Obama was up against Napoleon
President Obama speaks at Cairo University today. (Chuck Kennedy/White House)
Some unfiltered thoughts about the speech.
President Obama just delivered his “remarks to the Muslim world” in Cairo, Egypt. In it he quoted the Quran, invoked his own Muslim background, and acknowledged Islam’s contribution to world civilization, all while seeking out a new vision “based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” This speech follows Obama’s trip to Saudi Arabia and an earlier speech in Turkey where he promised that America will never be at war with Islam. I think the question now is whether average people in Muslim majority countries — who are the target of the speech — are going to actually believe that Obama is his own man in search of a new paradigm or whether they are going to liken him to Napoleon Bonaparte and therefore a continuation of a disliked past.
For many Muslims one of the watershed moments in the history of Western colonialism occurred in 1798 with Napolean Bonaparte’s invasion of Egypt, which, with its mixture of muscle and manipulation, is considered perfectly representative of colonial behavior. When Napoleon’s armies, ready for invasion, arrived at Egyptian shores, French publicists trained in Arabic, used revolutionary language to convince the Egyptian people that they were actually being saved from Mamluk tyranny. Napolean met with Cairene elites and the scholars at al-Azhar — the Islamic university which just co-sponsored Obama’s speech — and claimed to be a Muslim. He claimed that the natural leadership of Egypt were the ulama or religious scholars (a position ironically held today by Islamists) and subsequently appointed fourteen scholars from al-Azhar to form part of his administrative government. Napoleon even obtained a fatwa which said that he was Islam’s awaited mahdi, or messiah, and that there were at least 20 verses from the Quran that referred to him. Of course, The Encyclopedia of African history notes that the French expedition was actually “spurred by strategic, economic and scientific interests.” The basis of Napolean’s action had to do with satisfying commercial lobbies in Paris who wanted to create an alternative zone of power to British India and who wanted to market luxury goods in Africa after a Mamluk bey named Ibrahim had expelled French merchants.
It is this history, a history in which European powers have appropriated Islam in order to advance their own material interests at the expense of local populations, that could make Muslims wary of Obama’s speech. And, to be frank, there are definitely elements to the speech that will give people pause. The most glaring of such instances is when Obama actually abandoned his own view of the War in Iraq — which he once called a “a dumb war” — and instead embraced the view George Bush took towards the war after his WMD argument didn’t manifest itself. Thus spake Obama: “The Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.” That comment is going to sound like a ringing endorsement of the war. It is going to bolster the argument that Obama can say all the nice things about Islam that he wants but he has been co-opted by the so called system — and when people think of the system Napoleon is not far from mind.
Where, I think, Obama gets the benefit of the doubt has to do with the element of his politics which is most American: a basic willingness to himself go into the street and lay out his vision. There is something about this direct populist engagement — which cuts out religious authorities and other middle-men — that makes Obama a far more effective agent for setting forth the Western position than someone like the Pope. Direct engagement, even with a man one disagrees with, is empowering to the average man. It makes a worker feel dignified. It makes a student feel that she has some stake in the affairs of the world. As someone who has felt the rush of democratic fervor in Pakistan and America — and who also knows how it feels when one lives in other places where such fervor never materializes — I can safely say that Obama’s engagement is actually going to resonate louder in a country like Egypt where the democratic impetus sits somewhere between silent and shattered. The mere fact that Obama stood before a local audience and set forth his agenda, clearly and in a full-throated way, gives him a legitimacy that previous visitors to the heart of the Muslim world — say a Napoleon — could never have.
Then, of course, there is the issue of Byron’s hollow-cheeked harlot: hope. A man can suffer the same indignity and the same lie and the same heartbreak a hundred times over but he will always hope that the next time will be different. Maybe Obama does not represent progress at all, maybe he just stands for change we can make believe in, but right now, in this time, he is the “next time” we were looking for.
Ali Eteraz is the author of the prose work, Children of Dust, forthcoming in October by HarperOne.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] Eteraz’s comments on the Obama Speech at [...]
Thank you for the history. Really. I find it a welcome addition to the ongoing conversations … While reading, it occurred to me, we have a choice: cynic or activist/supporter. At the very least, can’t we just let ourselves see that kind of a future, too? [BTW, hope as a harlot? (geez) Well, if so, it is against her will and her hollow cheeks the result of starvation.]
Thank you for a balanced post that brims with insight.
Ali, look forward to reading your posts. A question: is America forever to be seen as the same as Europe? The West is more than Western Europe. Europe and the United States do not move in lock step, and America is not an automatic step-child of European history. Furthermore, the Mideast is not one place with one view of history, and Muslims are not monolithic in their views, nor are Egyptians. Echoes of Napoleon may be very real, but I think it’s misleading to polarize the very complex issues of Obama’s image internationally into an either/or based on Colonialist history. It contributes to an over-simplification of hope and change and sets hope and change up for a diminished return.
Hi Vickie:
You are right in that it will vary from person to person whether or not America should be linked, ipso facto, to what Western Europeans wrought in the world. However, after WWII, the US did inherit and become engaged with a great many of the conflicts, controversies and political conundrums that were previously the purview of the Europeans. Israel-Palestine; Saudi Arabia; the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran (with British help); alliance with Pakistan, and so forth. (Looking outside the Muslim world for a moment, consider Vietnam. That was a French conflict that suddenly turned into a watershed American war).
I do think that it is probably the case that the Cold War had a lot more to do with this than a desire on our part to become the “next” British or French.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] my two cents. The question remains, is Obama really and truly sincere in his words? Or is he, as this editorial puts it, simply another Napoleon, a man who “appropriated Islam in order to advance [...]
Ali, Really enjoying what you have to say. In the spirit of giving it the response it deserves, let me just continue it a bit. It’s unrealistic to think we will not be advised and influenced by the past, but who among us is ready and able to think beyond the Cold War? Do you agree that we have to commit as much as we can, each country, each viewpoint,individually, to good intentions, no matter how manipulated or maligned by the usual suspects? I know the Mideast, famous for its centuries old wars of attrition religiously, philosophically, and historically, isn’t about to roll over the learn new tricks to please anyone, but there has to be a path to new responses other than “so give me what I’ve been asking for for 40 years.” We have to see what else we’ve got to work with to begin gradual change. What do you think?
[...] Dat is wat ik ervan vind. De vraag blijft: meent Obama echt wat hij zegt? Of is hij, zoals in dit artikel [en] wordt gesteld, gewoon weer een Napoleon, een man die “zich de islam heeft toegeëigend om [...]