Ussama Makdisi

In a nutshell? Maronites and Druze (and Sunni and Shi'a and Christians and Jews) didn't engage in sectarian violence until they were pushed there. For instance, most communities in Mt. Lebanon were thoroughly mixed as far as religion goes, and if anything they were sorted by class and by which elites ruled them. Hell, Druze celebrated Maronite holidays and vice versa. But then you have French Christians who come in and are disgusted by how 'muslim' the Maronites are. They offer education and medicine, but only to Maronites. The British, in the great European proxy wars, support and arm the Druze. Elite Ottomans, Maronites, and Druzes all use this "clash of civilizations" narrative to get the stuff they want. Then all the responsible parties step back in shock when Maronite and Druzes start killing each other. How do the Euros and elites explain that without looking in the mirror? "These sectarian peoples, all they want to do it kill each other. that's how it's always been." That's where we get the myth that ethnoreligious groups in the Middle East have been killing each other "for a thousand years." Nope, bullshit. In Mt. Lebanon, it started between 1941-1960 when outsiders with their guns, medicine, education, and superior attitudes decided the Druze and Maronites shouldn't live with each other.… (plus d'informations)

In this significant work the author studies the interaction between American Protestant missionaries and Orthodox Christian Arabs mainly through the prism of a couple of well documented historical events in the history of the Maronite Christians of Mt. Lebanon in the 1800s. What is new in this study for English readers is much more of the "local voice" than is usually found in writings by and about these missionaries. Also helpful is the author's comparisons with missionary attitudes and efforts in Hawaii and among Native Americans.
A wide audience will appreciate the ideas found in this work, including cultural and church historians, missiologists, theologians, and diplomats. An acquaintance with basic Middle Eastern history of the 1800s and problems of orientalism is assumed. The author is widely read and provides copious notes and references.
The writing style and logical flow could be improved. The author has a tendency sometimes to pack several ideas into one sentence without developing arguments and evidence in support.
This book works in support of more objective historiography by looking at how different individuals have participated in each other's history. It is still the case, however, that the preponderance of sources are from the missionaries' side.… (plus d'informations)