| |
The term
"Middle east" -- Geopolitical invention?
The term - Middle East - when examined in cultural, anthropological
and cultural terms makes very little sense. Allow me to state this
bluntly: the term "Middle East" is a geopolitical invention - void
of any scientific basis. The term was first invented by American
lecturer and Anglophile Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914).
Mahan first invented the term 'Middle East' in the September 1902
issue of London's monthly "National Review" in an article entitled
"The Persian Gulf and International Relations" in which he wrote:
"The Middle East, if I may adopt the term which I have not seen…" .
Mahon's term referred only to the Persian Gulf region and Iran's
southern coastline. Mahon was trying to find a way of removing the
historical reference "Persian Gulf" since this offended the
geopolitical sensitivities of the British imperial office.
Translation: the British imperial office has sought for ways for
over 100 years to remove the legacy of Persia in the Persian Gulf.
The very term 'Persian' continues to elicit a knee-jerk reaction
among the distinguished petroleum and geopolitical barons with
interests in the (so-called) "Middle East"...
For Britain, Southern Persia and the Islands close to the Persian
coastline in particular, were viewed as geopolitically and
militarily important as Malta or Gibraltar for the Royal Navy in the
Mediterranean. Note that petroleum was just beginning to gain
importance to modernizing economies and the Royal Navy just before
World War One (1914-1918).
Mahon's invented term was popularized by Valentine Ignatius Chirol
(1852-1929), a journalist designated as "a special correspondent
from Tehran" by The Times newspaper.
Chirol's seminal article "The Middle Eastern Question" expanded
Mahon's version of the "Middle East" to now include "Persia, Iraq,
the east coast of Arabia, Afghanistan, and Tibet". Surprised? Yes,
you read correctly -Tibet! The term Middle East was (and is) a
colonial construct used to delineate British (and now West European
and US) geopolitical interests.
Mahon and Chirol's nomenclature (Middle East) provided the
geopolitical terminology required to rationally organize the
expansion of British political, military and economic interests into
the Persian Gulf region. After the First World War, Winston
Churchill became the head of the newly established "Middle East
Department".
Churchill's department again redefined "The Middle East" to now
include the Suez Canal, the Sinai, the Arabian Peninsula, as well as
the newly created states of Iraq, Palestine, and Trans-Jordan. Tibet
and Afghanistan were now excluded from London's Middle East
grouping.
Churchill's removal of Afghanistan from the 'Middle East' made
perfect sense from a British standpoint, as they have been keen to
inculcate a sense of 'separateness' in the Persian speaking Afghans
with respect to their Iranian brethern in Iran and Tajikestan. Even
the term 'Dari' may be at least partly be due or inspired by the
distinguished offices of British East India Company of colonial
India.
The decision to affirm non-Arab Iran as a member of the Middle East
in 1942 appears to have been mainly as a means of rationalizing
British interests in the region in World War II, along with support
for the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany . This also rationalized
the role of British Petroleum in Iran. The term "Arab Gulf" was also
invented to (a) pretend that Persia's legacy does not exist in the
Persian Gulf and (b) to provide a rallying point for Arab
nationalism against Iran. The term "Arab Gulf" was first
(unsuccessfully) proposed in the 1930s to the British government by
Sir Charles Belgrave who was in Bahrain - and then popularized by
British Petroleum employee and MI6 agent Roderic Owen.
Turkey's status is particularly interesting in that despite over 90
percent of her landmass being in Asia and her population being
predominantly Muslim, is currently being supported by the United
States and Britain to have its status changed from that of a 'Middle
Eastern' state to that of a 'European' one.
The definition of the term Middle East is defined by geopolitcial
strategists who reside outside of the so-called 'Middle East'. The
term is certainly elastic is it not? This elasticity is again in
accordance with contemporary British and Eurocentric geopolitical
calculations.
So much for the 'origins' of the so-called 'Middle East'. It is
important for Iranians to understand the overtly racist and
geopolitical origins of this term. It is comical to see gullible
Arabs, Iranians and to a lesser extent Turks (many who now wish to
be 'European' actually) saying that they are 'Middle Eastern'.
Many Arab scholars (e.g. Al-Ibrahim) do not see the term as valid as
it simplistically lumps Arabs with non-Arabs: they envision an Arab
'Middle East' without the non-Arab states of Iran, Israel and
Turkey. Arab scholars have noted that "the term Middle East … tears
up the Arab homeland as a distinct unit since it has always included
non-Arab states". Simply put, scholars such as Dessouki and Mattar
use a paradigm that unifies the Arab speaking regions of North
Africa, the Fertile Crescent, the Arabian Peninsula as well as the
Arab regions of the Persian Gulf.
A final point is of interest. First, as we have seen, the term "MIddle
East' is void of any geographical, linguistic or cultural validity.
This leads to the second point: the expression 'Looking Middle
Eastern' is itself a fraudulent term of mainly English and Western
European origin. In purely anthropological terms, this simply does
not make any scientific sense.
If the criterion is darker Caucasians, then one has to also identify
inhabitants of parts of the Balkans, Greece, Italy, Spain, Albania,
the Caucasus, Ukraine and certain locales in Wales, England as
'Middle Eastern'. This is of course, nonsense. Conversely, blondism
does sometimes occur in Arab countries such as Syria (esp. the
Druze), Lebanon, Jordan (esp. Arabs of Circassian descent), and
Iraq. More frequent cases are seen in Iran, itself of Indo-European
origins, which has a prevalence of blondism in regions to its north
and west, and even locales in its interior (the Iranian Plateau).
Western Turkey also exhibits incidences of blondism, as well as
among its Kurds in Eastern Anatolia. Northeast Iran is also home to
a vibrant Turcomen population, who at times physically resemble Far
East Asian populations.
It is interesting to investigate this point: why are westerners so
intent on grasping at a simplistic definition for the diverse
peoples and regions of the Arab World, Turkey and Iran?
Interestingly, Israelis are not usually classified as 'Middle
Eastern' - yet many of them certainly fit the stereotypical profile
of the Hollywood inspired 'Middle Eastern appearance'. A comical
situation did occur in which Iranian born Israeli defense officer,
Shaul Mofaz was questioned by US immigration officers even as he was
to have attended a meeting with the neocons in an anti-Iran summit!
It would seem that simply being dark and swarthy makes one a
suspect! I know personally of Greeks, Italians and Welsh people who
have been questioned by US immigration officers simply because of
their 'Middle Eastern' appearance!'
Perhaps British actor Sean Connery (of James Bond 007 fame) may
himself become a suspect by US immigration authorities as his
swarthy and dark looks make him look somewhat 'Middle Eastern
looking'.
In my humble opinion, the term 'Middle East' is wholly inaccurate
when describing Iranians - esp. given Iran's very diverse, rich and
multivaried cultural and anthropological diversity. Mahon, Chirol
and Churchill were not considering scientific or historical factors
when they were seeking for ways to delineate British imperial
interests.
Dr. Kaveh Farrokh
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=524429
|
|
