Romanticized Colonialists

To be honest I am part of the "problem". When Said and others talk about Westerners stereotyping the Middle East, he is taking about me. Of course I like the Idea of an exotic mysterious different place in the world. Who wouldn’t want to travel to a region of adventure and excitement?  Have I romanticized the region? Yes! But isn’t that part of the allure? Of course if I went to Egypt I’d want to see pyramids. I want to trade in a Berber suk, ride a camel, and have a nomadic adventure. Is there really anything wrong with that? Attitudes like this have allowed the Middle East to develop tourist attractions, to make money for their people. Hey, if you got it flaunt it! This desire for a nomadic adventure has allowed small oasis towns to develop tourist industry and become a desirable travel destination to those who watched Lawrence of Arabia and the Man Who Would Be King, one too many times. Sure we are Romanticized Colonialists, but is it really wrong to appreciate the exoticness of the Middle East? There is sense of “Otherness” the culture is different but let’s embrace it and not run from it.

All Politics Are Local

All Politics are Local

 

The Middle East is not only a region, but it is also a system of states. These states all have their own domestic politics. These different systems of local politics affect not only what happens internally in these countries but also in the region as a whole. The Idea that all politics are local suggest that the things that happen in one small area, close to the individuals level effect what happens on the international level.

The best way to talk about this idea is through examples

So In Lancaster County many people may not have felt the same economic changes have in other parts of the country. Because of our diverse and locally driven economy as well as a strong tourist industry our local views of the economy are very different then someone who lives in Detroit (fall of the auto industry …need I say more).

 

So maybe an individual in Lancaster may think things are not as bad as they seem and therefore think we don’t need President Obama to make things better and instead vote for Mitt Romney.

 

 

This can work in many different ways that same individual from Lancaster could make their electoral decision off of several local factors, including political parties, Lancaster has a strong local GOP so maybe they would vote for Mitt Romney because of that.

 

In Lancaster they do it yourself attitude is prevalent among the conservative Mennonites so maybe they would vote for the President because they think he built himself up from nothing whereas Mitt Romney was born into wealth.

 

The point is reason the political system shifts in different directions is because of the attitudes of individuals on the local level not on how they feel about national policy.

What is "The Region"

Ok to briefly digress from my working theory on Romanticized colonialism:
We need to backtrack and talk about the Region and what this thing called the "Middle East" is.
Let's skip the idea of what a region is and let's charge into the question, "What is the Middle East"

The Middle East as a phrase comes to us from the British Empire. This area was East of London but not as far east as India. This area has a historic connection. The Arab conquest which spread a religion and a culture across the modern Middle East created the Middle East. Areas on the fringe of this empire are at times considered either in the Middle East or are in another region at different times. But the Core states of this region are linked because of their shared past. The areas which the Arab empire stretched to are in the present day Middle East. The exceptions to this are areas like southern Spain, which has been brought back into the European fold.

This area was untied through religion and culture. However, they are not exactly the same. Arabs are not the only ones in the region and not all of the Middle East is based on Arab culture. There has been a mix of cultures that have spread across this region thanks to the Persians, the Turks, and the Mongolians.

Besides a shared history this region exists as the Middle East mainly because of the British. During colonialism and the era of the British Empire, the powers of the western world lumped this region together. Even though there are several differences between a Moroccan Berber and a Persian Muslim in Iran. It was the West through both terminology and foreign affairs who created the Middle East.

The Middle East is such because of both the 19^th century British and the 7^th century Arabs.

Romanticized Colonialism Images

Check out the Ralph Lauren Add

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/04/05/romanticizing-colonialism/


Getting the full tourist experience

 

 

The Sexy Oreint

 

Romanticizing Colonialism

Ive been thinking a lot about colonialism lately. Particularly the cycle of tourism, romanticism, western otherness. It seems to go against my conception of education and my "we are not to different theory". Hopefully Ferris from Alkhaleejblog will join in on this discussion.

-Alex

My Political Image

Political Identity Infographic

Others

                    I could have explored the topic of Others by talking about the Amish in Lancaster or the international students at Dickinson but instead I decided to sit Down with Professor Erik Love from Dickinson College to discuss Muslims in America. Some of my questions were not serious but rather an attempt to dispel some widely held stereotypes about Muslims in America. As Professor Love points out, the Muslim community in America is really no different than any other group in America. There may be some cultural differences but in the end, we are all Americans. 

 

 

                         Mine and Professor Love's point is that Muslims in America are just like any member of our community: they are not others, they are our brothers.

Youth Identity in North Africa

                In  Louise Fawcett’s International Relations of the Middle East ne brings up Libya and Col Gaddafi twice   in his third chapter.  In one instance he draws attention to the problem of youthening population with ageing leadership as well as handpicked succession. This book published in 2009 brings up Egypt’s Mubarak, Col Gaddafi, Syria, Morocco, and Jordan.  In 2009, when this work was published Fawcett couldn’t have known what would take place two years later, but it is interesting to look at this issue. It is necessary to delve deeper into how this young population in North Africa came to the conclusion that their leaders were no longer sufficient. All three of these North African countries went through some level of change due to the Arab Spring.  Morocco now has a new constitution with the Islamic party of peace and development leading the way.  While Egypt and Libya are both more obvious with their changes, the complete ousting of their leaders and old forms of government.   
               These changes, protests and demonstrations were organized and attend by large numbers of citizens, many of them young men and women. The conversations about these event s have taken place on social networking sites and throughout the internet; an area were the younger generation flourishes. Is this “Arab Spring” really that? Or is this a North African Youth Revolt? In Tunisia this whole event kicked off with a young man who felt constrained by the economic system. These unemployment problems effect the young  stronger than any age demographic. Were these ageing dictators, out of touch with their citizens.   It is obvious that these movements are much more complex than teenage angst, but this idea of the young citizens versus the old leaders does raise some identity questions that should be developed further. The problems the young men and women of north Africa have are similar to the economic issues of the young men and women all around the world (Spain being one of the best examples).  Is the present system filled with young angry men?