“Arab”
Etymology of Arab: ” c.1391 (Arabiens), from O.Fr. Arabe, from L. Arabs ” from Ar. ‘arab, indigenous name of the people, perhaps lit. “inhabitant of the desert”
Dictionary.com definition of “Arab”:
1. A member of a semitic people inhabiting Arabia and other countries of the Middle East .
2. A member of any Arabic speaking people.
A key point to note in this definition of “Arab” is that it does not mention Muslim. This is because being “Arab” doesn’t mean that you are Muslim and being Muslim does not mean that you are “Arab.” Another confusion that we (Americans) have with “Arab” and also the “Middle East”, is that all “Middle Easterners” are “Arab”, which is not the case (Humphreys 2005). To say that all the people in the “Middle East” are “Arab” is like saying that everyone in Asia is Chinese.
Being “Arab” as Dictionary.com presents it requires either speaking Arabic, or being a member of a semitic people inhabiting Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. ”Middle Eastern” countries include North African countries, i.e. Algeria, Morocco, and Egypt.
In order to unpack “Arab” it is hard to overlook the stereotypes associated with the word in our culture today. From past experiences there can be some negative connotations that go along with “Arab”, but I think that that has more to do with our culture, than it does with the actual definition of the word “Arab.” Some sterotypes today about “Arab’s”; they are terrorists and they are Muslims.
While it is obvious that the first stereotype isn’t true, a possible reason behind the first sterotype is September 11, 2001. While Osama Bin Ladin and a majority of the hijackers were indeed of Saudi Arabian nationality, therefore making them “Arabs”, the vast majority of “Arabs” are not terrorists. It can sometimes be hard to give “Arab’s” a chance after September 11, 2001 because many Americans feel blanket hatred for the acts of a few. I’m not going to attempt to discuss anyone’s feelings about the cowardly acts of terrorism carried out, but a whole group of people can’t be categorized because of the acts of a few people.
The second stereotype, that all “Arab’s” are Muslims, is also inaccurate and I believe that it has much to do with the simple fact that many Americans are completely unaware of Islam. Islam is a religion, and is not exclusive to “Arabs” (although it was started by an “Arab”) and “Arab’s” are not required to be Muslim, some Arab’s are Christian.
The word “Arab” has undertaken a huge transformation in our society since September 11, 2001. It is sometimes “thrown out” to ”categorize” a person of Middle Eastern background, possibly even in a negative way to to transform a person to one’s own stereotypes.
There is a lot hiding behind the word “Arab” and while the sterotypes are not true, they are part of our culture today and the only way to change one’s views on the meaning behind the “simple word” is to learn more about being “Arab” and what it encompasses.
2 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent
-
Links
-
Archives
- May 2008 (2)
- April 2008 (7)
- March 2008 (3)
- February 2008 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
A few key points I’d like to highlight from your response to “How the Word Arab Creates Reality” include:
*”A key point to note in this definition of ‘Arab’ is that it does not mention Muslim. This is because being ‘Arab’ doesn’t mean that you are Muslim and being Muslim does not mean that you are ‘Arab.’”
*”…a whole group of people can’t be categorized because of the acts of a few people.”
*”The second stereotype, that all ‘Arabs’ are Muslims, is also inaccurate and I believe that it has much to do with the simple fact that many Americans are completely unaware of Islam.”
Now, to extrapolate from this general background . . . I have a couple things in mind. One is how reading (or not reading, but simply knowing that there was an option to read) about the ritual ways language use generates stereotypes will affect our group, particularly in terms of our own heterogenous mixture of ethnicity, nationality, and religion. (Really, I imagine that these identifications are operating already, somehow, within our group – the question is what we are willing to say about what we notice.)
The second thing is the size of the context involved in interpreting the meaningfulness of the use of the word “Arab.” The scale is global. Literally, the scope (!) takes in “the Middle East” and “our society,” also identified as “Americans.” This makes me wonder about the scale of context that will be considered both as an element of our group dynamic, and as relevant (or not) for the coursewiki.
[...] people. It is a way to say things that are not {a]like…” and Apoulos got me thinking about what we are willing to say about the cultural, national, ethnic, and religious differences among us. Another intriguing [...]
Pingback by “Why are you writing sideways?” « A Place in Space | March 27, 2008