摩洛哥不能，它需要法國來現代化
1844 年，摩洛哥和法國爆發戰爭，一支較小的法國軍隊擊敗了一支規模較大的摩洛哥軍隊。蘇丹阿卜杜勒拉赫曼（Sultan Abdulrahman，1822-1859 年在位）並不傻，他知道必須有一些事情來解釋為什麼摩洛哥如此輕易地被擊敗。因此，他派遣私人秘書穆罕默德前往法國，有兩個目標：
- 談判和平
- 了解法國如何變得如此優越
穆罕默德按照命令行事，並向蘇丹通報了法國正在做的這些非常奇怪的新事物。列舉 4 個重要的：
- 法國有一個中央集權政府，巴黎的官員向國家製定政策，使他們能夠充分利用法國的資源，並確保法國各地區相互合作。
- 法國有一支被稱為「國民軍」的東西。法國公民作為「職業士兵」加入其中，這些人一生都在打仗，並獲得了將經驗傳授給下一代職業士兵的經驗。
- 法國擁有這些被他們稱為「工廠」的大型建築，它們的生產速度比手工製作的工匠更快。
- 穆罕默德觀察到，法國人有這種「民族主義」的概念，他們是法國民族的一部分，因此法國人努力改善自己的民族。
蘇丹阿卜杜拉赫曼得出摩洛哥沒有希望的結論
並不是蘇丹懶惰，而是摩洛哥其實不是一個國家和一個民族，而是不同政體和民族的拼湊。
- 摩洛哥分為三種政體：部落國家（由部落統治的地區）、貴族莊園（由單一家族統治的地區）和城邦。
- 摩洛哥有數十個不同的民族。有里夫柏柏爾人、傑貝利柏柏爾人、阿特拉斯柏柏爾人、蘇西柏柏爾人、撒哈拉人、貝都因人、阿拉伯人、安達盧西亞人、戈莫拉柏柏爾人。雖然各國人民確實混雜在一起，但他們其實並不認為自己是一個國家。
1971年拍攝的摩洛哥部落成員照片
因此，雖然蘇丹阿卜杜拉赫曼無法效法法國
- 摩洛哥無法實行中央集權，因為城市、貴族和部落不允許這樣做，因為他們會失去權力。他們的臣民也會抵制，因為集權意味著其中一個群體支配另一個群體。
- 摩洛哥也不可能擁有一支由職業軍人組成的國家軍隊。城市、貴族和部落不會允許蘇丹擁有自己的軍隊來威脅他們。
- 摩洛哥本來可以實現工業化，而且它確實做到了。
蘇丹確實直接控制了一些地區。工廠。摩洛哥甚至生產了自己的步槍。但工業化面臨的一個主要障礙是：蘇丹沒有錢，因為城市、貴族和部落很少納稅，你可能會對此感到驚訝。
- 由於內部紛爭和政體之間的衝突，摩洛哥無法形成民族團結意識。
那麼法國是如何使摩洛哥現代化的呢？
1908 年，一位名叫邁達尼·埃爾·格勞伊(Madani El Glaoui) 的阿特拉斯柏柏爾酋長反抗蘇丹阿卜杜勒阿齊茲，並讓阿卜杜勒阿齊茲的兄弟阿卜杜勒哈菲德登上王位。隨著新聯盟的出現和政體拒絕阿卜杜勒哈菲德，摩洛哥陷入分裂。
邁達尼·埃爾·格拉維 (Madani El Glaoui) 的描繪
1912年，法國介入了長達四年的混亂，突襲摩洛哥首都非斯，迫使阿卜杜勒哈菲德簽署保護國條約，同意代表他贏得內戰，以換取摩洛哥放棄對其外交政策的控制權以及對法國的軍事援助。任命了一位常駐將軍休伯特·利奧蒂（Hubert Lyauty）來處理此事。
這讓我們想到：
利奧泰，摩洛哥最偉大的蘇丹及其現代化推動者
休伯特·利奧泰 (Hubert Lyautey) 於 1912 年至 1925 年間統治摩洛哥
摩洛哥不是殖民地，但阿卜杜勒哈菲德太弱而無法挑戰法國人，因此利奧泰是摩洛哥事實上的統治者。
首先，利奧泰向城市、貴族和部落發動攻擊。他拒絕他們的自治權和擁有自己武裝部隊的想法。他們都被他解除了武裝並削弱了。許多人進行抵抗，利奧泰花了數年時間消滅了他們，例如扎亞恩戰爭中的紮亞恩部落。
與蘇丹阿卜杜拉赫曼、穆罕默德四世、哈桑一世和酋長邁達尼不同，法國擁有擊敗摩洛哥政體並佔領它們的資源。
其次，利奧泰建立了一支類似摩洛哥的軍隊：古米爾人。古米爾家族名義上忠於蘇丹，但實際上他們為法國服務並參與了戰爭。這對摩洛哥很有用，因為它允許職業士兵階級和摩洛哥軍官的出現。
第三，利奧泰實現了摩洛哥的工業化和現代化。隨著政體的失敗，法國能夠代表摩洛哥徵稅。利奧泰將大部分收入用於重建城市、興建公路、鐵路、引進電力和自來水等。
第四，利奧泰試圖建立以蘇丹人格為中心的個人崇拜，希望這能激發某種形式的民族主義。蘇丹是伊斯蘭教先知穆罕默德的後裔，因此利奧泰希望將法國的軍事力量與伊斯蘭教的精神力量結合起來，讓摩洛哥人認同蘇丹，從而認同彼此。
休伯特·拉尤蒂 (Hubert Layutey) 和蘇丹·優素福 (Sultan Yusuf)（1912 年至 1927 年在位）
他堅稱法國人絕不會公開不尊重蘇丹，並且所有法律和法令都經過蘇丹“批准”，以強化蘇丹才是摩洛哥真正的統治者而法國人只是他的助手的觀點。
這確實奏效了，直到今天，摩洛哥仍然存在以國王為中心的個人崇拜（蘇丹的頭銜已被放棄），這要歸功於利奧泰。
所以摩洛哥現代化了
或者更確切地說，開始了這個過程。哈桑二世國王（1961-1999 年在位）完成了利亞蒂蒂的目標。
我希望這個長解釋能回答你的問題
在回答問題的實質之前，我必須反駁迪米特里斯·阿爾米蘭蒂斯（Dimitris Almyrantis），他在一個高度讚揚的答案中寫道：
直到二戰後的秩序在日本與西方之間建立了針對中國的鐵定聯盟之後，西方對明治日本的看法才變得更好。以前，人們對它們的看法與今天的伊斯蘭國家很相似。
這是錯誤的，而且有一種「西方重寫敘述以使新秩序合法化」的伎倆。明治時期的日本不僅被同時代人視為現代國家，也被穆斯林現代化主義者視為典範。
歐洲
Sure. More than half a century before Japan instituted the Meiji reforms, under the Alavid reforms of the 1810s-30s Egypt had built up a domestic industry, a modern military, a colonial empire in Africa, and had created the first stirring of Arab nationalism and literature as an example for others to follow in the next century. Of course, the British empire smelled wealth and invaded, but that is not the product of a failed Egyptian state but of an overmighty British one. As is evident today, after being let go - and partitioned as a parting gesture - Egypt never quite recovered.
Turkey - large
They did try to modernize, long before Japan did. Turkey and Egypt were modernizing in the beginning of the 1800’s. There are many reasons for why Japan was so successful, an important one was the fact that the Japanese were never colonized by the Europeans. Japan had little that attracted the Europeans, so it was left alone. This gave Japan the room to develop, lead by a ruling class with vision. Compare with Egypt, which under Muhammad Ali (not the boxer, ruled circa 1800–1850) modernized very quickly. Egypt was one of the first countries in the world to get railtracks, it had modern factori
While Europe and Japan were industrializing in the 19th century, were there attempts in the Middle East to do the same? Why not?
Given that you end your question with “why not?”, it seems you already have an answer in your head. But the accurate answer to the question “were there attempts in the Middle East to industrialize?” is most definitely yes, but they weren’t particularly successful. The two primary states to look at for this, I believe, are Egypt and the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire made attempts to industrialize in the 1860s, setting up commissions to explore industrial growth and
Introduction
The concept of modernization has been a critical topic in the world's history, where countries strive to adjust to the new world way of life. Japan and the Ottoman Empire were two countries that experienced different modernization journeys. Japan made significant progress following the Meiji restoration, while the Ottoman Empire struggled to adapt and modernize. Various scholars have studied the reasons why the Ottoman Empire could not modernize its institutions and economy, even with the obvious potential in the region. This research paper aims to examine the reasons why the Ottom
“Muslim countries” meant the Ottoman Empire and very few others. One of the limitations of the Ottoman world was the latency in adopting the printing press. There is little doubt about the intellectual achievements of the Persian, North African, Moorish Spain throughout the Middle Ages exceeded that of the northern coast of the Mediterranean. But the game changer for the Christian Europe during the Renaissance was the invention, use and propagation of the printing press.
This gave the rate of exchange of ideas and thoughts a tremendous leap that was all but absent in the Muslim world. There was
Because for religious biases Muslim countries considered (and most of them still consider) their civilization superior to the Western and Eastern (Chinese) civilizations. Al Ghazali, perhaps the most influential Muslim thinker after the Prophet, refused the principle of causality because could undermine the omnipotence of God. For centuries Muslims refused to print books limiting the diffusion of new ideas. Only Turkey modernized itself after WW1 in a way similar to Japan in 1868–1912 (take the best from the West, but remain Japanese). Japan was and is not a country were religion plays the cen
It depends on the country but for Morocco it was history then Islam then division
Morocco and Japan are similar superficially.
- Both kingdoms are ruled by a sacred monarch of sorts.
- Both kingdoms saw their monarch serve more as a figurehead
- Both kingdoms had long histories with ancient noble families and periods of civil wars
However Morocco and Japan differ greatly due to the Meiji restoration which began when Japanese nobles fought over the path the East Asian nation should take which led to a brief civil war which the pro-reform nobility won and pursued a path of modernization where they adapted
Some Muslim countries had a heavy and some a light Ottoman Turk overlord relationship, which by then was a moribund culture rather than an innovating one. Some were European colonies in formal terms or due to financial strangleholds, and while the US shows that colonies can be part of the intellectual vanguard the ethnic and religious difference created a wall of ethnocentrism and racism and overweening attitude of European toward non-European colonial subjects: the locals were only trained for local administration and extractive purposes rather than with a goal toward bringing them to equal s
Religion and culture are the main drivers here as I see it. While many within Islam embraced these new things the majority rejected them. A failure to educate women contributed to this. You educate a mother and you’ve educated the entire family. The children from birth. If your mother only knows a holy book and ancient traditions that’s all you will learn about before school. You still see it today. Being a Muslim secularist in an Islamic country is pretty much a death sentence in many Muslim countries. You have to have Islam in everything. If it’s incompatible with Islam you ignore it or reac
One word: Tribalism
Japan, like the West had been used to rule by a national government, by Emperor and by Shogun.
Most of Africa and the Middle East are still in many ways, ruled by petty tribal and regional differences. Why you see so many wars and conflicts rage in places like Tripoli, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon is because of various religious, regional and tribal identities.
The more interesting question is why Japan modernized.
The quick answer to that is: they saw what happened to China, and said “Nope, not us…” In China, they had a clear vision of what would happen if they didn’t modernize.
The “Muslim countries” during the 19th century were mostly part of the Ottoman Empire, and while it was “The Sick Man of Europe”, it never underwent the bone crushing humiliation that China did. So they didn’t have much of an incentive to modernize.
在美國內戰期間和之後，埃及一度是世界上最大的棉花生產國。生產高度工業化，擁有現代化工廠和鐵路物流。是的，有過嘗試。
注意：這是為了回答一個類似的問題而寫的，該問題已合併到本問題中，但詢問了 19 世紀中葉的不同反應，因此該答案僅關注對初始影響的反應。
諷刺的是，部分答案是，清朝在遭遇西方強權時實際上處於良好狀態。當然，仔細觀察，雍正和乾隆時期的鼎盛時期確實有衰落的跡象，但中國仍然足夠強大，足以支持某種自滿和某種傲慢。中國確實從國外借鏡了想法
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。