The term "middle east" was coined in 1902 by an American naval historian. Time - defined in the region according to the Gregorian / Western Calendar. Imperial powers set with local rulers and created states where there was none before.
The term "middle east" was coined in 1902 by an American naval historian. Time - defined in the region according to the Gregorian / Western Calendar. Imperial powers set with local rulers and created states where there was none before.
The term "middle east" was coined in 1902 by an American naval historian. Time - defined in the region according to the Gregorian / Western Calendar. Imperial powers set with local rulers and created states where there was none before.
*A course ministered by Professor Asher Susser of the University of Tel Aviv, Israel in partnership with www.coursera.org, with some new elements added by Deijenane Santos.
Week 01. Class 1.1.
The Middle East in the Modern Era
What is the Middle East?
Al-Shark al Awsat (Arabic); Ortadgu (Turkish); Khavar- e Miyanech (Persian); Hazmizrach Ha Tichon (Hebrew).
Alfred Thayer Mahan, an American naval historian, created the term Middle East in 1902. Arab and non-Arab peoples have been calling the region like that since then.
The term "Middle East" was coined in 1902 by American naval officer Alfred T. Mahan, who was regarded as an expert in sea power and world affairs. Writing for London's National Review, Mahan used the new term in calling for the British to strengthen their naval power in the Persian Gulf. As scholar Roderic Davison explains, Mahans Middle East "was an indeterminate area guarding a part of the sea route from Suez to Singapore." The new coinage played off the terms "Near East" and "Far East," already in use. Source: http://www.unc.edu/mideast/where/mahan-1902.shtml
Where is the Middle East?
Owl and Mouse 2008: www.yourchildlearns.com
All the Arab countries from Morocco in the West to the countries in the Gulf. Non-Arab countries: Turkey, Iran and Israel.
Time defined in the region according to the Gregorian/Western Calendar.
Space The Middle East has been defined by outsiders, which reminds us of the enormous influence of foreigners, mainly Europeans in the region.
State Structure:
Europe nation-state X Middle East state-nation
In the Middle East, imperial powers set with local rulers and created states where there was none before. So, one cannot define Middle East nations as nation-states, but rather state-nations, once an artificial state was created before there was any nation in it. Quite the opposite situation when it comes to European nations. Its reasonable to say that The Middle East borders were the work of outsiders therefore they are a foreign patch work, which didnt take into account the local cultural and geographical realities and peoples.
To prove the arbitrary manner in which the Middle East states were created, rumor has it that the British State Secretary for Colonies in 1921, Winston Churchill, who later would become Prime Minister, once said that he created Transjordan, the
current Kingdom of Jordan, with the stroke of pen, one Sunday afternoon in Cairo. This story is known as Churchills hiccup, once it tells that the reason why Jordans borders are so erratic, forming a zigzag where it finds Saudi Arabia border was because before creating the frontiers of the region, Churchill had exaggerated in the use of alcohol. (Jacobs, Frank. Winstons Hiccup: Borderlines, New York Times, 2012. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Countries artificially created (state first, nation later)
Jordan (1921) Syria (1946) Palestine Lebanon (1943) Iraq (1919)
The XIX Century During the XIX century the Middle East went through some very important periods of reforms based on the impact of western ideas in the region. One of these ideas was nationalism, which until this moment, didnt have the same appeal as it had to the European peoples, once the Middle East peoples normally identified themselves on the base of religion, being this aspect the first source of denomination for them. Until the late 19 th century and early 20 th , the Ottoman Empire had ruled the Middle East for 400 years without much questioning, with only some movements of contestation in time, but nothing that could have any impact on the legitimacy of the empire.
Tanzimat (reorganization)-1839-1876 Modernizing and centralizing From theocracy to secularization Identities began to emerge in a European style (language, territory, culture). Islamic Reform It took place during the late part of the XIX century. It was a synthesis between Western science and Philosophy with Arab religion (Islamic thinkers tried to unite the West and the East.
1967 Islamic Revival (radical) State Interest Arabism (nationalism in Western style + Islam).
Week 01. Class 1.2 What is the Modern Era?
Where do we start? Why do we start where we start?
Modern Era 1798 (Napoleons invasion of Egypt)
With his invasion it started a long period of rapid and radical change.
The problems with the definition of Modern Era beginnings after Napoleons invasion of Egypt:
It brings a hidden assumption that the Modern Era in the Middle East was created only and solely through European supremacy and influence on an area, stagnated, in decline etc. There is a historical debate about the starting point for the Modern Era. According to Benedetto Croce History is always written from the present perspective, therefore, it is always a contemporary thing. He says that since the present is always changing, so is History, once it is written in current times. The idea of seeing Napoleons invasion of Egypt as the sole impetus for the modernization and change of the Middle East has been challenged lately.
The Thesis of Decline
The 16 th century was the peak of the Empire in the time of sultan Suleiman, the Magnificent (1494-1566). Since mid-16 th century, the Ottoman Empire was in a 350-year linear decline (half of the empires existence was in this decline). The Middle East was a stagnant society It was resurrected only by Western Enlightenment and vitality, which brought about the modernization of the Middle East.
Contradictions of the Thesis of the Decline
Well after the XVII century, vibrant cities, with centers of government and courts of law, centers of learning arts and crafts existed in the Ottoman Empire. There was also trade between the Ottomans and the West, therefore the empire was not a stagnant, rotten entity. Although it is true that the empire didnt expand After the Battle of Vienna in 1683 there was no expansion and the empire kept having constant territorial retreat, but this was a relative retreat, not a linear decline, as assumed by the Thesis of the Decline.
If we compare the greatness of the time of sultan Suleiman, the Magnificent, it is clear that the empire went on decline, but from this, it not wise to assume that the Ottomans started a total failure. The Defeat of Vienna: territorial contraction. On one hand the Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe The term sick man of Europe started to be applied to the Ottoman Empire from mid-19 th century as a way of describing the political weakness of the entity compared to the power once displayed by it in old times.
The Ottoman Empire enjoyed continued legitimacy, even when rebellions brought down the ruling sultan, the empire remained intact until the rise of nationalism in late XIX century. Until late 1800s, the empire and its legal system were not questioned. The legal system was seen as fair and reasonable. European style was introduced in the educational and legal systems and it had an impact in the collective identity of the peoples living under the Ottomans.
Difficulties faced by the Ottoman Empire in the 19 th century
Territorial losses as exemplified by the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt. Nationalist uprisings in the Balkans (Christians, Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians) Western advance and advantage (science, technology, power projection).
Arab speaking provinces still dominated by the Ottomans. From Yemen to Libya: frequent rebellions against ottomans since the end of the XVI century, a sign of weakness, but the empire survived these rebellions showing its resilience. The XVII century was a period of growing decentralization of the empire with the empowerment of local potentates and social classes. Was change initiated only by Westerners? Did Napoleon initiate it? Did Napoleon interrupt it? Have changes been already occurring in the Middle East before Napoleon? There is no theory, but its possible to reach a balanced conclusion.
The Napoleonic phase was a key to a new period of rapid change, but one that added a quantum leap forward to an ongoing process. Dror Zevi 1 .
Colonial interaction with its negatives created an unprecedented change in the Politics, Economy and most importantly in the sphere of ideas, the erosion of tradition, ideas are more dangerous than occupation.
__________________________________ 1 Back to Napoleon? Thoughts on the Beginning of the Modern Era in the Middle East Dror Ze'evi. This article resurrects an old and well-known problem of periodization: locating the beginning of the modern period in the Middle East. In the past quarter of a century or so it has been the focus of a debate that, though seldom articulated or presented as such, stands at the core of studies of the modern era. Two basic approaches have been offered. One, often described as Orientalist, has suggested that the modern period in the Arab Middle East was ushered in by Napoleons invasion in 1798. Those who adopt this approach find a clear correlation between the invasion, emblematic of 'the impact of the West', and the beginnings of modernization and progress in a stagnant Middle East. The other, revisionist stance raises serious doubts
about this correlation and suggests other timetables according to which modernity had its roots in the region itself or in continued interaction with the West before the arrival of the French revolutionary army. The article suggests a third option which takes into account new approaches to history that view modernity itself as a set of historical phenomena created mainly by and through the colonial encounter. Source: http://www.tau.ac.il/
Week 01. Class 1.3.
The Middle East in the XIX century: the structure of society
Groups: components of society individuals. Michael Yapp: different groups Groups based on birth, family, extended family, tribe, religious division Religion: people in the Middle East define themselves, first and foremost, by their religious association Muslim (majority); Orthodox Christians; Jews, Coptic. (In the European part of the empire the Christian majority was 2 to 1). Compact Minorities (located in a particular territory): Maronite Christians in Mount Lebanon, Alawis in North Western Syria, and also partially in Lebanon (communal identity) Orthodox Christians (who were not a compact minority) had much enthusiasm to support Arab nationalism difference in political affiliation when it comes to minorities. The Ottomans govern these minorities through their own institutions- Millet System the subjects of the Ottoman Empire were organized into well-defined categories on the basis of their religion, each forming a separate Millet. Allowed to rule themselves according to their own legal systems. Minorities, autonomous peoples, not all subjects in the Ottoman Empire were under the same legal authority. Non-Muslims subjects used pay taxes (jizyah/cizyec-per capta) that Muslims didnt pay. But, according to historical records, only 1/3 of the citizens actually paid the tax. Every community had their legal and educational systems The community of Muslim had an internal division (sunni-shii) This division goes back to the 07 th century and its not about religious dogma but politics. It was about who was to become the Caliph after the prophet Ali (who was the son-in-law of the prophet and supposed to be the 4 th
caliph) faction = Shi at Ali The Alawis and the Druze are breakaways Shii sects, which emerged in the 10 th and 11 th centuries. Official Establishment Islam Represented by Sheikh al- Islam (chief religious authority in the Ottoman Empire). Popular Islam Sufi orders to which large portions of the Muslim population belonged.
Social Hierarchy Government (military and bureaucracy); religious establishment (judges, interpreters of the laws); those outside the government (merchants, peasants, tribesmen, townsmen, guildsmen, notables these ones from the provincial parts of the empire serving as a bridge between the rulers and the ruled) In the XIX century, Middle East society tax collectors did undergo major transformation (land owner-town-village this one as a center of government education and commerce X ignorant peasants part and parcel of revolutionary politics in the Middle East in the XX century. The government was more centralized and thus more powerful. Landowners grew even stronger and tensions between them and the peasantry grew even greater. A new educational system (European) was introduced and the impact of European influence engendered a new group of educated secular people (a new class) and this group weakened the status of the religious establishment, though association with religious communities, tribe and family remained the core organizing principle of society. The issue of ideas led to the even increased importance of the religious minorities.
Week 01. Class 1.3.2
The Middle East in the 19 th century- the Economy
Population the estimation for 19 th century Middle East total population was around two million people. Iran 6 million Ottoman territories 24 million Egypt 3.5 million (increased 25 times) At this time the Middle East was underpopulated.
Beginning of the 19 th century Reasons: European Powers
Wars European Powers; Persians X Ottomans Famine (Egypt and Iraq were dependents on the flow of the rivers Nile, Eufrates and Tigris, respectively, then when there was a low fall of rain they were in serious trouble.) Disease (1/6 of the Egyptian population died in 1785 because of a plague. Over 300,000 people died in Istanbul because of the plague in 1812) Birth Control (mainly abortion)
Demographic Revolution in the 19 th century
Introduction of Western Medicine Public Health measures Better communications and transportation Increased security Loss of provinces in Europe= less Christians From 1912 to 1923,1 st quarter of the 20 th century, there was a demographic disaster 20% of the Anatolian population died and 10% emigrated (the were the main land mass of Turkey). These people died and run away from war and other inflictions. During the XIX century and the emergence of the nationalist idea, there was a trend that can be called the territorialization of identity, under the impact of European ideas, these religious minorities sought a territorial identity in the form of a state = clashes the Armenians In the wake of WWI, the overpopulated Middle East already had a problem of lack of food that persists until this day Economic terms Britain and France were the leading commercial powers in the XIX Middle East.
At the end of the XIX century, most of the Middle East commerce was with Europe and Middle East export of raw materials and food items went to Europe. As a result of their industrial revolution, Europeans exported to the Middle East finished goods. Egypt and the Ottoman Empire in huge debt with European countries and banks, this situation slower in Iran, much farther away from Europe, far less in direct contact with Europe.
Week 01. Class 1.3.3
The Middle East in the 19 th century- the Politics
Michael Yapp- government was diverse and minimum it didnt recognize the existence of group and not individuals (?). Muslims followed the Sharia and Christians and Jews followed their laws. Tribesman had their own modes of settling disputes, foreigners were gifted some privileges known as the Capitulations rights and privileges conferred by the Ottoman Empire to merchants. Taxation was minimal, law and education was not supplied by the Central Government, but by the various communities (to outside observers this gave the impression of a decentralized and even ineffective government in decline). Albert Hourani- These were actually adaptations in the style of governance, according to changing circumstances and they were and remained quite effective. The locus of power shifted from sultan to the highest echelons of the bureaucracy in the office of the Grand Vizier (chief minister of the Ottoman Empire). Provinces were often controlled by local potentates, as was the case in Egypt and in other parts of the empire. In the Arab cities of the empire, there were notable families, some Arab, some Turkish that assumed positions of wealth and power, but because of the importance
of religion, these families sent their children to receive religious education and to become functionaries in the religious and religious and legal establishments and gained control of religious endowments, awqaf (Arabic) which were sources of great wealth and political control. Boys (not girls) were sent to traditional schools, the Qutb and the Madrasas where they learned the Quran and religious jurisprudence as well as math sans astronomy.
Week 01. Class 1.4
The Changing Balance of Power with Europe
Up until the middle of the 18 th the Ottomans felt equal to Europe, and before this period, even superior to it. In the last quarter of the 18 th century, a dramatic change took place: the gap in technology, in science, in the military and in the economy was shifting in favor of the Europeans. Medicine advances- increased European population. Modern shipbuilding economic expansion. Critical Turning Point: the Russian-Ottoman war of 1768- 1774 (the loss of Crimea in 1783), this Russian victory brought the Russians to the bank of the Black Sea and from this period on it was no longer an enclosed Ottoman lake. The victory brought the Russians ever close to the straits of Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which lead to the Mediterranean. The loss of Crimea didnt only mean the loss of complete control of the Black Sea, it also meant the first serious loss of control of Muslim subjects, the symbolic loss of Turkish control of Muslim peoples. The Ottoman Empire was supposed to take care of Islam and the Muslims. The XIX century was the European century
The belief of Islam superiority was challenged after the loss of Crimea and had to be revised. Because of that, in the end of the 18 th century, sultan Selim III began the first serious efforts at modernizing the Ottoman Army, before Napoleons arrival in Egypt. The reforms were done in 1790s. These reforms began in the military (the vanguard of Western modernizing reform. Military offices became the most westernized of the Middle Eastern societies. Foreign Languages = Foreign Ideas Napoleons invasion of Egypt, in the summer of 1798 was the greatest intrusion in Ottoman lands. It showed the power of Europe. In the XIX century, people of the Middle East were exposed to an explosion of European energy there was a population growth of 50%, from 1800-1850, Britains population grew from 16 to 27 million people and London was the largest city on earth with some 2.5 million people. Between 1815-1850, Britains exports to the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean increased by 800% Europes need for raw material meant olive oil from Tunisia, silk from Lebanon and cotton from Egypt European merchants were backed by their home countries Russians supported orthodox Christians: Serbs and Greeks, French: Catholics and at a later stage Britain tried to play this minority game by supporting the Jews and the Zionist idea in Palestine Europeans were regularly supporting nationalist ideas of Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire, with Christians being the first ones to be affected by Western ideas: they had a great openness to the Christian West.