At the center of the Middle East, Syria was a multicultural hodgepodge for centuries before the term multicultural was invented. From Stephen Karganovic at strategic-culture.su:
Pepe Escobar was spot on when he stated that the downfall of Syria signified the “death of a nation.” Is it premature to chant a requiem for that marvellous land and its intriguing people, not just their virtues but also their flaws having duly been taken into account? And ought we to do it so soon, as the black flag of Syria’s latest conquerors, matching the darkness of its present circumstances, flutters over it, having just been raised in its capital? Time will tell, but reputable observers appear to be partial to precisely such a sombre conclusion.
An argument could be advanced that Syria’s tragedy may prove to be even greater in scope than Pepe avers. Syria surely never was a “nation” in the conventional sense, signifying the homogeneity of shared ethnicity, faith, and moral purpose. It was in fact largely the opposite. Historically, however, Syria was an entity and perhaps even an idea much loftier than a mere homogeneity. It was a concept of conviviality, not of the simple and easy kind, founded upon commonalities, but of the truly challenging and infinitely more complicated sort. Syria throughout the ages was a precarious, yet for the most part sustainably functional cultural crucible, consisting of a combination of disparate components thrown inexplicably together by the whims of fate. Yet astonishingly, and contrary to virtually every lesson of human interaction taught and learned elsewhere, Syria was an impossible combination that for the most part worked reasonably well. This patchwork of manifestly incompatible elements, of diverse faiths, often incongruous ethnicities, and real or imagined identities, willy-nilly and probably more by trial and error than by design, had developed a unique modus vivendi, a formula for practical coexistence from which the world has much to learn. Instead of watching idly as freakish barbarians armed with sledgehammers pound it to smithereens, we should perhaps have reacted, contrary if need be to the tenets of geopolitical logic, to preserve this ancient land and cultural treasure from defilement and devastation. We can do no better now than to study for our own profit and edification that remarkable historically conditioned mechanism that Syria used to be, to emulate its spirit and apply its principles wherever practicable.
I would argue, without idealising, that the now apparently defunct Syria, rather than being merely a nation whose death it is proper to mourn, as Pepe rightly does, conceptually was much more than the sum of its constituent parts. Syria was an imperfect yet incontestably successful pattern of civilisation, at least in the perspective of those who in human relations strive for a semblance of peace, cooperation, and harmony. Whether or not that pattern can ever be reconstituted is a question to which a ready answer is not at hand.
