Hussein is not a "minority" in any usual sense, since he was a Sunnis, and Sunnis were always the most powerful group in Iraq down to 2003 (even though demographics were slowly turning against them)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Arabs were, what, 20% of Iraq's total population back in 2003? Futurist110 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Sunnis", not "Sunni Arabs". In any case Saddam is not comparable with the Assad dynasty, since he came from a traditionally overall privileged and powerful group (though not from the ruling class), while the Assads came from an originally semi-obscure group who traditionally were often not even considered to be "real" Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway

I have stumbled across a video on youtube entitled "George Galloway: Are you a racist", but I am unable to link to this as youtube is apparently on the wikipedia blacklist. Anyhow, Mr Galloway explains how he spent several years fighting appartheit in South Africa. Now having read his bio on wikipedia (linked above) it seems to be fairly complete and all time periods appear to be covered and I can't see any mention nor time gap allowing for his claimed activities. Mr Galloway is also notoriously not a good source of reliable information. Can someone please confirm if he did indeed take part in fighting the old regime in South Africa. Thanks. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:6884:6200:31B5:87EF:F8F6:BB70 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's apartheid. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not on any Wikipedia black list. The Youtu.be link shortening service is, as with most link shortening services even if this one can only (AFAIK) be used for links to Youtube. If you use the share function in Youtube, this will often provide the Youtu.be shortened URL, but if you copy the URL in a browser, this should be the full Youtube.com URL. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the video you are referring to [1] although I have not viewed it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I called up YouTube on my browser and the first suggestion which came up was "George Galloway vs the US Senate (FULL TESTIMONY)" [2]. I wonder why. I went on to type the name of the video mentioned by the OP into the search bar and it brought up quite a few videos on the same subject. 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:A9B0:FBB2:63AF:F685 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found [3] from Galloway which provides more info on what he said he did. I read the English Wikipedia article George Galloway and don't see that it describes everything he did during his life. Running for elections is not generally a full time job, even serving in executive positions on political parties may not be, especially if they are subdivisions. BTW, our article also mentions his response to that question, as well as a response published in the Times of Israel. That response says "I suppose we'll just have to take him at his word on that one." so seems to suggest some doubt, but also not something which was definitely known to be incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the YouTube video of Galloway responding to the question, during a debate at The Oxford Union in October 2013 (mentioned in the article), whether he is a racist, he refers (at 5:14-5:20) to "the decades that [he] worked against apartheid in South Africa". That does not imply he spent decades in South Africa; I read this as Galloway saying he worked for decades against apartheid-in-South-Africa. He does say (at 1:25-1:44) that he "travelled the length and breadth of apartheid South Africa as an underground agent of the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela, then in Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town". That was then in the years 1982-1988. --Lambiam 11:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Galloway is, like many on the British left, opposed to Zionism, a standpoint that can lead to allegations of anti-Semitism. See George Galloway sacked by talkRADIO over allegedly anti-Semitic tweet (June 2019). Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very few British politicians who get into trouble over Israel / Jewish issues have done nothing other than criticizing Israeli government policies. The great majority of them want Israel to be wiped off the map, to start with, and many of them would have no particular problems if this wiping off the map were to be accomplished by means of force and violence. Many of them have been carried away by their enthusiasm on this issue to utter loose and inflammatory declarations which have been found unacceptable by almost all the UK Jewish community (always excluding JVL, of course), and by many others in the UK as well. George Galloway refuses to talk with, meet with, or sit on the same platform as Jewish Israelis, among other things. Ken Livingstone indulged himself in loose and inaccurate analogies to Adolf Hitler (which was the latest of many other offenses on his part). Jeremy Corbyn rejected the IHRA definition of antisemitism because he thought that people in the UK Labour party should be able to accuse all those who oppose Israel being wiped off the map as "racists", and still remain party members in good standing... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference desk is not a place for opinions or debate. --Lambiam 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]