Jump to content

Talk:Pan-Arabism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timstre (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 20 August 2008 (→‎merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comment by Palmiro

Aflaq combined palingenetic socialism and Italian fascism with elements of 19th-century European anti-Semitism and xenophobic hatreds of other non-Arab nationalities, in particular Persians.

This is a rather unusual interpretation of Aflaq's politics. I've commented it out for the moment, unless someone wants to source it to a historian (or political opponent, or whatever) of some description I'll delete it. Palmiro | Talk 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More info needed on some points

It is closely connected to Arab nationalism. Pan-Arabism has tended to be secular and often socialist, and has strongly opposed Western political involvement in the Arab world. Pan-Arabism is a form of ethnic nationalism.

Pan-arabism is connected to arab nationalism? Isn't it the same thing? What's the difference between them?

More importantly however, pan-Arabism, in the name of unity, has helped inspire pogroms against Non-Arab/Non-Muslim Minorities such as the persecution of Assyrian Christians in Iraq, and later of the Kurds.

Except that we should add berber to the list, why was this sentence removed? Is it wrong? Didn't the regime who claimed they were panarabic harmed these minorities?

For Aflaq, you might use this quote: "In this struggle we retain our love for all. When we are cruel to others, we know that our cruelty is in order to bring them back to their true selves, of which they are ignorant. Their potential will, which has not been clarified yet, is with us, even when their swords are drawn against us."

[Each Arab] "is forced to return to himself, to sink into his depths, to discover himself anew after experience and pain. At that point the true unity will be realized, and this is a new kind of unity different from political unity; it creates the unity of spirit among the individuals of the nation." Michel Aflaq source

--equitor 17:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Somalia?

Arab? In what way? They are Muslim yes, and use Arabic script, but Somalis are neither ethnically nor linguistically Arab. Cripipper 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Ethnicity you have no knowledge unless u possess an advanced degree in anthropology or biochemistry as linguistically ever heard of the "Afro-Asiatic" language group fool, get your facts right man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.213.18 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somalis themselves see themselves as being of Arab descent and as clearly distinct from Black Africans.
As for linguistics, Somali is an Cushitic language, while Arabic is a Semitic language, both belonging to the larger Afro-Asiatic languages group. Most linguists believe that this language family as a whole originated somewhere in Northeastern Africa, with the Semitic subgroup spilling over to Arabia and other parts of the Middle East (see Afro-Asiatic languages#Original homeland (Urheimat) and date). Genetic evidence[1][2] suggests that Somalis, along with linguistically related groups such as the Oromo, form an own group distinct from other inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa and are genetically closer to Eurasians/Caucasoids/Arabs than other sub-Saharan Africans are. Béka (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Arab unification and Pan-Arabism??

Although there are understandable links between the two topics it has been noted that pan-arabism can incorporate arab peoples across the globe attempting not only to unify as a nation state but as an entity with which all can identify. Arab nationalism is generally confined to the Middle East and North Africa with the aim being an arab state incorporating much of the Middle East and North Africa into a cohesive and united nation. A popular theory for many years, there is unlikely to be a resolution and creation of such a state in the near future because of the difficulties in deciding who rules such a state. In the past Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia have all attempted to put themselves at the forefront of the arab nationalism movement by creating groups such as the Islamic Conference Organisation, yet all to little avail. (Hinnebusch, R. "The International Politics of the Middle East" Manchester University Press, 2003)

Therefore the two articles should be kept separate, witht he repeated information perhaps removed to make reading and use of the site quicker and easier. Bencgibbins 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say merge Aaliyah Stevens 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bencgibbins: First off, we're not talking about Arab nationalism, we're talking about "Arab Unification" -- which I fail to see how it is different from pan-Arabism. Can you please cite the exact quote from Hinnebusch? Unless someone can provide reliable sources showing that they are different things, they should be merged. Khoikhoi 04:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

The current Pan-Arabist#External_links contains an excessive amount of YouTube links. Some (if not most) should be removed.Bless sins (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest reformat

I suggest moving and editing opposition to Pan-Arabism into a 'criticism' section. it's only natural for a political ideology to be compared to rivaling and opposed ones. This section should include non-arab minorities criticism (e.g. kurds, berbers), islamist opposition (Brotherhood, Qutb) and nationalist alternatives (Pan-Syrianism). MiS-Saath (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge

it's not good to merge Arab Unification with Pan-Arabism, because the different between both pages is very obvious, One is talking about an idea that some leaders was thinking to do, but the Pan-Arabism are a peole with in the arab people who is trying to force their covernments to accept this agenda!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Alkendy (talkcontribs) 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, please. Because the current definitions on these two pages are nearly identical. Khoikhoi 04:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm going to be bold and merge the pages. If anyone has any objections, please cite your sources showing me that the two subjects are different. Khoikhoi 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you were being bold, but maybe there should be some sort of consensus on whether the two articles should be merged or not. There seems to be some good reasoning to keep them separate in the "Merging of Arab unification and Pan-Arabism??" section above. User:Timstre —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to the "reasoning". The bottom line is that no one has provided any references proving that pan-Arabism and Arab Unification are two different things. See WP:BURDEN. Khoikhoi 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's fine with me if they're merged. Just making a suggestion. Anyway, I've added some info from the old Arab Unification article to Pan-Arabism. Tried to make sure nothing was repeated. User:Timstre