I grew up in Russia and have met a few people who subscribe to the "honor" philosophy of life, where personal insults must be repaid by personal violence up to killing. Such people can be fun, intelligent, charming. But I will never enter any serious business or personal relationship with anyone like that, and will teach my children the same.
That was great, I'd love to see a full blown HN discussion on it rather than just a subthread... this part jumped out at me:
> I see this as a real danger even if - especially if - we eventually succeed in meeting everyone's needs. In a society where everyone is continually satisfied, the growth of an egocentric world-view is all but guaranteed. Just look at how easily things that were wild utopian fantasies or fabulous luxuries a few decades ago have become "rights" in contemporary American society. In a society where instant gratification is the norm, any obstruction of the will, however trivial, will be seen as a direct personal assault. The more routine gratification becomes, the less able to cope with interruptions people will become...
I agree and feel like this can at least partially explain the rise of PC, identity politics and the culture war.
To me, that just sounds like the "moral decay by luxuries" trope that has been repeated since at least Ancient Greece. I feel like every trait in society perceived as negative by someone has been blamed on that at some point.
You're thinking of a different quality. Willingness to defend oneself is normal and admirable. "Honor" as defined in Dutch's essay is something else entirely. It's about willingness to kill for an insult. That's despicable in both individuals and nations.
Killing for an insult is self-defense in a society where tolerating an insult broadcasts that you can be taken advantage of, with no repercussions. (Typically because the justice system is absent, toothless or corrupt.)
"Honor" is not a cultural failing, it is a failing of legal structures.
Where such systems don't exist, our rhetoric is not far off from this line of thinking.
Disagree. Insults are a problem if and only if they cause third parties to have unfairly* diminished regard for you.
To give a topical example, there does not appear to be any insult which affects Trump: if you hate him then the insults prove you right, but if you love him then the insults are just fake news.
* In some places and some eras, insulting Our Leader was punishable regardless of whether the insult was true. I think this is a bad law, and only falsehood-based defamation should be an offence — but even then there is a problem because humans treat lists of more than seven-ish items as endless and the internet’s perfect memory means you can probably show any given person has said or done more than seven socially unacceptable things.
> Disagree. Insults are a problem if and only if they cause third parties to have unfairly* diminished regard for you.
To give a topical example, there does not appear to be any insult which affects Trump: if you hate him then the insults prove you right, but if you love him then the insults are just fake news.
In societies where 'honor' killings take place, insults do cause third parties to have an unfairly diminished regard for you.
Here's an example closer to home - when a drug dealer gets ripped off for $500, he doesn't care about the money. $500 is nothing to him. What he cares about is appearing like an easy mark, which opens the door to everyone and their brother stealing from him. It's why the correct response to that kind of insult, in that kind of industry, is to go to the offender's house, and break their skull open by dropping an ATM machine on it.
He isn't killing someone for $500. He's killing someone to make it clear that he will not be taken advantage of.
Trump doesn't need to do that, because me insulting him on Twitter will not result in other people ripping him off. He is protected from that by a working legal system. My insults are not damaging, and even if it were, he would be able to sue me. Drug dealers, and people living in the mountains of Albania have no such recourse (Or do not trust it.)
I think people in this thread are talking past each other. I wanted to clarify the other side of the debate:
Nothing better illustrates the thar mentality better than the fury directed by Islamic militants against Danish and Norwegian cartoons of Mohammed. Sacrilegious art in other cultures can offend and get people angry but the lunatic response of radical Islamists is in a class by itself. It's the shrieking, out of control petulance of a three-year old throwing a tantrum. People infected with this attitude will be utterly incapable of recognizing wrongdoing by their own society, utterly incapable of taking criticism or recognizing the need for correction. This is remarkably close to the image of Hell painted by C. S. Lewis in his books Perelandra and The Screwtape Letters: a paralyzing self-absorption that imprisons the individual in hate and impotent rage while simultaneously blinding him to any possibility of escape.
This doesn't seem like a question of legal systems.
This seems like an utterly dissimilar phenomenon from the personal, tit for tat honor disputes between people who know each on an individual basis and are enmeshed in the same social network or framework
And if we're talking about lunatic radicalism and out-of-control petulance, sometimes it's just a flag being burned, kneeling at a football game, a black man living in a white house, or whatever nonesense about impure blood and 'White Europe' gets fascists marching in the streets these days.
All of these things have elicited death threats. Again, the difference is that in our society, the threat of law keeps those people from carrying them out. A few decades ago, the threat of law did not, and lynch mobs were common.
well, 'honor' is socially defined, so the animating context for a killing, so to speak, matters. Some are actual confrontations, but more often an attack will be based on imaginary consequences or implications of someone else's behavior or existence.[1]
Long story short: you're making category errors left and right.
You got downvoted but you're right. That's the whole point. Honor cultures exist in places where there is no strong, central justice system. It is a well-documented phenomenon throughout human history - ancient Japan and viking-age Iceland come to mind as notable examples, and I'm sure there are dozens more.
I dont think they are correlated. It is not difficult to imagine a totalitarian society where criticism against the establishment is not tolerated; many auch have existed and many such exist today.
The characteristic that marks non-thar-ness is a strong desire to deescalate. Willing enough to retaliate, but unwilling to retaliate in greater proportion. Overretaliation leads to a toxic society, but a society that punishes offenders only enough to disincentivize uncooperative behaviors builds a cooperative society which has citizens not living in fear of dumb mistakes.
Without a legal system, what other form of recourse do you have?
Obviously, murder is a very serious form of retaliation, but with no path for de-escalation (a trial, a judgement by a religious, or community elder - or a feudal warlord), eye-for-an-eye will eventually reach that point. Let's not forget that most cultures, including ours, prefer, or at least tolerate revenge over turn-the-other-cheek. It's why it's so easy to treat criminals as subhuman - those that have done wrong have to be punished.
Most people see themselves as the heroes in their life story. When I harm Bob, and Bob escalates, and harms me back, I won't see it as just desserts - I see it as Bob harming me, context be damned. I will retaliate. (And so will he.)
I think "the United States' overreaction to 9/11" would need to be broken out into much finer detail.
* Referring to Iraq, there's a good argument to be made that it wasn't so much an overreaction as a seizing of opportunity.
* For violence against Muslims in the USA there was some of that, but I don't think it was either widespread enough or widely accepted enough to be considered a reaction by "the United States"
* For immigration policies, maybe, though again I think it's pretty clear that that's more to do with political parties than a US-wide reaction.
As opposed to attempts to make money, start wars (see “make money”), promulgate an ideology, win political points, gain power over a populace (Patriot Act), and just plain fear?
There was a good dose of that, too, but there's also a good dose of that in 'honor' killings.
Our reaction was disproportionate, it did not go through proper legal channels (For reasons including them not really existing in the international sphere), the rhetoric used to enlist young men to fight these wars smelled heavily of it...
As a frequent visitor to Albania, I find this article appalling. The author goes out of her way to make Albania seem a weird, Borat-like country. Sadly, while it is common for Western journalists to visit Albania in order to write an article about blood feuds as an easy sale to magazines, they rarely put blood feuds in context – they are limited to a distinct region of the country, their real heyday was the 1990s, and the absolute number of people affected is very small even by the standards of Albania’s population. Furthermore, the country has made enormous strides in development, and much of Albania is now little different from any other Eastern European country. Writing an article about Albania and pointing to road quality is mainly an anachronism, and complaining about the difficulty of finding a ferry just makes her look like a bellend incapable of doing normal things that travelers do in most countries on earth.
And then the complaint about the Albanian language is ridiculous. The orthography is pretty straightforward and Albanian phonology heavily overlaps with English (one reason that Albanians can often have good accents in English even if the don’t actually know the language as well as it would seem). And when she writes this:
> Ukuˆgaan iˆxamnakuˆx or “Nice to see you.”
I speak fairly good Albanian now, but I have no clue what this is supposed to be. It is not Albanian, at least not in any standard orthography.
I don't blame you for defending a nation that, in my experience, is the victim of a lot of ugly stereotypes in the United States (and probably much of western Europe) in the face of an unflattering article. But I think you're being a little harsh--to me the author seemed to be going out of her way to make clear she was describing only a limited part of the country.
For example, the article makes crystal clear that, that, as you say, the feuds are limited to a small portion of Albania:
> The killing is concentrated in northern Albania—in the rural, often unreachable villages of the Accursed Mountains, and in the modern city of Shkodër, one of the oldest municipalities in southeastern Europe.
Similarly, the author's comments about the road, etc., are specifically about "northern Albania." I'm in no position to determine whether or not this addresses the substance of your comment but, at the very least, it is clear that this description is not about the country as a whole.
And finally, about the language: I'm again in no position to judge (though it does seem likely that written Albanian would be challenging for an English speaker simply due to the much larger number alphabet), but I'll just note that the quote you reproduce is, I suspect, intended to be written phonetically, not using standard Albanian orthography.
> to me the author seemed to be going out of her way to make clear she was describing only a limited part of the country.
No, her presentation is very jumbled. Talking about ISIS on the basis of an “ex-Army friend”? Northern Albania is overwhelmingly Catholic, and that mention of Islamism results from suddenly trying to bring Kosovo and Macedonia into the article (and even then, her “ex-Army friend” is exaggerating).
>>“What I can tell you in broad strokes is that Jihadi sympathy is rising in the area. With any luck you might just spot the ISIS flag being flown in the open,”
Like you said, that area is virtually 100% Catholic, but in all areas, police are MERCILESS with such things. Free speech takes a backseat.
>>“As far as advice goes, when you touch down get a decent knife and keep it on you.”)
Yeah, a woman with a knife. Anything can happen, and crimes of opportunity do happen, but she'll probably be 10 times safer than walking at night in average dangerous US city. For one, anyone touching a tourist--and they have--will be hunted down. He'll end up with bruises for resisting arrest :)
We can agree that her army friend sounds like a nut, and it was probably poor judgment to include those inflammatory quotes from him. ("When you touch down get a decent knife and keep it on you," for example, sounds like poor advice at best.) And we can probably agree that the short passage you highlighted is not great as a whole. If I were her editor, I might have taken it out. But I'm not sure what this has to do with the point under discussion, which was whether the author made clear that the feuds are limited to a small portion of Albania, and are far from a nationwide phenomenon.
Moreover, for the record, the potential for radicalization of Albanian Muslims is by no means an issue of this author's own invention. It's easy to find numerous other examples of reports to this effect. So it seems indisputably true that "there are still worried mumblings" that Albania could become a recruiting ground for ISIS. One can easily find these worried mumblings with a cursory Google search. (Of course, the truth of the underlying proposition may be a different matter. I don't know.) I also have serious doubts about your statistics. Albania as a whole is majority Muslim [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...], and Albanian Kosovars are overwhelmingly Muslim [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/europe/how-the-saud...]. So it would stand to reason that northern Albania has at least a sizable Muslim population.
> So it would stand to reason that northern Albania has at least a sizable Muslim population.
No, there is no sizable Muslim population in Northern Albania. While in the far south Orthodox Christianity and Islam are very mixed, in the far north the population is almost 100% Catholic.
I'm really not that interested in belaboring this point, but you're painting with such a broad brush (and by merely repeating the same assertions), that I couldn't resist digging in a little further. And it turns out that, indeed, there is a sizable Muslim population in Northern Albania--unless you're using some special definition of "northern Albania." (I suppose this is possible. But, if so, it does not appear to coincide with the region being discussed in the article--Shkodër and the Accursed Mountains--which both appear to be areas with significant numbers of Muslims). There are portions of the north that are overwhelmingly Catholic (not actually inconsistent with there also being a sizable Muslim population, but never mind), but also many other areas of the north that are majority Muslim.
Shkodër and that portion of the Accursed Mountains where gjakmarrja saw a revival in the 1990s, are within that portion of your map that designates an overwhelmingly Catholic area. To the northeast is an area with a larger Muslim population, but within the context of Albanian culture that area (Kukës, Peshkopi) tends to be designated "Northeastern Albania" to set it apart from Northern Albania that is centered around Shkodër.
North and Northeastern Albania were separated by considerable natural barriers until recent times, and while the Ottomans made inroads in the latter and Islam spread, in the former the Ottomans never established a firm grip and the area was a fortress of Roman Catholicism.
I have zero connection to Albania and completely agree. The whole tone of the article is of exploring some backwards nation.
> Though it’s almost impossible to substantiate the statistics, aid organizations estimate that at least 12,000 Albanians have been murdered for blood in the last twenty-five years.
This is approximately the annual number of gun deaths in the USA.
Newspaper gives different stats http://www.tiranaobserver.al/statistikat-ja-sa-vrasje-kane-n...
and in the later years apparently it rarely crossed 100 deaths (3 mil people). In 1997-98-1999 law and order totally broke down so there were a lot of deaths.
Not to mention that all land became state property about 60 years ago and in early 1990's was distributed to others. Needless to say original owners were not happy.
Today Albania is much safer than NYC, deaths are in most cases targeted (crime groups that go back and forth)
I think there are lots of people in the US that consider gun deaths a huge problem. But the fair description of our collective sentiment in the US is that gun deaths are just part of the price of freedom.
US number is annual and doesn't include deaths from other reasons. Albania number is sum of the last 25 years.
So we could ignore other homicide weapons and say yes, this is equivalent to 48000 Americans a year.
Considering that US gun violence has fallen by about 50% since the 90s [1], I'd say this is equivalent to about 3-4x the US rate over the same period. It's a lot but not some murderous wasteland.
> Conflict is an especially fertile ground for cultural innovation. Friedman stresses how many legal systems, including advanced ones with lawyers and codes and everything, show signs of originating from feud systems, which might be the most basic form of law. They work like this: “If you offend me in some way, I will try to kill you”. A slightly more advanced version that takes account of possibly power differentials between offender and victim: “If you offend me in some way, everybody in my family will try to kill everybody in your family”. This originally sounds unpromising, but it turns out that people really don’t want their family members murdered. So we end up with an even more advanced version: “If you offend me in some way, we had better find some way to arbitrate our dispute, or else everybody in my family will try to kill everybody in your family”.
I think the article is exaggerating a lot, I was in Shkodër for a month in 2004 and while it was filled with culture shock, I never felt unsafe as a tourist. That said, I also didn't decline the Raki or Saleep...
If there's 1/10000 chance that something you do will offend someone, and you do it on the Internet, there will be people that want's to kill you. Hopefully you are not using your real name ;)
We all agree that "justice" needs to be done. Before there was traditional law and order by the "state": you kill my kin, I killed yours. It kept things in order and fear of revenge made you think twice.
In Albania like in many transitional countries you could escape traditional justice by paying judges. Or the police never did their job as they should. Now, what's one to do when you see the killer walking freely ? It happened in Sicily, Corsica, it happens in Pashtun areas etc etc. It's really simple: No law, revenge takes over.
By the way, this only affects families involved, and in most cases even others inside the family are ruled out: "I only have problems with the person that killed my son, others are free."
Albanian here (living in NYC), and this is a grossly over-exagerated article, and she has no citations whatsoever on her numbers, just a attention seeking/sensationalist article.
The region is very remote. It takes hours to get in a main city, and usually the region is blocked during the winter. Historically this place is Catholic as the Turks/Ottoman empire couldn't influence the region at some of the traditions had carried on.
"if the person who has offered it is simultaneously recounting how, a few years back, he got angry and shot a man. Such is the custom here: You honor your host’s hospitality."
-- That just doesn't happen. Trash article.
Please don't get discouraged by this.
If you visit the Thethi region, I'd highly recommend during the summer and a 4x4 / SUV. If you love hiking and the occasional 4x4 off-roading, this is a great place to visit.
Unfortunately, the article is not well-researched. There is no effort to explain the social-economic roots of the problem at hand. No historic background or recognition that the problem spans across borders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krvna_osveta) .
I find the title bombastic and inappropriate; it is simply using the catchword “vendetta” as clickbait.
If you visited Corsica or Sicily and observed/learned of a local custom or phenomenon, would you extrapolate that phenomenon to the rest of the country (respectively France/Italy)?
And what a coincidence that the author is of Serbian / Slavic origin.
Fair enough on the lack of historical/socioeconomic background. That would have been interesting--though it's not clear to me why such a discussion is actually necessary here, as you suggest. (And it strikes me as a bit odd to describe this sort of article, based on apparently extensive first-person reportage, as "not well researched".)
But note that the author does not extrapolate to the rest of the country.
> The killing is concentrated in northern Albania—in the rural, often unreachable villages of the Accursed Mountains, and in the modern city of Shkodër, one of the oldest municipalities in southeastern Europe.
To me, it is significantly more problematic to suggest that the article is the product of some sort of bias against Albanians merely because the author--who is a professional author/journalist and Guggenheim fellow--has Croatian grandparents
I grew up in Russia and have met a few people who subscribe to the "honor" philosophy of life, where personal insults must be repaid by personal violence up to killing. Such people can be fun, intelligent, charming. But I will never enter any serious business or personal relationship with anyone like that, and will teach my children the same.