"Opposition To Arabs"

[Alfonsus72]

I don´t like this kind of discussions.
To say things like "a civ deserves" or "not deserves" can hurt many sentiments of people friendly to that civ/nations. Even to considerate if that group is a civ or not can do that.

The matter is that the game is named about "civilizations" but in fact it uses nations.
In terms of civilization we could talk more properly about "Western civilization" than about germans, english, french, americans,...

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
The matter is that the game is named about "civilizations" but in fact it uses nations.

Like the babylonians or the romans, right? All nations

quoting from civ3.com, about the "nation" of Babylon:
"Because of the historical significance and legendary status achieved by the city of Babylon, the term "Babylonian" is often used as a blanket term to refer to all of the cultures and tribes of the southern Mesopotamian region, including the Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Hittites, Kassites, Assyrians, Arameans, and Chaldeans."

In terms of civilization we could talk more properly about "Western civilization" than about germans, english, french, americans,...

What you're naming "western civilization" here is present in civ3 and it is called European Culture Group. There are 5 major cultural groups in civ3: European, North American, Middle Eastern, Greco-Roman, and Asian. I find this very logical. These are not civilizations, but indeed culture groups.

In fact very often a civilization (human society in an advanced intellectual, cultural, technological and material state of development) was developed by a particular nation and obviously the 2 terms often overlapps each-other.

The problem is not this overlapping, but nationalism. Or, to be more precise, people who are intolerant with other nations/cultures/races/etc.

I don´t like this kind of discussions.
To say things like "a civ deserves" or "not deserves" can hurt many sentiments of people friendly to that civ/nations.

I agree.

[Beren]

Civs that should be included before it is Israel's turn:
Assyria, Sumeria, Armenia, Hittites, Nubia, Ethiopia, Mali, Ghana, Byzantines, Arabia, Carthage/Phoenicia, Spain, Portugal, Numidia, Celts, Vikings, Huns, Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Lithuana, Mongolia, Korea, Thailand, Khmer, Bactria, Polynesia, Indusvalley civilization (was not really India, in my opinion), Mayas, Incas.
Sorry if I missed some.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Beren
Civs that should be included ... Indusvalley civilization (was not really India, in my opinion) ...

Admittedly going OT in my own thread, but yes, I've always felt the Dravidians ("Indians") should begin with their first city at Mohenjo-daro on the Indus.

-- Back on-topic, both Alfonsus and Tiberius hit right at the heart of the issue (and thanks especially for the civ3.com quote, Tiberius) we are inevitably caught up in what defines a "civilization" -- which (trust me) academics can't even come close to agreeing upon.

As a historian, my question (sorry if any of you have read this point of mine 20 or 30 times ) is always, "what are we trying to model"? which is also why I attempt to further define the question as it relates to history. Almost inevitably, it's some imprecise overlap of nation / culture / linguistic group / ethnicity. And also precisely why I try to understand the occasionswhen extreme feelings are evoked when we're talking about a simulation which begins nominally 6000 years ago!

As for myself, I believe the Civ engine is strong enough to model many different points in world history -- and that the "definition" of a Civ will vary accordingly.

For example, I THINK my 1000 CE mod (with the admitted deficiency of not being able to have revolutions/ secessions) will be able to shed some light on the dynamics of Catholic-Orthodox-Islamic jockeying from then to now -- admittedly ambitious, but anyone doubting the importance of the Arab peoples/nations on the modern world might enjoy playing them ... I'm using that starting point (actually, an amalgam of ca. 1000 -1100 CE) so that almost all of today's "players" are on the scene with something close to the historical outcome -- among many others! -- being possible.

... Hm.... very nearly time to start a thread on this mod, methinks ...

-Oz

[gsmoove23]

To get back in on arabic civ, in its initial expansion it was entirely arabic, meaning the people of the deserts in the arabian peninsula and to the north. In the first couple of centuries the ruling class in all of the provinces they conquered were arabs from this region. Later on of course other elements would be absorbed but it is essentially an arabic civ.

Today the definition of arabs is a different story. A large number of the people in Jordan, Syria and palestinians consider themselves arabic as opposed to the egyptians who speak arabic but do not consider themselves as such. IMO what people call themselves always seems to be the surest way to define who a people are.

The arabs certainly are semitic, according to the Bible(which I do not take as truth but simply interesting) the hebrew and arabic bloodlines diverted with Abraham's children.

[ranskaldan]

Arabs have to be in. I would gladly throw out any civ except Rome, China, India, Egypt, Britain or Russia to let them in.

In fact, if civ3 had room for just 4 civs, I would pick Rome, India, China and Arabia.

[roalan]

I will srtick to Websters definition.I have been around long enought to know what is and is not Arab. The rest is media hype. If something is mentioned enough it suddenly seems to be fact. I remember 40-50+ years ago Arabs were as the Dictionary said they are. If the meaning has been changed by the media then so be it if eveyone takes it for the gospel. When us older guys die out then the youth will only know what they have been told ,just like the Japaneese are teaching their youth that they did not harm to the Chinese and of course they never started any war. What war??. As soon as the Germans get over their guilt they will teach their youth that Hitler was really a swell fellow who made the trains run on time and built highways. Thats life what else is new?

[Cyclotron]

Merriam-Webster and Cambridge are hardly bastions of "media hype." Note that the definition of Arabs as a social-linguistic group comes in part from a Merriam-Webster definition. The Arabs still are what the dictionary says they are... Arabic speaking people. Nothing to do with the media. In fact, I don't recall the media ever giving me a lesson in ethnic backgrounds.

From "The Middle East Today" by Don Perete, 1983:

The term Arab does not yet designate a formal nationality, for there is still no single Arab nation - although many Arab nationalists aspire to one. Arabs are today nationals of Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic of Lebanon, the Republic of Iraq, the Syrian Arab Republic...

Neither does the term indicate race in the modern, anthropological sense. Along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean there are whole towns full of blond, blue-eyed, light skinned Arabs. Many of the leaders of the Arab world, in a mixed gathering of diplomats, would be indistinguishable form Germans or Swedes. But in the streets of almost any metropolis in the Arab world a traveler will pass some Arabs whose black skin, kinky hair, and Negroid facial features would hardly seem out of place in Ghana or Nigeria... So great is the variety in hues of skin color, head shape, facial features, type of hair, and body build throughout the Arab East that the term Arab cannot be understood to indicate race.

This is hardly a new point of view. The idea that this is some kind of revisionist point of view is ludicrous, and this is not to be compared with the gross re-writing of facts as can be seen in Japanese revisionist textbooks, etc.

Arabs are Arabs, you just don't know what an Arab is. Deal with it.

[roalan]

I know waht an Arab is I have been in the Mid East long enought to know. It is not what you say. The Dictionary is the Secind College Edition of Webster's. I guess our college students are also learning the wrong facts,according to you) . But since you are in the far minority then you will have to "deal with it" not me.

[Cyclotron]

My Websters quote is also from the collegiate edition, online.

So then, without any facts, I am expected to believe your definition:
1) because you were there (not a great proof, and it has nothing to do with what arabs are) and
2) because I am in the minority (which has yet to be proven to me).

Without any kind of envidence, I can't accept that and I will continue to define Arabs as a cultural-linguistic group as defined by several dictionaries and anthopological works. Good enough for me.

Hey, if Jordanians are not Arabs, and I guess niether are Egyptians according to your logic, why did those two countries combine to form the United Arab Republic from 1958 to 1961?

[roalan]

You are absolutely correct. Jordan is the Hashemite kindom of Jordan-they are Heshemites and Egypt are Semites not Arabs. Arabs may live there but those NATIVE to Jordan and Egypt ,Like Indians are Native Americans are not Arabs. There is no point to arguing with you because you can not convence me and I can not do same with you. All I can say is either check you history books -not dictionaries, or go over to the Mid East and find out for your self. Good Luck.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by roalan
You are absolutely correct. Jordan is the Hashemite kindom of Jordan-they are Heshemites and Egypt are Semites not Arabs.

First off: Arabs are Semites. The logic that people are not Arabs because they are Semites is false.

Actually, the British put a Hashemite king on the throne of Jordan even though the Hashemites themselves are from the area of Mecca.

The homeland of the Hashemites is the Hijaz, the center of which is Mecca, not Jordan.

The Hashemite dynasty is actually a Meccan dynasty, which according to your logic and mine is about the most Arabian you can get. Hashemite is not a distinct cultural/racial group; Hashemites are Arabs... but that's neither here nor there because just because Jordan is ruled by Hashemites doesn't mean they are all Hashemites.

There is no point to arguing with you because you can not convence me and I can not do same with you. All I can say is either check you history books -not dictionaries, or go over to the Mid East and find out for your self. Good Luck.

Hey, I stick with all the facts I can find. If you find a source contradicting me directly, don't hesitate to show me. Note that I just quoted a history book in a previous post... and wasn't it you who said you would stick to the Webster's dictionary definition?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

arabs- no... they were more like a bunch of disunited tribes...

Rather like the United States of America, no?

[Ozymandias]

Dictionaries and generalized encyclcopedias are not, as a rule, to be taken as definitive; my apologies to those who believe otherwise.

The most accessible source I have been drawing upon is Colin McEvedy's "The Penguin Atlas Of Ancient History", which describes -- as I've already posted -- the "starting locations" of Semites (the Arabian Peninsula) and Hamites, who spread across Northern Africa into the Moghreb (Morocco to Tunisia), Egypt and Abyssinia."

Further quoting re: ca. 4500 BCE: "No one has ever challenged the aboriginal status of the Semites in Arabia, and whether or not the RELATED Hamites were neolithic immigrants or merely converts [to the Semitic neolithic agricultural culture] their dominance in North Africa from this time is equally certain." (BTW Hamites today, and for some centuries, have often been referred to as "Berbers".)

Thus we have two CLOSELY RELATED ethnic groups sharing a COMMON CULTURE before Civ (the game) starts -- ca. 4500 BCE. Unarguably identified as "Semitic" by 825 BCE are the Assyrians, Babylonians, and the occupants of the "kingdoms" of Damascus, Israel, Moab, Judahm and Edom.

Of course, from a Civ POV, separating "Egypt" makes perfect sense, given the political and organizational successes of that geographic group of Hamites -- a distinction which arguably vanishes when the 22nd Dynasty was brought to an abrupt end via conquest by the decidedly Semitic Assyrians ca. 670 BCE.

Add to this the explosion of Islam, and we wind up with a common written language, a shared religion, and common enemies -- in short, a Culture and a Civilization both.

In Civ terms, Babylon conquered Egypt and didn't stop until they got to the Pyrenees. Certainly, by the 7th Cent CE, it makes EVERY sense to refer to an "Arab Civ" -- By which time the Egypt of the Pharoahs and Cleopatra were but dusty memories.

Indeed, the ensuing "Arab Empire" (Arab Caliphate through Fatimid Caliphate) dominated the world from the Atlantic to India from about 630 to 1030 CE -- and were then only supplanted by other followers of Islam, the Turks, who IMO are sufficiently distinct in ethnicity, culture, etc. to be "properly" distinguished as a Civ from the Arabs, shared Islam aside. And even there we have a bit of a conundrum, as the most famous "Arab" general of all, Saladin -- bane of the Crusaders -- was actually a Kurd in service to the Turks ...

SO: what began as two closely related ethnic-linguisitic groups (Semite and Hamite) effectively became indistinguishable over time -- Moving into the present day, MY copy of the "The Cambridge Encyclopedia" defines Arabs as: "A DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE {emphasis added}, united by their use of Arabic as a first language, who live [TODAY!] primarily in SW Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Arabian Peninsula, the Maghred region of N. Africa, Egypt, and Mauritania [cf. the extent of the "ethnic" Hamites cited above]."

From the MODERN POV the "great game" (Israel aside) would seem to be jockeying among those who now identify themselves as Arabs, Iranians, and Turks, with Kurds et. al. in the usual unfortunate straits of an ethnic minority caught between far greater powers ...

-- Usually I find myself posing the question "What do each of us mean when we say 'Civ'"? If we mean nation -- the Arabs as a world power certainly qualified for about 400 years. If we mean ethnic group, my friends, we are talking From The Beginning. If we mean shared (very closely related) ethnicity AND shared religion and culture --then we mean ca. 630 CE until NOW!

-- Or, let me ask the question this way -- from Morocco to Iraq, Jews and Kurds briefly excluded -- what "people" are we talking about, if not Arabs?

Admittedly carrying on way too late at night --

Oz.

[Cyclotron]

Excellent, Oz. I agree entirely.

[ranskaldan]

No one would dispute the validity of a Chinese civ, yes?

Yet, from the perspective of "race and ethnicity", the Chinese race is certainly not a homogeneous race. the northern elements are very influenced by Mongol, Turkic, and Tibetan elements, while the south is pretty much Sinicized Tai-Kadai tribes. How much of the original Shang Chinese blood still flow in modern Chinese? I don't know, but there's certainly not much.

In fact, a Chinese from Guangzhou is probably closer in genetics to a Thai, than to a Chinese from Beijing.

But why then is there no opposition to a Chinese civ?

It's because there is absolutely no way a Chinese from Guangzhou would ever identify with a Thai. Psychologically, culturally, linguistically, historically, in every way other than genetics, the Chinese nation is unified.

So, now to Arabs:

The original ancestors of the modern Arabs, in addition to the original Arabs of Medina, are the Berbers, Egyptians, Syrians, Phoenicians, Akkadians, Assyrians, even Sumerians and so on and on.

Yet, genetics and original "ancestry" aside, the Arab nation has a conscious idea of itself, as an ethnic, linguistic, and cultural entity.

So, why should there be any opposition to the Arab civ? Where would that come from?

[roalan]

I agree with Ozymandias those "Arabs" live in all those areas but ,depending on the country, they are NOT native to the some countries mentioned ,even if they lived there for 100's of years. Just like the Pilgrams came here 400 years ago but they are NOT native americans. That is all I am saying . Only the American Indian is a native American.If some of the American Indians went to Greece and lived there for 500 -1000 years they would not be native to Greece they would be Americans living in Greece. In your way of thinking an Arab from say Arabia wpould be a Semite if he lived in Israel for 100's of years,it would not. So why do you say If an Israeli lived in Arabia for centures all of a sudden he would be an Arab? This is an example of your thoughts I realize you did not use an Israeli as an example.

[gsmoove23]

What did my ancestors just spring from the Earth in Ireland at some point?! Is it N. Ireland or the Republic of, Donegal or County Clare or maybe just everybody is a native of Africa. Hey lets all move back and get down to our roots.

I'm a native of Staten Island, New York, even though my great grandpa came over on a boat, irrespective of all the sketchy dealings with the "Native" Americans/First People/Indians/Mohegans or whatever and yes any Jewish child born in Israel of emigrees to that land is a native to that land which makes issues of redressing past injustices all that more thorny.

I don't think there has been any more dangerous or bloody creation in human minds then the idea of some mystical "connection" to a certain plot of land. I'll put that above religion or race.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
What did my ancestors just spring from the Earth in Ireland at some point?! Is it N. Ireland or the Republic of, Donegal or County Clare or maybe just everybody is a native of Africa. Hey lets all move back and get down to our roots.

I'm a native of Staten Island, New York, even though my great grandpa came over on a boat, irrespective of all the sketchy dealings with the "Native" Americans/First People/Indians/Mohegans or whatever and yes any Jewish child born in Israel of emigrees to that land is a native to that land which makes issues of redressing past injustices all that more thorny.

I don't think there has been any more dangerous or bloody creation in human minds then the idea of some mystical "connection" to a certain plot of land. I'll put that above religion or race.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Although you have to allow for naturalized citizens as well.

[gsmoove23]

Yes of course, naturalized citizens too. I was actually born in Decatur, Illinois but NYC is my homeland. I'm afraid when I read it now it sounds like ranting. Should have thrown some smilies in.