A History of the Modern Middle East by Cleveland and Bunton

[Steven_R]

I picked up the Fourth Edition of A History of the Modern Middle East by William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton. It's a textbook for a history class, but is a fairly good read. It doesn't get bogged down in details and minutiae. There is a Fifth Edition now and the Fourth Edition covers up to 2008, but because it is an older edition can be bought for a buck or so on Amazon.

Anyways, the book covers roughly the last 400 years of history. Some material is presented concerning the rise of Islam and clashes between Muslim and Christians over the Crusades and the end of the Byzantine Empire, but over all, it covers what happened once Europe got its collective shit together and became THE movers and shakers on the international scene.

The way the book is laid out is by periods and each chapter covers that period regionally. The regions covered are Egypt, the Ottoman Empire/Turkey, the Levant, Iraq, and Iran. Other areas are dealt with as necessary, such as Afghanistan or North Africa, but they really are outside the scope of this book and as such as are only peripherally examined.

Something I found very interesting is in the parallels between what happened with the Ottoman Empire and what is happening today in the US economically with China. The Ottomans entered into a number of trade agreements with France and England that ended up sending raw goods from Turkey to Europe in exchange for finished goods, but sent the Turks into an on going economic down turn. Europe simply squeezed the Ottomans economically.

The other interesting point is just how the Muslims became enamored with the European way of doing things (such as law or business) and invited the Europeans in to show them how to fix their nations and the Europeans simply never left. Part of that was due to the Muslim economies being in shambles and in debt (often because of the amount of money used for public works and the interest being defaulted on) and because the European powers used the Muslim countries as pawns. The British invaded Egypt to secure Egypt's debt and stayed. England and Russia effectively split up Iran so neither side could have it all. It's a theme of European intervention and lopsided treaties and Oxford and Sorbonne trained Europeans simply telling locals how to run their own countries because obvious brown people can't run it and to keep some European advantage in the process.

It was also interesting to see that throughout it all, the local leadership had to figure out how to balance their needs to reform with the triple threats of keeping the religious community happy, keeping the local moneyed interests happy, and keeping the Europeans happy. Of course, it only gets worse after WW1 and the French and British effectively take over the whole Middle East. Much is made of the various schemes the British and French set up and how they consistently screw over their erstwhile Muslim allies and how their allies get sick of it. It's a story that goes from WW1 to WW2 to the Cold War to now.

This book doesn't present whites as the big bad oppressors and Muslims as victims. Indeed, it points out how the Muslims tend to be the authors of their own destruction when a reformer is replaced by the next guy who throws out the reforms in favor of posh palaces and ruthless oppression.

It's an interesting book and sheds some light on what is going on in the Middle East today and how and why it is affecting the world as it does.

Like I mentioned, copies are cheap on Amazon and for a buck or so it is worth the money.

 

[oldfart]

I picked up the Fourth Edition of A History of the Modern Middle East by William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton. It's a textbook for a history class, but is a fairly good read.

Thanks for the review! I'm putting in an order today. The last couple of histories I've read have serious disappointments. Paul Collins "The Birth of the West" (a history of the tenth century) was fascinating in its subject matter, but poorly written. "The Lost history OF 1914" was based on a fascinating counterfactual approach and better written, but also was disjointed. I guess I've been spoiled by Cecily Wedgewood.

From casual observation it seems to me that reading history is in a slow decline. Maybe that's because reading anything of book length is in decline, being replaced by watching mini-series and the History Channel. The standards for good history writing also seem to be slowly slipping. I can't attribute any of this to "they don't make them like they used to" and the foibles of the rising generation; it seems teaching bad history in schools, turning off interested readers, bad scholarship, and abysmal ignorance have been around quite awhile.

So anything within my budget, on a topic I have a mild interest in, that has some promise of being well written is worth a try. Thanks again.

I'd also be interested in what you think of the Amazon review system. I find 400 reviews of the same book with scores in every category unhelpful. Maybe they could normalize the scoring to give a better read on the book's quality.

 

[elektra]

Oxford and Sorbonne trained Europeans simply telling locals how to run their own countries because obvious brown people can't run it

I like your synopsis.

The quote above I would agree with, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which ran the Middle East into the Ground, its obvious they did not have the skill to run country like Egypt or Syria.

To have a full understanding "Travels in Deserta Arabia" is a must read.

Did the Middle East have the politicians with experience to run their Countries. The answer is a definite no.

In the middle to late 1800's the Peninsula of Arabia did not even have a Mason to repair a Cistern or Well.

As far as Universities go, I think it was Egypt that was the only country that had a University, I say think because Lebanon had a University but that came later then the middle 1800's. I guess I should google to know for sure.

But, they were overall a backward under-educated people at the end of the Ottoman Empire, at which time the League of Nations created a bunch of brand new never existed Nations hence the need for someone to manage the affairs of government.