posted
Please transfer previously posted arguments here so the info isn't lost under an unrelated heading.
Thanks!
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Can someone list all the countries of the so-called Middle East, when they joined (or left) the ranks, and what qualifiers allowed (or debarred) their entry (exit)?
Tyrann0saurus Member # 3735
posted
I had always thought the blue-colored region on this map was what constituted the "Middle East":
That said, I now understand the problems with that term and resolve not to use it again.
lamin Member # 5777
posted
In fact, what used to be called "the Near East" has now been morphed into the "iddle East" The British, I believe, invented the term "Near East" but their Anglo-Saxon successor state melded the "Near East" into the "Middle East".
lamin Member # 5777
posted
If I am not mistaken, I think that the "Near East" referred to Egypt and the Sudan.
Yom Member # 11256
posted
It's a variable description that refers to a general area of shared cultural features whose range can be expanded or contracted depending on how closely related you wish those relations to be. Strict definitions usually limit it to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, and the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain), even though this latter group is rarely actually involved with the politics of the others. It's best used, IMO, as a sociopolitical and also cultural term to refer to the region ever since decolonization, during which the various states were often alligned, united, fighting, and generally meddling in each others affairs, with closely intertwined fates between most states, whether relations were positive or negative.
xyyman Member # 13597
posted
Never gave it much thought. But,yeah, the term is misleading. Took Vida advice and signed up for the Natioanl Geographics Genographics project. Seeing that with our names, slave names, don't tell us much. Trying to getting an idea of my ancestry being from the Diaspora. Read up on the Eb3 migration route which it said originated in the "middle east". But looked at the map which showed it originating in North East Africa. So I guess NEA is in the "middle east". So I agree it is high time we start re-defining the African sphere of influence to get credit. So regions like, Arabia penninsula, Syria, Jordan even Rome(Italy) and Greece have to be defined as the African sphere of influence during ancient times.
lamin Member # 5777
posted
Taken in context: what is evident is the enormous conceptual dominance that a handful of West European nations have had over the rest of the world for the last 600 years or so.
The "high priests" of those West European peoples just systematically conceptualising and defining the world on their own terms as they fit. They have practically created and named most of the world's nations, the world's geopolitical regions, the world's peoples, the world's "races" in terms of hierarchies based on phenotype, the names of the world's oceans and seas, and much more.
What is surprising though is the way in which the rest of the world's peoples have abdicated their human and subjective agencies in the face of such dominance.
Celt Member # 13774
posted
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Taken in context: what is evident is the enormous conceptual dominance that a handful of West European nations have had over the rest of the world for the last 600 years or so.
The "high priests" of those West European peoples just systematically conceptualising and defining the world on their own terms as they fit. They have practically created and named most of the world's nations, the world's geopolitical regions, the world's peoples, the world's "races" in terms of hierarchies based on phenotype, the names of the world's oceans and seas, and much more.
What is surprising though is the way in which the rest of the world's peoples have abdicated their human and subjective agencies in the face of such dominance.
What's wrong with those conceptually dominant people? They need to get a life and stop trying to be so darn smart.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Old Timers remember from their form school geography that the Near East was
Greece
Balkans
Turkey
Middle East was
Levant and east Mediterranean islands
states bordering the Persian Gulf
states bordering the Gulf of Oman
Afghanistan
Far East was
Mongolia
China
Japan
India, Southeast Asia, Philippines, and Indonesia were out of the "East"er basket as was the Mashreq (except Egypt) and the Maghrib.
This was back when relative geography in relation to western and central Europe was the definitional criteria instead of politics, although I can't argue against the Near East designation having something to do with the Ottoman Empire in Europe and thus being politico-cultural.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: In fact, what used to be called "the Near East" has now been morphed into the "iddle East" The British, I believe, invented the term "Near East" but their Anglo-Saxon successor state melded the "Near East" into the "Middle East".
quote:Originally posted by lamin: If I am not mistaken, I think that the "Near East" referred to Egypt and the Sudan.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
But, as Rasol intimated, why not use the "native" designation for the states in the wider Arabic cultural milleau Maghreb, Mashreq, and Mizrahh?
quote:Originally posted by Yom: It's a variable description that refers to a general area of shared cultural features whose range can be expanded or contracted depending on how closely related you wish those relations to be. Strict definitions usually limit it to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, and the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain), even though this latter group is rarely actually involved with the politics of the others. It's best used, IMO, as a sociopolitical and also cultural term to refer to the region ever since decolonization, during which the various states were often alligned, united, fighting, and generally meddling in each others affairs, with closely intertwined fates between most states, whether relations were positive or negative.
Yom Member # 11256
posted
I made no evaluation of the term's worth al-Takruri. I simply described it and why some people use it.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Very engaging topic. I hope it enlightens many people about the phrase "Middle East".
xyyman Member # 13597
posted
Not sure this is the right place to post this. I could of done this in the Moor thread, or the Race of the Egyptian thread. Hope to get some feedback. - - -
Looking through the CIA country statistics website I came across some interesting/misguided information. I was trying to get a breakdown of the different ethnics group in countries in North Africa. Based on the info provided I am trying to understand what is an “Egyptian” compared to an Arab. This forum states that the “Arabs” are a minority in North Africa and mainly occupy the coastal reagins of North Africa and indigenous Black Africans are the majority. Where is there proof of this. Here is what the CIA sites states.
Egypt – Egyptian 98%, Berber, Nubian, Bedouin, and Beja 1%, Algeria – Arab-Berber 99%, European less than 1% Libya – Berber and Arab 97%, other 3% (includes Greeks, Egyptians, etc Morrocco – Arab-Berber 99.1%, W. Sahara - Arab, Berber Tunisia - Arab 98%, European 1% Mauritania – mixed Moor/black 40%, Moor 30%, black 30%
posted
Real Arabs would be a minority. Arabized people would not. Today's Egyptians probably don't call themselves Arabs because they know they are much more than that. They do have a strong Arab identity though, at least Nasser was big on Arab-Socialism/Nationalism.
Anyway, you shouldn't put much stock in that CIA site.
posted 