Talk:Arabization

The countries that were Arabized were Arabized by force. Not to mention the forced conversion and massacres those savage Arabs did to the innocent non-Arabs.

Find some sources then come back and talk.Yuber 23:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guy, I realize you don't like Arabization, but adding such obviously inappropriate categories as "ethnocentrism" is ridiculous, and removing well-established facts about how it happened is frankly unhelpful. The genetic, linguistic, and cultural evidence all point towards the obvious conclusion - already drawn by Ibn Khaldun - that most modern Arabs are Arabized descendants of their countries' original inhabitants. (The genetic surveys alluded to in Berber and Palestinian are a good place to look.) - Mustafaa 03:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I neither like nor dislike Arabization. I was merely offering historical information on the subject. Arab migration is closely tied to the Islamic culture that was spread at the advent of Islam in late 660s. The reason I included imperialism catagory is because Arab traders spread Islam to Africa (which isnt imperialism), but when it was enforced after conquest of African nations by Arab armies, the states conquered slowly had to adopt Arabic and Islam as their religion, culture and language. This is cultural imperialism, and imperialism as is defined in the broad catagories assigned under the names. It is "ethnocentrism" only because cultural imperialism is included there, and it is under imperialism for the purpose of when vassal states were conquered. It doesnt mean that the Arab language religion and culture was spread by warfare, but we both know that during the expansion of Islam, conquest was a big part. Arabization and Islamization (for lack of a better word) are closely linked. Guy Montag 10:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The category imperialism does not apply to Arabization. Arabization was done in areas that weren't even part of the Islamic empire, for example, after the caliphate fell. I have no idea how ethnocentrism applies either, as Arabs adopted much knowledge from other ethnicities and Arabic even has many loan words from different languages. If you want to add a section on Arabization by force in ancient times, go right ahead, but cite your sources.Yuber 13:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to passionatly argue about this. All I can say is that there is alot of important information missing from this article, and in its current form there is something wrong with it. I have requested a 3rd opinion on the subject and I wont be making any edits until I see that opinion written down in talk.

Guy Montag 09:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "ethnocentrism" is entirely wrong. I don't think we apply that to any other armed migrations of peoples. Most of the Arab migrations didn't even push out the pre-existing populations, and while they often (but not always: think Spain) imposed the Muslim religion, often the result was a syncretic Islam.

"Imperialism" is trickier. Certainly in the days of the unified caliphate, it would apply. After that, it gets subtler. However, to deliberately pick a very contentious example, I would say that the category would be apply to that if and only if it applies it to Zionism. (I see both as instances of settler colonialism; whether or not that is imperialism is an open question.) My own feeling is that I wouldn't use the term "imperialism" either for Zionism or for (post-caliphate) Arabization, and while I'd have no personal objection to it being applied evenhandedly to both, I think it is simpler just to leave it off of this page (which is a mixed bag in that respect: caliphate and later) and attach it to the pages related to specific empires. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, that is understandable. The problem I had with this article was in how to specifically define the term Arabization as a migration or as a formal or informal government policy (see Russification) after the conquest of other states asimposed on the conquered subjects. If it has to do with passive migration, then I was wrong, if it has to do with both, than something should be noted.

Guy Montag 19:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... Hmm. I mwouldnt' say "passive", but would you call the German migrations into Europe "imperialist"? The one modern case mentioned about Saddam's Iraq is another matter, but it's pretty tangential to the main topic of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldnt call them imperialist, unless you are talking about the Goths or the Visagoths. I call it pillaging, looting, and raiding :). The confusion was because of the term. I confused it with the same meaning as Russification.

Guy Montag 07:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for expansion

The following was in the article. It looks to me like good notes for expansion of the article, but it is really just a list rather than a written article, so I am moving it here for now, hoping someone will work it up into something that can go back in (and word it in a less POV manner than this). I've taken the liberty of fixing some spelling. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[begin cut material]

Syria's dictatorship and their persecution of the Kurds, Jews and the Druze.

Some Palestinian terror groups that have the militant Arab Racism Arabization vision (aside from the Jihad motive].

Another great calamity still going on is the Sudan's government Arab militia's racism maiming, massacres, Genocide and Slavery in Sudan, estimated into the millions of victims.

[end cut material]

Disputed?

From the article:

Countries and territories that are traditionally thought to have gone through Arabization include Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and Sudan, although this is highly disputed.

So what is disputed? And by what citable authority? Without that, the claim of dispute does not belong in the article. Morocco, for example, was in no sense Arab 2000 years ago, and is emphatically Arab now? What is the dispute? What is the controversy? Either this need citation, or this last phrase should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was similarly perplexed by that statement. Seeing how no one provided any support to the claim, I think it's safe to delete it. Nymos 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is disputed is the idea that the countries underwent Arabization at all! Some people may argue that the pre-Islamic cultures and languages all exist to varying degrees in those countries. I agree, however, that the phrase was ambiguous. - Zerida 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkuk

"…many Kurdish families came back to Kirkuk to live peacefully with Arab families." No doubt. But from what I've heard on the news, others came back with more hostile intent, which should be referenced and mentioned. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Semitic peoples

"It should be noted that the Arabs were not the first Semitic peoples who migrated out of the peninsula (see: Aramaeans, Canaanites, Akkadians). "

Flat out wrong, even according to other Wikipedia pages (check "Aramaeans" for example). None of these groups originated in or even passed through the Arabian peninsula, to the best of our knowledge. The Semitic peoples arrived in the Middle East from Africa via Sinai, then spilt into two groups - the West Semites, which include the Canaanites and later Israelites and Judeans - and the East Semites, who comprised of the Akkadians and later Assyrians and Babylonians. Arabs come from a third branch, the South Semites, and were probably a later migration since:

A) Arabic is in the same language group (South Semitic) as a few African languages such as Amharic,

B) settlement or even long-term survival in the arid Peninsula is impossible without camels, which were not domesticaed until centuries later (which also makes the claim of pre-Arab peninsular migrations completely illogical), and

C) the first mention of Arabs is in the Battle of Karkar, around the 8th Century BCE, where they are mentioned along with the relatively recently domesticated camels, long after the other groups were already firmly established in the region.

As for the Aramaeans, they probably came from Mesopotamia, possibly from the former kingdom of Mittani. No evidence has arisen to suggest an Arabian origin. I therefore suggest that this entire sentece be deleted.