Western analyses of the Middle East often racializes the analysis (implicitly asking 'what is wrong with those Arabs?') But few would nowadays ask 'what is wrong with those Slavs?' Racializing is always essentialist and always wrong. While there are differences of culture and history among peoples that cause them to play different language games, these differences have nothing to do with biological traits or kinship. Good social analysis does look at generational differences, at geographical ones, at economic problems. These analytical tools are non-essentialist, since the considerations involved change over time and allow for people with a language in common still to differ from one another in other respects. This analysis avoids the fallacy of national character. I'm not arguing that it is necessary to stop speaking of Arabs or the Arab world. The latter has an institutional framework in the Arab League, which groups 21 mostly Arabic-speaking countries plus, for some strange reason, Somalia. But to generalize about "Arabs," as is still common in the Western press, is to racialize a linguistic category. Moroccans and Kuwaitis don't actually have much in common except their use of Arabic. Their spoken dialects are barely mutually comprehensible. Kuwait is a small highly urban and literate prosperous city-state of 3.2 million people (a little more populous than Lithuania). Morocco is a still largely rural society of 32 million with a still-high rate of illiteracy, a little less populous than Poland. Their social structures, economies and ecologies are completely different. They aren't the same "race."
The More You Know.
2 comments:
Your point is generally well made. One detail is that Arab, like Slav are ethnic groups- not races. The racial disparity in how reporting is handled is not new. Use of words like "tribe", which in and of itself is not problematic until one realizes it is often used to denote either race or "primitiveness", which is what led to the wars in Rwanda and Burundi as "tribal wars", while the wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia are described as "ethnic conflicts". In addition, there is the "Arabicizng" of Libya, which is in Africa (as is Egypt) due to both religion (Islam) and the apparent necessity to distinguish between "Northern Africa" and "sub-Saharan Africa"- which in itself seems to be a distinction based on complexion more than anything. Furthermore, Mexico is genuinely part of "Latin America", but why isn't it discussed with regard to North America outside of mention of "NAFTA". Finally, people migrate here fro all over the globe, but the only people mentioned in the media coverage are Mexicans- so that the issue can be ramed inot the handling of the (wink, wink) "Mexican problem". The President has done a lot of things that I disagree with, but I have never seen a President so disrepected while in office. People point to what was said about George Bush, but that was exclusive to media. This Presidnet is being disrespected by Congressional representatvies. In Bush's darkest hour (no pun intended) he was never called a "liar" during a "State of the Union address- by no less than one of the champions of patriitism. Unfortunately the reality is so much of our society's understandings are predicated on racial constructs that the idea of a "post-racial society" is largely a pipe dream. Hopefully there will be a national introspection that will allow is to spend as much time discussing tht issues threatening our freedoms like NSA, secret courts, climate change, et al, as we do Miley Cyrus, Beyonce and the latest athlete that has elected to "come out". We will continue to "racialize foreign politics" as long as local/national politics remain significantly racially impacted.
Your point is generally well made. One detail is that Arab, like Slav is an ethnic group- not a race. The racial disparity in how reporting is handled is not new. Use of words like "tribe", which in and of itself is not problematic until one realizes it is often used to denote either race or "primitiveness", which is what led to the wars in Rwanda and Burundi as "tribal wars", while the wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia are described as "ethnic conflicts". In addition, there is the "Arabicizing" of Libya, which is in Africa (as is Egypt) due to both religion (Islam) and the apparent necessity to distinguish between "Northern Africa" and "sub-Saharan Africa"- which in itself seems to be a distinction based on complexion more than anything. Furthermore, Mexico is genuinely part of "Latin America", but why isn't it discussed with regard to North America outside of mention of "NAFTA". Finally, people migrate here from all over the globe, but the only people mentioned in the media coverage are Mexicans- so that the issue can be framed to be the "handling "of the (wink, wink) "Mexican problem". The President has done a lot of things that I disagree with, but I have never seen a President so disrespected while in office. People point to what was said about George Bush, but that was exclusive to media. This President is being disrespected by Congressional representatives. In Bush's darkest hour (no pun intended) he was never called a "liar" during a "State of the Union address- by no less than one of the champions of patriotism. Unfortunately the reality is so much of our society's understandings are predicated on racial constructs that the idea of a "post-racial society" is largely a pipe dream. Hopefully there will be a national introspection that will allow is to spend as much time discussing the issues threatening our freedoms like NSA, secret courts, climate change, et al, as we do Miley Cyrus, Beyoncé and the latest athlete that has elected to "come out". We will continue to "racialize foreign politics" as long as local/national politics remain significantly racially impacted.
Post a Comment