I recently got into a blog comment debate with someone I don’t particularly like or agree with on how and when values and identity are formed, and whether it is possible for them to change throughout one’s lifetime.  Truth be told, the debate was sparked by a blog post in which a Christian defended Muslims.  The commenter questioned why someone would do that, ultimately stating that, for example, an Arab Christian has more in common with an Arab Muslim than with a Western Christian, or that a Western atheist has more in common with a Western Christian than with an Arab atheist (note: “Western” was his choice of terminology, not mine).

Regardless of who exactly the conversation was framed around (to a point: we could be comparing Chinese to Japanese or Tanzanian to Kenyan and it would be the same argument), his fundamental point was that two people raised in the same culture have more in common and more shared values than two people raised in two different cultures possibly can.

I disagree.

First of all, if we’re pigeonholing people into race/religion/nationality, we’re forgetting the other fundamental pieces that build core values in a person: family, generation, social class, and milieu, to name just a few.  And as someone who has had more than one serious relationship - and many, many friendships - with people from different countries or vastly different cultures, I’ve taken away this:

1. Religion is often harder to overcome than anything else, especially in a relationship.  Two atheists from different cultures can often overcome more superficial differences (class, skin color), but just as a nonbeliever cannot often transcend their significant other’s devotion, neither can a pious Muslim or Christian get over their paramour’s lack of belief in God.

2. Family and social class often turn out to be more important than anything else.  More specifically, the way a person was raised (strictly, openly, by parents who fought, or who were happy) and the circumstances under which they were raised (if there was money, if there wasn’t, if there was conflict) often has a greater influence on their values than outside forces.  Two people from different places but who had very similar upbringings often see the world in the same way.

3. Age can be - but doesn’t have to be - a huge factor, and in fact, skipping a generation is almost always possible.  I have a number of solid friendships with Baby Boomers (mostly of the hippie variety), but very few mid-Gen Xer friends (being on the cusp of Gens X and Y as they’re commonly split, I think someone got the dates wrong).

4. And for a no-brainer…Common interest is vital - I can talk to just about anyone who’s super-Internet-savvy, regardless of where they’re from or how old they are, or whether or not they believe in God - but truth be told, often find myself bored to death by people who’ve never heard of e-mail (does such a person actually exist?)

*****

In discussing identity, I think of my favorite authors - Kundera, Benjelloun, Rushdie, Updike - all of whose themes touch on identity so eloquently, and often delve into the subject of identity in a second or third culture and the foibles presented by integration.  Each one of them from a different culture themselves, yet discussing such a universal theme, and often reaching the same conclusions.  Makes you think.

*****

My generation, those of us born in the late 1970s and early 1980s - those of us who grew up with computers but not on them, are perhaps unique.  More than any generation before, we have contact with people from other countries, cultures, and yes, ethnicities and races.  More than any generation before, we were taught that everyone is the same - even if we didn’t always believe it or society or our families didn’t always back it up.  We are bound, then, to have experienced a paradigm shift - where the other is no longer, but rather, a piece of the patchwork.

Do I sound like a total hippie?  Perhaps.  But even if we’re only one micro-step closer to that reality, there is no denying that the world is growing smaller and smaller for many.  While the headlines in every paper aim to draw us apart (”Obama’s top secret meetings with Muslims - his secret pact with the enemy!”), the reality for many of us is quite different.  And while we may still be very different, the discussions I hear and see in bars, on Twitter, and in classes lead me to believe that we’re similar than we once thought.

Anne Applebaum, liberal-ish Washington Post and Slate correspondent, former-USSR expert, and wife of the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, recently published the most ridiculous op-ed of all time, entitled “Morocco, an Alternative to Iran.”  On Slate, it was published as “Morocco Makes Peace With Its Past” (perhaps even more proposterous), and I perhaps wouldn’t have noticed it had it not linked to a piece of mine on Global Voices which, quite neutrally, reported on the recent election of Marrakesh’s first female mayor.

Applebaum’s piece is problematic for a number of reasons aside from the obvious (which is to say that, while shooting protesters and clamping down on free speech are fundamentally wrong, the elections themselves are still contested).  From the opening paragraph, in which she invokes the all-too-common cliché of non-headscarf wearing Muslims “[not looking] out of place in New York or Paris” to her claims of Morocco entering a new era of democracy, Applebaum demonstrates her total ignorance of the Maghreb and the Arab world on the whole.

Take this sentence, for example:

“…unlike most of its Arab neighbors, the country has over the last decade undergone a slow but profound transformation from traditional monarchy to constitutional monarchy, acquiring along the way real political parties, a relatively free press, new political leaders—the mayor of Marrakesh is a 33-year-old woman—and a set of family laws that strives to be compatible both with sharia and international conventions on human rights.”

Anyone with an iota of knowledge on Moroccan politics can see the flaws in this paragraph; from the recent elections, in which the newly created Modernity and Authenticity Party, or P.A.M. (dubbed the “King’s Party”), closely linked to the royal palace, managed to sweep 22,158 seats to the three journalists arrested and fined for insulting the tyrannical leader of Libya, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Morocco is not a prime example of democracy, nor a model for Iranian reform.

In fact, Morocco’s own human rights record is deeply flawed.  Despite substantial changes from the “Years of Lead,” Morocco continues to oppress Saharawi citizens (be their true nationality Moroccan or Saharawi, it should be relatively undisputed that they are not treated well by the state), suppress Amazigh activists by outlawing their language in schools and requiring their children be given Arab names even abroad, and persecute converts to other religions.  Furthermore, Morocco almost certainly harbors CIA rendition sites, as has been testified by former Guantanamo inmates, and almost always turns the other cheek to Israeli and United States imperialism.

Applebaum also brazenly suggests that perhaps, had the Iranian revolution not occurred, perhaps Iran could have followed a similar path to Morocco, saying, “One thinks wistfully of the shah of Iran and of what might have been.”  It’s as if she forgets, or is completely unaware, of the human rights violations and general atmosphere of oppression under Pahlavi.

Lastly, Applebaum’s assertion that “the Arab world lacks the political will to change” reeks of Obamania.  Doubtless there are a number of Arab countries in which rigged elections, oppression of citizenry, and lack of freedoms are rampant, but the meme that democracy and capitalism are the only way (not to mention the United States’ hypocritical views toward democratic elections in the Middle East) is getting old.  Change, if it is to happen, needs to come from within, and will not occur thanks to Western journalists, nor Twitter users changingtheir icons green, nor United States imperialism.

As Hisham notes here, the Moroccan elections were significantly overshadowed on the world stage by those in Iran, and no wonder - no matter the outcome, they would have been met with little protest anyway.  What was notable this time around however was a rise in the number of female candidates, as reported by MAP: 20,458 women ran for 2009 local elections; 15.7% compared to only 4.8% in 2003, according to the Interior Ministry.  Even more notable is that Morocco’s second ever - and third - female mayors were elected…Fatima Zahra Mansouri was elected mayor of the growing city of Marrakesh (population of a little over a million), and Fatima Boujnah is the new PAM Mayor of Tizeght, at only 21 years old.

Now, as my friend Anas points out, she is backed by the newly formed Party for Authenticity and Modernity (PAM), dubbed the “King’s Party” by the blogoma, and is therefore perhaps just a royal pawn.  On the other hand, the ascendancy of a woman to a role that has almost exclusively been held by men since its inception (Asmaa Chaabi was the first female mayor in the country, elected in 2003 to Essaouira’s city hall) can’t be a bad thing.

On the other hand, the influx of women into candidacies is not a coincidence: a number of U.S. governmental organizations helped train female candidates, and party leaders are certainly aware that, in order to keep relevant, they must cater to the new voter demographics (young, and often female).

In a country where the literacy rate for women still lingers under 50%, it would seem that any step forward for women is a good thing.  But when those women are played as pawns by the governing elite, is it really a step in the right direction?