
I recently learned that some "Persian" had given a prominent blogger a hard time about including Iran in his definition of "Middle East". I guess trying hard to escape reality and the self-hatred includes geographical delusions too.
Let me attempt to clarify things. Dictionary definition of Middle East reads as follows: "the area around the eastern Mediterranean; from Turkey to North Africa and eastward to Iran; the site of such ancient civilizations as Phoenicia and Babylon and Egypt and the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity and Islam; the Middle East is the cradle of Western civilization".
The map above is also what is generally accepted as geographical representation of Middle East. Now I know there are some who include a couple of other countries in there (usually Sudan, Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan for most parts) and others who subtract a few (Cyprus, Egypt , Georgia, Armenia and even Turkey!) and I suppose one is free to make up one's own imaginary world, but you've read the definition and here is the visual help (again).
Any questions?
Posted by Pedram at February 10, 2004 11:59 PMWhile I would consider Iran middle-east, I do know that these geographical definition have the tendency to change over time. Best witnessed in Europe where geographical regions like Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Northern Europe, Baltics, Scandinavia and Nordic have had several changes during the last sixty years and no doubt there are more changes to come. (Not least because almost nobody wants to be from Eastern Europe).
Posted by: pp at February 11, 2004 12:57 AMWhile Iran is part of that awkward and everchanging clump of nation-states called the "middle east", that whole category is a big problem. What is this "East" that has a "middle"? There is, however, continent called "Asia", and much of the "middle east" is in it. For some years now, people who are critical of neo-colonial/imperialist ventures in the area have opted for saying "West Asia and North Africa" instead. That kind of re-naming is not about self-delusion but is bout honoring perspectives that are not externally imposed. So I often do say that I am from "West Asia" but I don't do it to disavow that I am from Iran or that I am associated with "the Islamic world" (another B.S. category).
Posted by: n at February 11, 2004 10:40 AMIn the final analysis its about what you do and not much about where you came from. Everything changes and so "middle east" and its negative conetations in "west" will change also. Let get to work and don't be silly....
Posted by: Ali at February 11, 2004 09:49 PMI insist on Asia Minor!
I got that from an Oxford dictionary,
but i'm having a hard time locating Asia Major.
Ok, from now on I will say I am from middle east because the dictionary says so. Please give me a break, should we always rely on foreigners to define the geographical area we live in.
Posted by: yahoo at February 20, 2004 12:15 AMI don't know about the Caucasus here, that's never been considered Middle East! -- well, not for a long time, anyway.
Posted by: Karush at February 20, 2004 05:37 AMI like Southwest Asia-North Africa myself. I don't even like to refer to Chicago and Cleveland as the "Midwest". Everything is east of something, except the North and South Poles; they're east of each other, I guess.
Is the Caucasus part of the Middle East? I mean Southwest Asia? ;) Azerbaijan definitly is; it's Turkic-speaking and predominately Shi'a. Armenia *might* be, but being tied to Turkey is a bit insensitive considering what happened less than a century ago. Georgia is Eastern Orthodox with a small Muslim minority, so that would only be "Middle Eastern" in the loosest sense. But don't forget Caucasian people who don't have their own independent state yet: Ossetians, Chechens, Abkhazians, Daghestanis, Circassians, Karachay-Balkarians, and Kalmykians - the last of these are an unusual case for this part of the world; they're Mongolian and Buddhist!
Posted by: LudwigVan at February 21, 2004 05:02 AMBut I don't consider Afghanistan and Pakistan, or any of the new "Istan" countries that used to be part of the USSR, to be Middle Eastern. All of these except Pakistan are Central Asian; Pakistan is South Asian, i.e. "Indian subcontinent".
Posted by: LudwigVan at February 21, 2004 05:06 AMLast post, I promise. Armenia is definitely Middle Eastern, on account of the Armenian Church being most linked to the Assyrian and Chaldean Christians.
Posted by: LudwigVan at February 21, 2004 05:17 AMOk, the term "Middle East" is coined by the British and refers to the the location of that area in relation to themselves, when they thought (and still do think) that the world revolves around them. (You are looking up "middle east" in a dictionary?? Get real).
Is it that important to follow British standards? Maybe to the Mollahs. Iran does not need to be grouped in with any foreign classification, especially one that groups it in with Arabs.
Posted by: Arash M. at February 21, 2004 09:47 AMAs Arash rightly pointed out, in order to call something "Middle East" you have to start from a location. It is relative. Speaking of a "Middle East" only makes sense when you put the point of reference (or the center of the world) firmly to the west of it. I think that many western people don't realize that this bears the nucleus of arrogance in it.
It may be of interest that in Germany we also speak of a "Near East", meaning the region encompassing Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syriah and Jordan. When we speak of the "Far East" we mean China, Japan, India and a number of surrounding states. Afghanistan would most definitely belong to the "Middle East".
So there are no hard and fast rules, the terms are depending on perspective.
Posted by: Stefan at February 23, 2004 05:44 AM