What are the loose and strict usages of this term as an identifier of a person or group?
Is it one or more of the following: a nationality (if so, what countries are included?), an ethnic group, a cultural group? Are there “racial” implications? Are there religious implications? Can there be Arab Jews and Christians in addition to Muslims?
Was the use of this term different in the recent past? Distant past?
Trying to get a handle on it. Thanks.
Middle eastern.
You can start here to get a start with the answer.
There are certainly Christian Arabs, though Arabs are predominantly Muslim.
And, yes, the usage of the term has changed with the years. For example, you generally don’t hear about Arab Jews anymore, though people identified as “Arab Jews” did exist at some point in history.
This is severely wrong.
There are many Arab Christians, for example in Lebanon.
Arabs are Arabic-speaking peoples, such as those of the Arabian peninsula, the Mediterranean countries of North Africa, the Levant (Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians), Jordan and Iraq, with the exception of minorities such as the Kurds.
Iranians, Turks, and other non-Arabic-speaking peoples of the Middle-East are not Arabs.
Any definition is controversial, and I know there are people who argue that Egyptians, for example, are not Arabs.
This is a great link. Very informative. I didn’t even think about language.
It’s fluid and depends on context and on how people see themselves and are seen by others. I.e. it’s socially defined in real life. For example, an Arabic speaker from Iraq moves to the US and is called “that Arab guy”. So, in that context, he’s Arab.
This is the same for lots of other identifiers that can have both ethnic and nationalistic overtones. For example, who exactly is a “Scot”? The Scots aren’t even believed to descend from a single ancient ethnic group, even on a legendary basis. They came together in the Dark and Middle Ages from various Celtic and Germanic sources.
By the same token, there are Arabic-speaking people who are not Arabs.
Most especially the average Egyptian. Egyptians, in general, have a very strong sense of national identity, and are very proud of the unbroken lineage back to the time of the Pharaohs. Libyans similarly have a strong local identity. Both countries however have the term “Arab” in their official names. This alone should give some clue as to the complexity of answering the OP.
It is probably about as useful a defining term as “European”.
It’s not that complicated, really. Arabs are people who speak Arabic.
We have been down this path before, and it simply doesn’t work. Just because you speak English doesn’t make you English. If you walk into a bar in Glasgow on a Friday night and suggest to the nearest English speaker that they are thus English, when you get out of hospital I’ll let you know where you went wrong. The average Egyptian would have much the same (if less extreme) reaction if you called them an Arab.
As many have said, it’s hard to nail down. I don’t think “racial” is the correct term, but genealogy is probably the most important factor. You won’t go too far wrong if you define it as someone descended from the dominant culture of a Middle Eastern country whose principal language is Arabic. That will automatically exclude Egyptians and Iranians and Afghans and Turks, no matter where they are born.
The main thing to avoid is thinking Arab = Muslim. There are more Arab Christians than there are Jews in the world, and the largest (by population) predominantly Muslim countries include Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, all non-Arab.
Some people, particularly some Lebanese and Egyptian (and Syrian?) Christians, may insist they are not Arab. In a way, some may be right, being a mixture of Arab with Turkish, Crusader, Armenian, etc. blood. So Egyptians of the Coptic religion may sometimes be called “Copts.” A part of the 1943 Lebanese National Pact was that Maronites ally themselves with an Arab identity, and not look to Western countries like France.
Have there been any DNA studies? One can tell if a Jew is a Levite from his or her DNA, for example.
Emphasis added. Because Egyptians speak Arabic as their first language, Egypt under Nasser was ground central for pan-Arabism in the Arab world in the 1950’s-1970’s, Egypt and Syria together formed the “United Arab Republic”, etc.
Egypt is about as Arab as you get :). Under a linguistic definition, which is by far the most common way of defining what is an Arab. If Arabic is your native language you are an Arab.
There are of course myriad exceptions. The native Arabs of Afghanistan for the most part don’t speak Arabic anymore, having adopted Dari and other local languages and instead tracing their ethnicity by descent. But in general these days it is all about language - the Sudanese Arab tribes fighting the “black African” tribes in the Western Sudan are just as dark-skinned as their rivals. They just happened to be descended from folks who adopted Arabic as their first language.
Well I would say that the current defination of Arab is more a 20th century construct of Pan-Arabism. For the longest time, Arab meant from the Peninsula and people from N Africa, and the levant were not included in the count.
Of course in the West it just means “muslim”, like “Turk” once did.
Probably correct. Literary clubs and the like in the 19th century represented some of the earliest stirrings of Arab nationalism. But at this point it appears to be were things have settled, just as nationalities like Palestinian and Israeli are relatively recent in origin but now pretty firmly established.
That’s just absurd.
I imagine most people have a simplistic definition for Arab, ranging from all Muslim people, to citizens of Saudi Arabia. The definition I learned at an early age was non-specific, but referred to the people that emanated from the Arabian Peninsula out into the Middle Eastern and North African countries. The expansion of this group occured in both genes and language. All of the people in this area had intermixed over long periods of time and were already closely related. But I imagine that Islam as a unifying religion broke down some traditional cultural barriers, and inter-marriage and religion are also excellent ways to spread a language.
In what way?
Do you mean it is an absurd way to define an ethnicity? If so I’d say it is about as valid as any other. My father’s ancestors and perhaps a few current third cousins defined ethnicity essentially by religion ( they’re Serb ), which if you ask me isn’t all that much more robust as a taxonomic scheme ;).
Or are you challenging it as a fact?
ETA:
Arabic seems to have adopted faster than Islam in at least some areas. While I imagine Arabic as a liturgical language was fairly important factor, I wouldn’t discount it’s usefulness as a universal lingua franca during the period when the Caliphate(s) dominated a vast swath of the political landscape. Similar in that respect to earlier examples like Latin and Aramaic.