There are several geopolitical terms that have historically been used in ways that either obfuscate or misrepresent cultures and ethnicities, sometimes even leading to derogatory connotations:
1. Third World: Originally used during the Cold War to describe countries not aligned with NATO (First World) or the Communist Bloc (Second World), "Third World" has evolved into a term often connoting poverty, underdevelopment, and a lack of civilization. It overlooks the rich cultural diversity and historical complexities of these nations.
2. Orient / Orientalism: The word "Orient" historically referred to the East, primarily Asian countries. Edward Said's seminal work "Orientalism" critiqued how this word, as used by the West, constructed a patronizing and monolithic image of 'Eastern' societies as exotic, backward, and uncivilized, in contrast to the 'advanced' West.
3. Balkanization: Originally describing the fragmentation and division of the Balkan Peninsula, "Balkanization" is now often used pejoratively to signify the chaotic division and conflict in any region. This word can be seen as derogatory, reducing a complex historical event to a synonym for disorder.
4. Developing Countries / Underdeveloped Countries: These terms are often used to describe countries with lower levels of industrialization, lower standards of living, or lower Human Development Index (HDI) ratings. While intended to be neutral or even sympathetic, they can sometimes implicitly suggest that these countries are backward or lacking in comparison to "developed" nations.
5. The New World: Used historically to describe the Americas post-European colonization, this term erases the rich histories and civilizations of the indigenous peoples that existed long before European arrival.
6. Banana Republic: Originally used to describe politically unstable countries in Latin America whose economies were heavily dependent on exporting a limited-resource product, like bananas. It often carries a derogatory connotation, implying that these countries are economically and politically inferior.
These words and terms demonstrate how language in geopolitical contexts can be laden with implicit judgments and biases, often reflecting and perpetuating unequal power dynamics. Their use and the shift away from them in recent times reflect a growing awareness of the importance of respectful and accurate representation in global discourse.
In this essay I plan to take on the term “middle east”.
The Case for West Asia
In the lexicon of global geopolitics, the term "middle east" stands as a historically charged and geographically ambiguous phrase. My intent is to critically examines the term, revealing its Eurocentric roots and advocating for a shift towards the more geographically and culturally appropriate term "West Asia."
Coined in the early 20th century, "middle east" emerged from a Western perspective, primarily to serve strategic interests during times of empire and colonial expansion. It was a term of convenience, encompassing a vast and diverse region according to its position relative to Europe, rather than acknowledging its own distinct identity.
The term's inherent issues stem from its vagueness and Eurocentrism. Geographically, it lacks clarity, sometimes stretching to include North African nations, while other times confined to the Arabian Peninsula and its surroundings. Culturally, it homogenizes a region rich in languages, ethnicities, and histories, thereby obscuring the unique identities of its nations and peoples.
A similar strategy to confound was used in America's colonial period. Wealthy English, French, and German Americans during the colonial era used the word "white" to coalesce various Eastern European amd Mediterranean cultures together, partly to strengthen the resolve of slave owners. This strategy was part of a broader socio-political context.
By creating a unified white identity, wealthy Europeans could foster a sense of commonality and superiority among people of different European nationalities. This was crucial in a context where national and ethnic divisions could have weakened the collective social and economic interests of the European settlers, especially those pertaining to the institution of slavery.
The designation of white served to create a stark distinction between European settlers and enslaved Africans. By emphasizing whiteness, slave owners and colonial elites could justify the subjugation and enslavement of Africans and African Americans, framing it as a natural order based on racial differences.
The colonial period was marked by various forms of social unrest, including rebellions and uprisings. A unified white identity helped to maintain the social order by aligning the interests of all Europeans against those of enslaved people and other marginalized groups. It was a way to prevent alliances between indentured servants, poor Europeans, and enslaved Africans.
White was also associated with certain legal and social privileges. Laws were enacted that favored whites, further solidifying this racial category as a means of maintaining power structures and hierarchies. As America became more diverse with the arrival of more immigrants from different parts of Europe, the broadening of the white category helped to assimilate these new groups into the existing power structure, rather than allowing them to align with enslaved or indigenous peoples.
The adoption and promotion of a unified white identity during the colonial era can be seen as a strategic move by the ruling classes to maintain control and uphold the institution of slavery. It was a way to consolidate power among Europeans of different nationalities and backgrounds by creating a common identity that stood in opposition to those deemed non-white.
Ironically, in the United States today, people from the "middle east” are generally classified as white according to the standards set by the U.S. Census Bureau. This classification is based on definitions by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, which considers people from the middle east and North Africa to be white!
Egyptians? White. Turks? White. Iranians? White? Armenians? White…
"West Asia" presents a clear, geography-based term that accurately locates the region within its continental context. Unlike "middle east," it does not carry the baggage of colonial implications, nor does it center Europe in its definition. Embracing "West Asia" respects the autonomy and diversity of the region's countries, recognizing their distinct cultural and historical backgrounds.
Language profoundly influences perception. The continued use of "middle east" subtly reinforces a Eurocentric worldview, whereas adopting West Asia can contribute to a more balanced and equitable global understanding. It signifies a move towards recognizing and respecting the region's own narrative, distinct from Western interpretations or interests.
The term middle east is an outdated and inadequate label for a region as diverse and complex as West Asia. Shifting to West Asia not only corrects geographical inaccuracies but also aligns with a global movement towards greater cultural sensitivity and respect in international discourse. This change is more than semantic; it's a step towards redressing the remnants of colonialism in our language and fostering a more inclusive global dialogue.