3 ms·

are you actually confused about which people are being referred to though? seems like you're just getting pedantic here. Every single country profiled in the p

are you actually confused about which people are being referred to though? seems like you're just getting pedantic here. Every single country profiled in the piece is majority Arab (ethnically), majority Arab (linguistically), and majority Muslim (religiously). what more meaningful distinction would you make that clarifies things? "Middle Eastern countries currently on fire"? They are certainly all countries that can be fairly described as Arab.

bogomipz 10y ago
I am not confused at all. I am pointing out that it is a BS term, with no accepted definition. That's hardly pedantry. And no you can't just say "Middle Eastern counties, the countries of the Mahgreb are "on fire" and they are not geographically part of the Middle East. So according to you the meaningful distinction is that its "currently on fire"? What happens if its not on fire or stabilizes politically? Does its status change? How about Mauritania, the Comoros, and Morocco. Majority Arab and Muslim and generally not front page news. Why does this matter? Because it's incredibly reductionist. There are tribal dynamics at work in all of the countries mentioned in this article that extremely difficult for a casual observer to understand. These are tribal affiliations that predate Islam. And there is no analog for them in the Western world from which the term "Arab World" springs. It's very hand wavy to just say "The Arab World" and this propagation of an Arab singularity is itself a source of problems.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  yeah yeah I've read Edward Said as well. Sure, its Orientalism and Imperialism crystalized into a language idiom. That's how language and culture works. We can find it distasteful all day but there's not much good to come from arguing semantics on the internet.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    You are the one that suggested pedantry and then when given a a response now want to go suggest semantic arguments. It's as if you arguing with yourself.

bogomipz 10y ago

I am not confused at all. I am pointing out that it is a BS term, with no accepted definition. That's hardly pedantry. And no you can't just say "Middle Eastern counties, the countries of the Mahgreb are "on fire" and they are not geographically part of the Middle East. So according to you the meaningful distinction is that its "currently on fire"? What happens if its not on fire or stabilizes politically? Does its status change? How about Mauritania, the Comoros, and Morocco. Majority Arab and Muslim and generally not front page news. Why does this matter? Because it's incredibly reductionist. There are tribal dynamics at work in all of the countries mentioned in this article that extremely difficult for a casual observer to understand. These are tribal affiliations that predate Islam. And there is no analog for them in the Western world from which the term "Arab World" springs. It's very hand wavy to just say "The Arab World" and this propagation of an Arab singularity is itself a source of problems.

metaphorm 10y ago
yeah yeah I've read Edward Said as well. Sure, its Orientalism and Imperialism crystalized into a language idiom. That's how language and culture works. We can find it distasteful all day but there's not much good to come from arguing semantics on the internet.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  You are the one that suggested pedantry and then when given a a response now want to go suggest semantic arguments. It's as if you arguing with yourself.