Loudmouth,

I take your point about the slaves.

Yet, I'm reminded of a piece by William Cobbett in Rural Rides, where he chastises the establishment (In Britain) for going about slapping itself on the back for rejecting slavery while at the same time continuing with its practice of working women and children in stiflingly hot factories and mills for 14 hours a day - and sending them home to rat-infested, un-drained hovels, with scant nutrition to depend upon - for a pittance.

He was flabbergasted that in a time where slavery of dark-skinned people was recognised as wrong, that under the regime of virtual slavery, poor under-represented British people were subject to that sort of treatment.

It was only when a few influential people of the upper echelons came on board and government decided to seek out reports on working conditions and the deplorable state of the towns that things slowly began to change.

And this was in a wealthy country which at the time was a dominant power in the world.

So a big part of change is shared equally between "will" and "means".

I'm surmising that Afghanistan may not have enough of either.

I'm sure that the US will simply pack up and leave, but I'm also pretty sure that Afghanistan is already significantly changed and that the change will continue of its own accord, although it may be many years before a genuinely egalitarian ethos pervades the place.

The thing is that the whole society has to do better, because even a queen on a dungheap is still walking in sh!t, while the lowest peasant on a nice shagpile is arguably better off. It's also important to remember that these people are families and friends to each other and presumably they care for each other, although their culture is very unforgiving of any perception of betrayal or lack of commitment to the common cause, which once again, stands to reason in the historical context, however it may look like an anachronism today.

What will fix Afghanistan is the development of its extensive mineral resources. When it is profitable to do as the developers want done, it will happen. As long as the price hasn't been negotiated and agreed, no amount of shoving people around will do much except cause them to push back.

I think the US slaves are a different kettle of fish completely, although there were certainly some who were well-entrenched and comfortable in their roles. the main difference is that the slaves existed to be exploited, while I would be very surprised if women from traditional tribes in Afghanistan saw anything other than a protectiveness and concern for their welfare in their men for the most part. Of course, some of the protectiveness might be religious, but have a look at the US. The tradeoff in such a harsh environment is that the women have certain clearly defined roles and so do the men and everyone gets on as long as they know what their role is and stick to it.

Not a whole lot different to a military unit, which is what many of these small tribes are, effectively.

Yes, Poirot, it was not a matter of either-or - either put up with de fact slavery in the mines and factories OR support African slavery in the Americas - both were evil, both had to be fought, the goals of liberation for both workers in Britain AND slaves in the Americas were compatible with each other.

And for all its imperfections, what helped all that along ? The cumbersome beast called the Enlightenment, the push by philosophers and political scientists and many others for expanded rights for ordinary people, including workers and slaves. And eventually women.

As someone writes in today's Letters o the editor in The Australian, the tragedy for Islam is that it has never even moved towards Enlightenment ideas, since to do so would be seen as flouting the will of Allah, whose perfect Book has already been written, of which the Koran is a perfect copy, and therefore never to be modified.

Ergo, whatever the Koran says about women's rights, stays. Ergo, it is right and proper to throw acid in the faces of young girls and to set them on fire. It is only right and proper to blow up marketplaces and schools, in such a righteous cause.

No, I think you are right: Afghanistan - by itself - may not have the 'will' or 'means' to begin the long process of promoting ideas of justice and equality and even of right and wrong, since power is all.

For that reason, I fervently hope that the Coalition can delay its departure as long as possible: once they have started something, they can't just p!ss off and leave the women to their ghastly fate.

And surely, all you Left-male-chauvinists out there, ask yourself: aren't Afghan women as entitled as you or your mothers or sisters to full, productive lives, free of fear and harassment ?

Thanks again, Poirot.

Joe

G'day Antiseptic,

Your appalling statement, that

" .... the main difference is that the slaves existed to be exploited, while I would be very surprised if women from traditional tribes in Afghanistan saw anything other than a protectiveness and concern for their welfare in their men for the most part.... "

overlooks the obvious - that women in peasant societies, particularly backward and reactionary ones backed by a backward religious rationale, are nothing BUT exploited - for their bodies (to produce the next generation of males for 'their' menfolk), for their labor in the fields, and labor in the households.

You seem to have some strange notion that Afghan women are somehow cossetted in their homes, looked after tenderly by their men, sheltered and protected like delicate flowers. Maybe I'm over-interpreting your remark, but for God's sake, try to get real.

Women in such societies are traded between families, as useful and productive chattels. If they step out of line, it means disgrace for their original families, who may kill them to protect their honor.

Any children their 'vessels' may produce belong to the father (which is why, in such peasant societies, to protect the certainty of paternity, she must be closed up in her husband's household), and the woman can be expelled from the house, on her own, once she has weaned the baby, i.e. once she has fulfilled her function.

She inherits half of what her brother inherits, in societies based on property. She can be raped, then stoned for it.

And her word is worth a fraction of a man's in court. A bit like slaves in the US, actually: viz. the Jed Scott case (I think, 1837?).

[TBC]

[contd.]

Women in such societies are as human and as entitled to a good life as you and me, or any of our mothers and sisters and daughters. But I wonder, if women in such societies knew what was coming from when they were born, they wouldn't utterly despair. In peasant China, so they say, a baby boy is laid on a pillow, but a baby girl is laid on the stone floor. So it starts early.

In Afghanistan, the US and others are the agents of progressive change, class change - they are the Left to the Taliban's Right. Long may they stay there.

Joe

Loudmouth,

Er...it was the Enlightenment that heralded the new industrial age.

It took quite a while for those who ruled the roost to address the cruelties inflicted by post-Enlightenment industrialisation.

And these were particular cruelties pertaining to industrialisation, whereby the poorest of the population, having been driven from the countryside by the overtaking of cottage industries, were treated abominably by the new entrepreneurial class. Enlightenment thinking had long bolted from the gates while this treatment was still abounding.

So women and children were particularly badly affected by this treatment, as were families in general....and it was only the dire conditions of their existence, which, if they'd continued, would have eventually led to a crisis in productivity, that slowly led to the Factory Acts.