Talk:Arabia - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

2024-07-16T03:02:53Z

Sources

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:02, 16 July 2024
Line 12:		Line 12:
	::For example, textbooks often talk about the "national awakening" of the Italians or Germans, Greeks or Spanish, Chinese or Indians. Implicit in this rhetoric is a narrative of the modern national identity as some sort of realization of a truth that was always there but the people were too ignorant or insufficiently modern before to see it, to unify, or to aspire for independence. In reality, the nations we have today and the identities they have shaped, while real, could have been vastly different if history had played out differently.		::For example, textbooks often talk about the "national awakening" of the Italians or Germans, Greeks or Spanish, Chinese or Indians. Implicit in this rhetoric is a narrative of the modern national identity as some sort of realization of a truth that was always there but the people were too ignorant or insufficiently modern before to see it, to unify, or to aspire for independence. In reality, the nations we have today and the identities they have shaped, while real, could have been vastly different if history had played out differently.
	*The second is a '''Eurocentric''' bias in how nations are popularly defined. The way it is still commonly taught in Western schools and universities is that a state is only a nation when it fulfills certain criteria like exclusive territoriality (i.e. adhering to an idea of atomized sovereignty where borders are nominally impermeable), the bureaucratic and technological capacity to ensure the government truly has monopolized the legitimate use of violence, a "modern constitution" along the Euro-American framework, a nationalized language, etc. For various reasons I will not get into here because it did require a whole thesis, this concept of a nation (typically conflated with a nation-state aka ethno-state anyways) is a myth, and it is not objective. Even in our present-day world, official sovereign states don't necessarily satisfy all these criteria perfectly. In fact, historically, this idea of nationhood that ties it to so-called modernity was used by European colonial empires (and then the United States) to strip indigenous peoples everywhere of their sovereign rights. Thus, my working approach is to use the term ''nation'' the way indigenous scholars use it: only that it is a sociopolitical identity a group of people view themselves as belonging to.		*The second is a '''Eurocentric''' bias in how nations are popularly defined. The way it is still commonly taught in Western schools and universities is that a state is only a nation when it fulfills certain criteria like exclusive territoriality (i.e. adhering to an idea of atomized sovereignty where borders are nominally impermeable), the bureaucratic and technological capacity to ensure the government truly has monopolized the legitimate use of violence, a "modern constitution" along the Euro-American framework, a nationalized language, etc. For various reasons I will not get into here because it did require a whole thesis, this concept of a nation (typically conflated with a nation-state aka ethno-state anyways) is a myth, and it is not objective. Even in our present-day world, official sovereign states don't necessarily satisfy all these criteria perfectly. In fact, historically, this idea of nationhood that ties it to so-called modernity was used by European colonial empires (and then the United States) to strip indigenous peoples everywhere of their sovereign rights. Thus, my working approach is to use the term ''nation'' the way indigenous scholars use it: only that it is a sociopolitical identity a group of people view themselves as belonging to.
	::I referred to this in the [[Talk:Roman civilization\|"Roman civilization" talk page]] ~~as well~~ to explain why the Romans should be seen as a nation as well. There's no better scientific word for their continuous self-identity spanning the Roman Kingdom, Roman Empire, and Byzantine Empire. Although the Europeans generally admire the Romans, we often still deny that theirs was a nation due to the presentist bias that only modern states can be called nations. This is also tied with a false binary between empire vs. nation, where an empire is defined as a multi-ethnic state where one ethnic group dominates the rest and a nation as a state with a unified ethnic identity. Again, this demonstrates how often nation is just used to refer to an ethno-state. (Besides, which of the two terms better describe the United States?)		::I referred to this in the [[Talk:Roman civilization\|"Roman civilization" talk page]] to explain why the Romans should be seen as a nation as well. There's no better scientific word for their continuous self-identity spanning the Roman Kingdom, Roman Empire, and Byzantine Empire. Although the Europeans generally admire the Romans, we often still deny that theirs was a nation due to the presentist bias that only modern states can be called nations. This is also tied with a false binary between empire vs. nation, where an empire is defined as a multi-ethnic state where one ethnic group dominates the rest and a nation as a state with a unified ethnic identity. Again, this demonstrates how often nation is just used to refer to an ethno-state. (Besides, which of the two terms better describe the United States?)
	*Finally, there is the concept of a '''common name'''. A common name for a country is the everyday name people contemporaneously use for a state, as opposed to its '''official name''' or its '''historiographical name'''. For example, we don't usually say the United Mexican States, the Republic of Korea, or the Hellenic Republic except in high-level diplomatic settings; we say Mexico, South Korea, and Greece. We also have a habit of taking for granted historiographical names and acting like it's awkward to use a common name for certain historical states. For example, the Ottoman Empire was already commonly called Turkey (or the equivalent in other languages) in its heyday. Most people already know that the people of the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans, not Byzantines, but as for their country's common name? Well, in all likelihood it was Romania, and Romania is probably the most correct page title for "Roman civilization", but I have refrained from proposing that since I expect that would be too radical and confusing for everyone.		*Finally, there is the concept of a '''common name'''. A common name for a country is the everyday name people contemporaneously use for a state, as opposed to its '''official name''' or its '''historiographical name'''. For example, we don't usually say the United Mexican States, the Republic of Korea, or the Hellenic Republic except in high-level diplomatic settings; we say Mexico, South Korea, and Greece. We also have a habit of taking for granted historiographical names and acting like it's awkward to use a common name for certain historical states. For example, the Ottoman Empire was already commonly called Turkey (or the equivalent in other languages) in its heyday. Most people already know that the people of the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans, not Byzantines, but as for their country's common name? Well, in all likelihood it was Romania, and Romania is probably the most correct page title for "Roman civilization", but I have refrained from proposing that since I expect that would be too radical and confusing for everyone.

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */ Proofreading

2024-07-16T02:59:03Z

Sources: Proofreading

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 16 July 2024
Line 10:		Line 10:
	I think I may not have explained my rationale for this page as clearly as I should've, so I would like to break down the concepts I am working with here.		I think I may not have explained my rationale for this page as clearly as I should've, so I would like to break down the concepts I am working with here.
	*The first is a bias known as '''presentism'''. In geopolitics, presentism usually takes the form of a backwards projection of modern state identities, taking them for granted to inform our understanding of how identities were like in the past or treating them as what always was "meant to be". In this regard, we take for granted today's countries in how we define nations.		*The first is a bias known as '''presentism'''. In geopolitics, presentism usually takes the form of a backwards projection of modern state identities, taking them for granted to inform our understanding of how identities were like in the past or treating them as what always was "meant to be". In this regard, we take for granted today's countries in how we define nations.
	::For example, textbooks often about the "national awakening" of the Italians or Germans, Greeks or Spanish, Chinese or Indians. Implicit in this rhetoric is a narrative of the modern national identity as some sort of realization of a truth that was always there but the people were too ignorant or insufficiently modern before to see it, to unify, or to aspire for independence. In reality, the nations we have today and the identities they have shaped, while real, could have been vastly different if history had played out differently.		::For example, textbooks often talk about the "national awakening" of the Italians or Germans, Greeks or Spanish, Chinese or Indians. Implicit in this rhetoric is a narrative of the modern national identity as some sort of realization of a truth that was always there but the people were too ignorant or insufficiently modern before to see it, to unify, or to aspire for independence. In reality, the nations we have today and the identities they have shaped, while real, could have been vastly different if history had played out differently.
	*The second is a '''Eurocentric''' bias in how nations are popularly defined. The way it is still commonly taught in Western schools and universities is that a state is only a nation when it fulfills certain criteria like exclusive territoriality (i.e. adhering to an idea of atomized sovereignty where borders are nominally impermeable), the bureaucratic and technological capacity to ensure the government truly has monopolized the legitimate use of violence, a "modern constitution" along the Euro-American framework, a nationalized language, etc. For various reasons I will not get into here because it did require a whole thesis, this concept of a nation (typically conflated with a nation-state aka ethno-state anyways) is a myth, and it is not objective. Even in our present-day world, official sovereign states don't necessarily satisfy all these criteria perfectly. In fact, historically, this idea of nationhood that ties it to so-called modernity was used by European colonial empires (and then the United States) to strip indigenous peoples everywhere of their ~~sovereignty~~. Thus, my working approach is to use the term ''nation'' the way indigenous scholars use it: only that it is a sociopolitical identity a group of people view themselves as belonging to.		*The second is a '''Eurocentric''' bias in how nations are popularly defined. The way it is still commonly taught in Western schools and universities is that a state is only a nation when it fulfills certain criteria like exclusive territoriality (i.e. adhering to an idea of atomized sovereignty where borders are nominally impermeable), the bureaucratic and technological capacity to ensure the government truly has monopolized the legitimate use of violence, a "modern constitution" along the Euro-American framework, a nationalized language, etc. For various reasons I will not get into here because it did require a whole thesis, this concept of a nation (typically conflated with a nation-state aka ethno-state anyways) is a myth, and it is not objective. Even in our present-day world, official sovereign states don't necessarily satisfy all these criteria perfectly. In fact, historically, this idea of nationhood that ties it to so-called modernity was used by European colonial empires (and then the United States) to strip indigenous peoples everywhere of their sovereign rights. Thus, my working approach is to use the term ''nation'' the way indigenous scholars use it: only that it is a sociopolitical identity a group of people view themselves as belonging to.
	::I referred to this in the [[Talk:Roman civilization\|"Roman civilization" talk page]] as well to explain why the Romans should be seen as a nation as well. There's no better scientific word for their continuous self-identity spanning the Roman Kingdom, Roman Empire, and Byzantine Empire. Although the Europeans generally admire the Romans, we often still deny that theirs was a nation due to the presentist bias that only modern states can be called nations. This is also tied with a false binary between empire vs. nation, where an empire is defined as a multi-ethnic state where one ethnic group dominates the rest and a nation as a state with a unified ethnic identity. Again, this demonstrates how often nation is just used to refer to an ethno-state. (Besides, which of the two terms better describe the United States?)		::I referred to this in the [[Talk:Roman civilization\|"Roman civilization" talk page]] as well to explain why the Romans should be seen as a nation as well. There's no better scientific word for their continuous self-identity spanning the Roman Kingdom, Roman Empire, and Byzantine Empire. Although the Europeans generally admire the Romans, we often still deny that theirs was a nation due to the presentist bias that only modern states can be called nations. This is also tied with a false binary between empire vs. nation, where an empire is defined as a multi-ethnic state where one ethnic group dominates the rest and a nation as a state with a unified ethnic identity. Again, this demonstrates how often nation is just used to refer to an ethno-state. (Besides, which of the two terms better describe the United States?)
	*Finally, there is the concept of a '''common name'''. A common name for a country is the everyday name people contemporaneously use for a state, as opposed to its '''official name''' or its '''historiographical name'''. For example, we don't usually say the United Mexican States, the Republic of Korea, or the Hellenic Republic except in high-level diplomatic settings; we say Mexico, South Korea, and Greece. We also have a habit of taking for granted historiographical names and acting like ~~its~~ awkward to use a common name for certain historical states. For example, the Ottoman Empire was already commonly called Turkey (or the equivalent in other languages) in its heyday. Most people already know that Byzantine Empire~~'s people~~ called themselves Romans, not Byzantines, but as for their country's common name? Well, in all likelihood it was Romania, and Romania is probably the most correct page title for "Roman civilization", but I have refrained from proposing that since I expect that would be too radical and confusing for everyone.		*Finally, there is the concept of a '''common name'''. A common name for a country is the everyday name people contemporaneously use for a state, as opposed to its '''official name''' or its '''historiographical name'''. For example, we don't usually say the United Mexican States, the Republic of Korea, or the Hellenic Republic except in high-level diplomatic settings; we say Mexico, South Korea, and Greece. We also have a habit of taking for granted historiographical names and acting like it's awkward to use a common name for certain historical states. For example, the Ottoman Empire was already commonly called Turkey (or the equivalent in other languages) in its heyday. Most people already know that the people of the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans, not Byzantines, but as for their country's common name? Well, in all likelihood it was Romania, and Romania is probably the most correct page title for "Roman civilization", but I have refrained from proposing that since I expect that would be too radical and confusing for everyone.

	I have striven for a more objective approach that avoids the common presentist and Eurocentric biases. For country articles, my approach has been to write from a more "timeless" perspective, where we can situate ourselves neutrally across history rather than privileging our present-day vantage point. I think this is better too since the most relevant time period for our content is usually a point far in the past rather than now anyways.		I have striven for a more objective approach that avoids the common presentist and Eurocentric biases. For country articles, my approach has been to write from a more "timeless" perspective, where we can situate ourselves neutrally across history rather than privileging our present-day vantage point. I think this is better too since the most relevant time period for our content is usually a point far in the past rather than now anyways.

	So to summarize my rationale for this article, "Arabia", then:		So to summarize my rationale for this article, "Arabia", then:
	*First, I interpret Arabia as the contemporaneous common name of the Rashidun Caliphate and the Umayyad Caliphates in various languages, just as Turkey was the common name of the Ottoman Empire. This tracks because Islam was still closely tied with Arab ethnic identity in this early period, and the Umayyad Caliphate practiced Arab supremacist policies. It was essentially the Arab nation. This is further reinforced by the usage in ''Assassin's Creed: Dynasty'', which calls both the Umayyad Caliphate and the Abbasid Caliphate "the Arabian Empire", ~~with~~ the Umayyad and Abbasid as two different dynasties of the same country. We often lack a unifying term tying the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid together, but the scientific way to describe them is indeed as a nation with successive governments. This nation became more Persianized and more pluralistic with the advent of the Abbasids, which is what begins to muddy the continued usage of Arabia as a common name. Note also that imperial possessions do not change a country's common name. Just like how the Ottoman Empire conquering Greece, Egypt, and the entire Middle East didn't make it no longer Turkey, the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates making similar conquests beyond the confines of the Arabian peninsula do not mean they were no longer Arabia, especially when the Umayyad pursued Arab supremacist policies.		*First, I interpret Arabia as the contemporaneous common name of the Rashidun Caliphate and the Umayyad Caliphates in various languages, just as Turkey was the common name of the Ottoman Empire. This tracks because Islam was still closely tied with Arab ethnic identity in this early period, and the Umayyad Caliphate practiced Arab supremacist policies. It was essentially the Arab nation. This is further reinforced by the usage in ''Assassin's Creed: Dynasty'', which calls both the Umayyad Caliphate and the Abbasid Caliphate "the Arabian Empire", treating the Umayyad and Abbasid as two different dynasties of the same country. We often lack a unifying term tying the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid together, but the scientific way to describe them is indeed as a nation with successive governments. This nation became more Persianized and more pluralistic with the advent of the Abbasids, which is what begins to muddy the continued usage of Arabia as a common name. Note also that imperial possessions do not change a country's common name. Just like how the Ottoman Empire conquering Greece, Egypt, and the entire Middle East didn't make it no longer Turkey, the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates making similar conquests beyond the confines of the Arabian peninsula do not mean they were no longer Arabia, especially when the Umayyad pursued Arab supremacist policies.
	*Second, the reason why we have come to see ''Arabia'' as only a ~~geographical~~ name instead of also a nation's name is due to recent historical developments which very much could have been different. As I mentioned above, there was a movement for an independent Arab nation during World War I under Hussein bin Ali, of the {{wiki\|Banu Hashim\|Hashimids}}. This movement was not so different from other independence movements against the Ottoman Empire, such as that of the Greeks or Albanians. However, Britain and France betrayed their {{wiki\|McMahon–Hussein Correspondence\|promises}} to the Arabs by {{wiki\|Sykes-Picot Agreement\|partitioning}} the Ottoman Empire among themselves and denying the Arabs the unified nation they had intended. When Hussein opposed this, the British switched their support from the Hashimids to the Saudis, which is how the modern sovereign state called the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia came into being. Note how still the usage of Arabia as a name for a nation was preserved in their state's name, albeit it is prefixed by their dynasty's name.		*Second, the reason why we have come to see ''Arabia'' as only a geographic name instead of also a nation's name is due to recent historical developments which very much could have been different. As I mentioned above, there was a movement for an independent Arab nation during World War I under {{wiki\|Hussein bin Ali, King of Hejaz\|Hussein bin Ali}}, of the {{wiki\|Banu Hashim\|Hashimids}}. This movement was not so different from other independence movements against the Ottoman Empire, such as that of the Greeks or Albanians. However, Britain and France betrayed their {{wiki\|McMahon–Hussein Correspondence\|promises}} to the Arabs by {{wiki\|Sykes-Picot Agreement\|partitioning}} the Ottoman Empire among themselves and denying the Arabs the unified nation they had intended. When Hussein opposed this, the British switched their support from the Hashimids to the {{wiki\|House of Saud\|Saudis}}, which is how the modern sovereign state called the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia came into being. Note how still the usage of Arabia as a name for a nation was preserved in their state's name, albeit it is prefixed by their dynasty's name.
	*Our perception today that Arabia refers ''only'' to a geographic region is historically contingent. The word evolved to the extent that we are no longer accustomed to using it as a nation name because colonial processes happened to deny the emergence of a singular Arab nation, that we have in Turkey, Iran, Israel, Egypt, and Greece, which are words that belong in the same class as Arabia. We take for granted that the ''current'' geopolitical organization of the world is a truth that speaks to how state identities always were, always were intended to be, and always were meant to be. Thus, there is this idea that "Arabia was not a nation" or "there never was a civilization called Arabia" which is rooted in presentist and Eurocentric understandings of politics. I admit though that formerly I had used the word ''civilization'' imprecisely and that owed to lower confidence (at my state of research then) with using ''nation''.		*Our perception today that Arabia refers ''only'' to a geographic region is historically contingent. The word evolved to the extent that we are no longer accustomed to using it as a nation name because colonial processes happened to deny the emergence of a singular Arab nation, that we conversely have in Turkey, Iran, Israel, Egypt, and Greece, which are words that belong in the same class as Arabia. We take for granted that the ''current'' geopolitical organization of the world is a truth that speaks to how state identities always were, always were intended to be, and always were meant to be. Thus, there is this idea that "Arabia was not a nation" or "there never was a civilization called Arabia" which is rooted in presentist and Eurocentric understandings of politics. I admit though that formerly I had used the word ''civilization'' imprecisely and that owed to lower confidence (at my state of research then) with using ''nation''.

	In any case, it is consistent with our timeless approach to country articles for this page to be written the way it is currently. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)		In any case, it is consistent with our timeless approach to country articles for this page to be written the way it is currently. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

2024-07-16T02:27:41Z

Sources

Show changes

imported>Sol Pacificus: I'd be happy to do so, but this isn't an open discussion from a request via edit summary to check if it should be reopened.

2024-07-15T18:33:34Z

I'd be happy to do so, but this isn't an open discussion from a request via edit summary to check if it *should* be reopened.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 15 July 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Sources==		==Sources==
	~~{{OpenTalk}}~~
	I have never heard of "Arabia" as a civilization, only as a region/location. Does anyone know where I could read on this? - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		I have never heard of "Arabia" as a civilization, only as a region/location. Does anyone know where I could read on this? - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: Sol can we get a TLDR for your last "comment" to see if we should continue discussing or decide everyone is satisfied

2024-07-15T09:26:45Z

Sol can we get a TLDR for your last "comment" to see if we should continue discussing or decide everyone is satisfied

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 15 July 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Sources==		==Sources==
			{{OpenTalk}}
	I have never heard of "Arabia" as a civilization, only as a region/location. Does anyone know where I could read on this? - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		I have never heard of "Arabia" as a civilization, only as a region/location. Does anyone know where I could read on this? - [[User:Soranin\|Soranin]] ([[User talk:Soranin\|talk]]) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Sources */

2021-01-19T02:10:11Z

Sources

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:10, 19 January 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::I assume what is meant here is the {{wiki\|Arab world}}. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		::I assume what is meant here is the {{wiki\|Arab world}}. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::This is close to the mark, but not entirely as I meant to exclude North African countries. Arabia here refers specifically to any country which indisputably was established by Arabs and had its origins in Arabia, principally the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. At the time of their existence, they were commonly known as Arabia. For the modern state field, I simply included all states in Asia whose majority identifies as Arab if I'm not mistaken. With Arab states in Africa, it is more complicated since, to my knowledge, not all Egyptians, Berbers, etc. who some might consider Arabized are comfortable being called Arabs, so I wished to avoid this controversy. However, I do not mind not using that field on this page if you guys think it is too confusing. Unlike in the case of Islamic Republic of Iran, which is considered the legal successor state to the Safavid Empire, and to the Sasanian Empire, and to the Achaemenid Empire, etc.; there is no clear contemporary claimant as a successor state to Arabia when it was originally a country under the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. There was an attempt to do so under {{wiki\|Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca}} during World War I, but it fell apart when the British passed their support over to the Saudi family for their conquest of most of Arabia while they also divided other parts of the Ottoman Empire which Hussein had expected to go to his kingdom. It is on this basis that people get confused with this idea that Arabia has apparently never been a country. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		:::This is close to the mark, but not entirely as I meant to exclude North African countries. Arabia here refers specifically to any country which indisputably was established by Arabs and had its origins in Arabia, principally the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. At the time of their existence, they were commonly known as Arabia. For the modern state field, I simply included all states in Asia whose majority identifies as Arab if I'm not mistaken. With Arab states in Africa, it is more complicated since, to my knowledge, not all Egyptians, Berbers, etc. who some might consider Arabized are comfortable being called Arabs, so I wished to avoid this controversy. However, I do not mind not using that field on this page if you guys think it is too confusing. Unlike in the case of Islamic Republic of Iran, which is considered the legal successor state to the Safavid Empire, and to the Sasanian Empire, and to the Achaemenid Empire, etc.; there is no clear contemporary claimant as a successor state to Arabia when it was originally a country under the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. There was an attempt to do so under {{wiki\|Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca}} during World War I, but it fell apart when the British passed their support over to the Saudi family for their conquest of most of Arabia while they also divided other parts of the Ottoman Empire which Hussein had expected to go to his kingdom. It is on this basis that people get confused with this idea that Arabia has apparently never been a country. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
			::::Yeah it’s not perfect that was just the best wiki article for what I thought you were getting at. It does however include groups that were heavily Arabized rather than only those that are intrinsically Arab. Question: what are your thoughts on the Nabataeans? [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
	::This is a typical issue stemming from privileging modern sovereign states (and nation-states) as the determinant for our concept of a civilization. For example, I'm assuming you guys have no problem conceptualizing Greece, Japan, or India as individual civilizations and that is because these names are synonymous with contemporary sovereign states. Cat Master's reply is especially indicative of this misconception because he calls the closest thing to an Arabian civilization ever existing to be Saudi Arabia; in this same sentence, he conflates civilization with nation, privileges Saudi Arabia as the premier Arab state, and forgets the existence of the Rashidun Caliphate which was an empire originating in a unified Arabia from which it expanded.		::This is a typical issue stemming from privileging modern sovereign states (and nation-states) as the determinant for our concept of a civilization. For example, I'm assuming you guys have no problem conceptualizing Greece, Japan, or India as individual civilizations and that is because these names are synonymous with contemporary sovereign states. Cat Master's reply is especially indicative of this misconception because he calls the closest thing to an Arabian civilization ever existing to be Saudi Arabia; in this same sentence, he conflates civilization with nation, privileges Saudi Arabia as the premier Arab state, and forgets the existence of the Rashidun Caliphate which was an empire originating in a unified Arabia from which it expanded.
	::So I will have to give an extensive explanation, first by introducing the problematique with an example familiar to me. Where one civilization starts or ends should obviously not be taken as absolute. There are no clear-cut lines. Chinese people would usually argue that Chinese civilization, i.e. China, has a millennia-old continuous history. However, which historic state should conceptually fall under this broad category of "China" is disputable when we get to regimes like the Yuan and Qing, which were foreign empires which annexed China. Chinese nationalists tend to argue vociferously that these were obviously Chinese regimes, so that they may maintain the traditional historiographical myth of fluid, dynastic continuity, and so that they may use Mongol and Manchu conquests as justification for Chinese conquests today. Anti-CCP activists, on the other hand, tend to argue that the Yuan and Qing are more accurately analyzed as distinct states discontinuous with those that came before and after, that they were foreign empires, but also that the debate as to how "Chinese" a state was is inconsequential.		::So I will have to give an extensive explanation, first by introducing the problematique with an example familiar to me. Where one civilization starts or ends should obviously not be taken as absolute. There are no clear-cut lines. Chinese people would usually argue that Chinese civilization, i.e. China, has a millennia-old continuous history. However, which historic state should conceptually fall under this broad category of "China" is disputable when we get to regimes like the Yuan and Qing, which were foreign empires which annexed China. Chinese nationalists tend to argue vociferously that these were obviously Chinese regimes, so that they may maintain the traditional historiographical myth of fluid, dynastic continuity, and so that they may use Mongol and Manchu conquests as justification for Chinese conquests today. Anti-CCP activists, on the other hand, tend to argue that the Yuan and Qing are more accurately analyzed as distinct states discontinuous with those that came before and after, that they were foreign empires, but also that the debate as to how "Chinese" a state was is inconsequential.

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

2021-01-19T00:43:12Z

Sources

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, 19 January 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	::Moreover, some recent historians have argued for a shift in the traditional paradigm for Chinese history, where we recognize that it is more accurate not to conceptualize a "Chinese civilization" but a Sinic civilization encompassing Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, parallel to an argument that the post-Roman European world is best conceptualized as a broad Christian civilization rather than anything narrower of the sort (like English, French, German, etc.) The caveat to this argument is that we should not be taking for granted modern nation-states (be they Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese) in our understanding of the geopolitical world across time. I have been largely convinced of this argument, but my critique is that general distinctions between a "China", a "Korea", a "Japan", and a "Vietnam" are still significant if only because peoples ages past did conceptualize such categories, and this informed their politics, even where national lines were not as strictly drawn as they are today. (Some Chinese ultranationalists will abuse this concept that Korea, Japan, and Vietnam are part of a Sinic civilization to argue that they all belong to China, but the scholars who formulated this analysis argue that they moot Chinese ultranationalists' imperialistic claims on the basis of "historically belongs to China").		::Moreover, some recent historians have argued for a shift in the traditional paradigm for Chinese history, where we recognize that it is more accurate not to conceptualize a "Chinese civilization" but a Sinic civilization encompassing Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, parallel to an argument that the post-Roman European world is best conceptualized as a broad Christian civilization rather than anything narrower of the sort (like English, French, German, etc.) The caveat to this argument is that we should not be taking for granted modern nation-states (be they Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese) in our understanding of the geopolitical world across time. I have been largely convinced of this argument, but my critique is that general distinctions between a "China", a "Korea", a "Japan", and a "Vietnam" are still significant if only because peoples ages past did conceptualize such categories, and this informed their politics, even where national lines were not as strictly drawn as they are today. (Some Chinese ultranationalists will abuse this concept that Korea, Japan, and Vietnam are part of a Sinic civilization to argue that they all belong to China, but the scholars who formulated this analysis argue that they moot Chinese ultranationalists' imperialistic claims on the basis of "historically belongs to China").
	::A similar perspective I commonly encounter among Eurocentric students is to instead project medieval Europe's feudal geopolitical make-up onto all non-Western European countries' history, be it China, Greece, Iran, etc. and arguing that such countries were ''nothing'' but warring states (of different nationalities) prior to the development of "national awakening" on the heels of a modern European order, with no prior concept whatsoever of being "Chinese", "Greek", "Persian", "Japanese", or whatnot. This is an extreme position that is deeply fallacious and stems from a misunderstanding of the sophisticated analysis given in the previous paragraph while also assuming that because the concept of being Spanish or being English did arise relatively late, this is the exact same historical trajectory for peoples outside of Europe. This perspective begins to dabble in the fundamental flaw of the nation-state, yet still internalizes it as the unit of reference, by suggesting that peoples like the Greeks were "unaware" that they were actually Greek before they had a consolidated, unified state whose name is synonymous with their ethnic group. It is premised on the erroneous notion that a people cannot have a concept of a shared cultural identity if they have not formed an ethnonationalist state, i.e. one ethnicity, one state.		::A similar perspective I commonly encounter among Eurocentric students is to instead project medieval Europe's feudal geopolitical make-up onto all non-Western European countries' history, be it China, Greece, Iran, etc. and arguing that such countries were ''nothing'' but warring states (of different nationalities) prior to the development of "national awakening" on the heels of a modern European order, with no prior concept whatsoever of being "Chinese", "Greek", "Persian", "Japanese", or whatnot. This is an extreme position that is deeply fallacious and stems from a misunderstanding of the sophisticated analysis given in the previous paragraph while also assuming that because the concept of being Spanish or being English did arise relatively late, this is the exact same historical trajectory for peoples outside of Europe. This perspective begins to dabble in the fundamental flaw of the nation-state, yet still internalizes it as the unit of reference, by suggesting that peoples like the Greeks were "unaware" that they were actually Greek before they had a consolidated, unified state whose name is synonymous with their ethnic group. It is premised on the erroneous notion that a people cannot have a concept of a shared cultural identity if they have not formed an ethnonationalist state, i.e. one ethnicity, one state.
	::It also alternatively carries with it the implication that, even if the people within the borders of a modern sovereign state did not have a shared identity before, it was their destiny to do so, that it is part of a natural progression for them to develop that national identity they simply weren't "conscious" of before, as though it existed in fact as a milestone hanging above their heads for them to reach before that sovereign state came to be. An example I can give for and which I keep coming back to for this is Syria, as we long had an article for the modern Syrian Arab Republic to stand-in for peoples who happened to live in the region at the time of the Crusades, but the Syrian Arab Republic was a product of European colonialism in the wake of the partition of the Ottoman Empire ~~as a betrayal of a promise made to Arabs for a unified state~~.		::It also alternatively carries with it the implication that, even if the people within the borders of a modern sovereign state did not have a shared identity before, it was their destiny to do so, that it is part of a natural progression for them to develop that national identity they simply weren't "conscious" of before, as though it existed in fact as a milestone hanging above their heads for them to reach before that sovereign state came to be. An example I can give for and which I keep coming back to for this is Syria, as we long had an article for the modern Syrian Arab Republic to stand-in for peoples who happened to live in the region at the time of the Crusades, but the Syrian Arab Republic was a product of European colonialism in the wake of the partition of the Ottoman Empire.
	::So what do I mean by ''civilization''? I use the term broadly, for lack of a better one, to refer to a roughly, if imperfectly, continuous sociopolitical unit spanning across time and changing regimes, where the name has been used as a ''common name'' irrespective of contemporaneous regimes. This is just the same as how we often use "China", "Egypt", "Japan", "India", "Persia", "Vietnam" today. We refer to ancient forms of these countries even though this conceptualization is imperfect because lines are not so clearly drawn, and these concepts can have the effect of erasing minority groups who were subjugated and forcibly assimilated over thousands of years, like the Cham in Vietnam who were once their own independent nation, or the indigenous Ainu in Japan who had preceded the majority Yamato that had migrated later ~~but still so long ago that we would usually call them indigenous as well~~, to say nothing of the myriad ethnic groups that had existed at all corners of China's frontier.		::So what do I mean by ''civilization''? I use the term broadly, for lack of a better one, to refer to a roughly, if imperfectly, continuous sociopolitical unit spanning across time and changing regimes, where the name has been used as a ''common name'' irrespective of contemporaneous regimes. This is just the same as how we often use "China", "Egypt", "Japan", "India", "Persia", "Vietnam" today. We refer to ancient forms of these countries even though this conceptualization is imperfect because lines are not so clearly drawn, and these concepts can have the effect of erasing minority groups who were subjugated and forcibly assimilated over thousands of years, like the Cham in Vietnam who were once their own independent nation, or the indigenous Ainu in Japan who had preceded the majority Yamato that had migrated later, to say nothing of the myriad ethnic groups that had existed at all corners of China's frontier.
	::With every country, there is a complex and unique history which these common names do not do justice, but it is also necessary to recognize that we cannot accurately communicate a consolidated and general concept of continuous sociopolitical units by using their current regimes as a reference. The People's Republic of China is not one and the same as the Tang dynasty. It does not make sense that we had an article on [[China]] which used to define it in terms of the PRC today, information that is all drawn from real-world sources since the PRC has hardly featured in ''Assassin's Creed'' sources. The PRC is not the Song dynasty; it is not the Ming dynasty. Wikipedia treats the PRC and China as one and the same, as they do with the French Fifth Republic with France, the Republic of India with India, etc. without distinction between a current regime and the "civilization" that they represent, for the sake of readers' convenience since it deals in the real-world. However, ''Assassin's Creed'' deals with historical fiction, and in terms of organization, it was a mess back in the day when we used to have, as another example, an article on [[France]] which led as an article on the French Fifth Republic but where content relevant to ''Assassin's Creed'' related to the Kingdom of France and the French First Republic.		::With every country, there is a complex and unique history which these common names do not do justice, but it is also necessary to recognize that we cannot accurately communicate a consolidated and general concept of continuous sociopolitical units by using their current regimes as a reference. The People's Republic of China is not one and the same as the Tang dynasty. It does not make sense that we had an article on [[China]] which used to define it in terms of the PRC today, information that is all drawn from real-world sources since the PRC has hardly featured in ''Assassin's Creed'' sources. The PRC is not the Song dynasty; it is not the Ming dynasty. Wikipedia treats the PRC and China as one and the same, as they do with the French Fifth Republic with France, the Republic of India with India, etc. without distinction between a current regime and the "civilization" that they represent, for the sake of readers' convenience since it deals in the real-world. However, ''Assassin's Creed'' deals with historical fiction, and in terms of organization, it was a mess back in the day when we used to have, as another example, an article on [[France]] which led as an article on the French Fifth Republic but where content relevant to ''Assassin's Creed'' related to the Kingdom of France and the French First Republic.
	::'''Hence, I use the term ''civilization'' broadly to refer to how we conceptualize France, China, Japan, and all these other "countries" as constant units across time, across various regimes, even though this conceptualization, you guys must understand, is ''imperfect''.''' The alternative solution is to remove our articles on "China", "Greece", "Egypt", "Japan", "Spain", etc. and retain only articles on specific regimes, but that would be to the detriment, to the inconvenience, of all our visitors because we really do usually speak of such constant units across time, flawed as this may be.		::'''Hence, I use the term ''civilization'' broadly to refer to how we conceptualize France, China, Japan, and all these other "countries" as constant units across time, across various regimes, even though this conceptualization, you guys must understand, is ''imperfect''.''' The alternative solution is to remove our articles on "China", "Greece", "Egypt", "Japan", "Spain", etc. and retain only articles on specific regimes, but that would be to the detriment, to the inconvenience, of all our visitors because we really do usually speak of such constant units across time, flawed as this may be.
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::As a massive disclaimer, I am not arguing for a pan-Arabist ideology that Arabs must reunify into one state someday. This disclaimer is one of the main reasons why I felt the need to go into such a lengthy exposition on the problems with using the term ''civilization''. On one hand, we should be considerate that the British had promised the Arabs an independent, unified Arabian state in return for their revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. That they betrayed this promise and arbitrarily drew lines across West Asia to partition colonial territories for themselves and for France is one of the reasons why I am inclined to find it distasteful to presume that the concept of Arabia as a sociopolitical category has no basis. On the other hand, I must reiterate that the nation-state concept of one ethnicity, one state has always been extremely destructive towards minority groups whenever nationalization projects in the name of this ideal has occurred. Moreover, I recognize that Arab identity is tremendously complex, and I would be out of my depth to comment further on it. Hence, I am by no means making any political statement regarding how Arabian identity should be constituted. I do not have that right, for I am not Arab and have no personal experience with their political issues.		::As a massive disclaimer, I am not arguing for a pan-Arabist ideology that Arabs must reunify into one state someday. This disclaimer is one of the main reasons why I felt the need to go into such a lengthy exposition on the problems with using the term ''civilization''. On one hand, we should be considerate that the British had promised the Arabs an independent, unified Arabian state in return for their revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. That they betrayed this promise and arbitrarily drew lines across West Asia to partition colonial territories for themselves and for France is one of the reasons why I am inclined to find it distasteful to presume that the concept of Arabia as a sociopolitical category has no basis. On the other hand, I must reiterate that the nation-state concept of one ethnicity, one state has always been extremely destructive towards minority groups whenever nationalization projects in the name of this ideal has occurred. Moreover, I recognize that Arab identity is tremendously complex, and I would be out of my depth to comment further on it. Hence, I am by no means making any political statement regarding how Arabian identity should be constituted. I do not have that right, for I am not Arab and have no personal experience with their political issues.
	::'''Rather, I am arguing for the organizational soundness of having an article on Arabia paralleling that of our articles for Greece, Egypt, Iran, Japan, and China. I would make the same argument for having an article on [[Roman civilization\|Rome]] as a "civilization" or constant political unit transcending multiple regimes, which encompasses the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire.''' If anything, this usage is, again, already attested in ''Assassin's Creed: Dynasty''. Once more, I have been well aware that the boundary of where one civilization begins and where one civilization ends is fraught with contention and highly arbitrary. I have been conscious that writing our articles in this way, we could inadvertently exhibit ethnonationalist implications, such as by implying we politically support pan-Arabism, which is not the meaning.		::'''Rather, I am arguing for the organizational soundness of having an article on Arabia paralleling that of our articles for Greece, Egypt, Iran, Japan, and China. I would make the same argument for having an article on [[Roman civilization\|Rome]] as a "civilization" or constant political unit transcending multiple regimes, which encompasses the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire.''' If anything, this usage is, again, already attested in ''Assassin's Creed: Dynasty''. Once more, I have been well aware that the boundary of where one civilization begins and where one civilization ends is fraught with contention and highly arbitrary. I have been conscious that writing our articles in this way, we could inadvertently exhibit ethnonationalist implications, such as by implying we politically support pan-Arabism, which is not the meaning.
	::The same issue arises elsewhere, such as how our China article treats both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as current states of China. As a supporter of Taiwanese independence myself, I understand that this may be discomforting to Taiwanese people who desire the Republic of China to be reorganized and recognized as a solely Taiwanese state, removed from the KMT's claims to China and free from threats of CCP conquest. At the same time, it would also be a gross political statement to designate the People's Republic of China as sole representative of all ~~China~~. This is all notwithstanding that ''Assassin's Creed: Templars'' is set during the Warlord era, where the Republic of China was the nominal government of China (even though in actuality the KMT's ROC initially only controlled the south while the rest of the country was a patchwork of other states claiming the ROC name), so treating the ROC as a Chinese government is more relevant lore-wise.		::The same issue arises elsewhere, such as how our China article treats both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as current states of China. As a supporter of Taiwanese independence myself, I understand that this may be discomforting to Taiwanese people who desire the Republic of China to be reorganized and recognized as a solely Taiwanese state, removed from the KMT's claims to China and free from threats of CCP conquest. At the same time, it would also be a gross political statement to designate the People's Republic of China as sole representative of all Chinese civilization. This is all notwithstanding that ''Assassin's Creed: Templars'' is set during the Warlord era, where the Republic of China was the nominal government of China (even though in actuality the KMT's ROC initially only controlled the south while the rest of the country was a patchwork of other states claiming the ROC name), so treating the ROC as a Chinese government is more relevant lore-wise.
	::It is not possible to avoid appearing to make a political statement when we are forced to organize our articles around countries because erasure of certain perspectives is an issue fundamental to the concept of a nation. I have to emphasize that the problem would have been worse had we continued to equate modern sovereign states with historical peoples, states, and societies which lived in the same region, for then, we would be basing our understanding of past countries on modern states which emerged out of violent ethnonationalist projects or colonialism.		::It is not possible to avoid appearing to make a political statement when we are forced to organize our articles around countries because erasure of certain perspectives is an issue fundamental to the concept of a nation. I have to emphasize that the problem would have been worse had we continued to equate modern sovereign states with historical peoples, states, and societies which lived in the same region, for then, we would be basing our understanding of past countries on modern states which emerged out of violent ethnonationalist projects or colonialism.
	::I hope this helps explain my extensive thought process behind the creation of this article and more broadly, the way I have reorganized our articles around countries. I realize I could have just focused specifically on Arabia, but I thought it would be safer to share all the problems I had anticipated ahead of time. But as I close this, I have to return one last time to Cat Master's reply to home in on this. The statement that Arabia was never a civilization is tantamount to saying that Arabs never had a civilization, i.e. they never developed a culture or society, and even if you were not aware of the implications of that statement, it was still very inappropriate. I understand that you had probably meant to say that a ''nation named Arabia'' never existed—which I have already explained is false—but a conventional understanding of the term ''civilization'' does not refer to a sovereign nation-state but to a complex society distinguished from paleolithic or neolithic levels of technological and social development. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		::I hope this helps explain my extensive thought process behind the creation of this article and more broadly, the way I have reorganized our articles around countries. I realize I could have just focused specifically on Arabia, but I thought it would be safer to share all the problems I had anticipated ahead of time. But as I close this, I have to return one last time to Cat Master's reply to home in on this. The statement that Arabia was never a civilization is tantamount to saying that Arabs never had a civilization, i.e. they never developed a culture or society, and even if you were not aware of the implications of that statement, it was still very inappropriate. I understand that you had probably meant to say that a ''nation named Arabia'' never existed—which I have already explained is false—but a conventional understanding of the term ''civilization'' does not refer to a sovereign nation-state but to a complex society distinguished from paleolithic or neolithic levels of technological and social development. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

2021-01-19T00:04:10Z

Sources

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:04, 19 January 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:Arabia is a geographic region. There never was a civilization called Arabia. The closest thing to a civilization with that name is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia which was founded in the 1930s. [[User:The Cat Master\|The Cat Master]] ([[User talk:The Cat Master\|talk]]) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		:Arabia is a geographic region. There never was a civilization called Arabia. The closest thing to a civilization with that name is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia which was founded in the 1930s. [[User:The Cat Master\|The Cat Master]] ([[User talk:The Cat Master\|talk]]) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
	::I assume what is meant here is the {{wiki\|Arab world}}. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		::I assume what is meant here is the {{wiki\|Arab world}}. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
	:::This is close to the mark, but not entirely as I meant to exclude North African countries. Arabia here refers specifically to any country which indisputably was established by Arabs and had its origins in Arabia, principally the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. At the time of their existence, they were commonly known as Arabia. For the modern state field, I simply included all states in Asia whose majority identifies as Arab if I'm not mistaken. With Arab states in Africa, it is more complicated since, to my knowledge, not all Egyptians, Berbers, etc. who some might consider Arabized are comfortable being called Arabs, so I wished to avoid this controversy. However, I do not mind not using ~~the~~ field on this page if you guys think it is too confusing. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		:::This is close to the mark, but not entirely as I meant to exclude North African countries. Arabia here refers specifically to any country which indisputably was established by Arabs and had its origins in Arabia, principally the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. At the time of their existence, they were commonly known as Arabia. For the modern state field, I simply included all states in Asia whose majority identifies as Arab if I'm not mistaken. With Arab states in Africa, it is more complicated since, to my knowledge, not all Egyptians, Berbers, etc. who some might consider Arabized are comfortable being called Arabs, so I wished to avoid this controversy. However, I do not mind not using that field on this page if you guys think it is too confusing. Unlike in the case of Islamic Republic of Iran, which is considered the legal successor state to the Safavid Empire, and to the Sasanian Empire, and to the Achaemenid Empire, etc.; there is no clear contemporary claimant as a successor state to Arabia when it was originally a country under the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. There was an attempt to do so under {{wiki\|Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca}} during World War I, but it fell apart when the British passed their support over to the Saudi family for their conquest of most of Arabia while they also divided other parts of the Ottoman Empire which Hussein had expected to go to his kingdom. It is on this basis that people get confused with this idea that Arabia has apparently never been a country. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
	::This is a typical issue stemming from privileging modern sovereign states (and nation-states) as the determinant for our concept of a civilization. For example, I'm assuming you guys have no problem conceptualizing Greece, Japan, or India as individual civilizations and that is because these names are synonymous with contemporary sovereign states. Cat Master's reply is especially indicative of this misconception because he calls the closest thing to an Arabian civilization ever existing to be Saudi Arabia; in this same sentence, he conflates civilization with nation, privileges Saudi Arabia as the premier Arab state, and forgets the existence of the Rashidun Caliphate which was an empire originating in a unified Arabia from which it expanded.		::This is a typical issue stemming from privileging modern sovereign states (and nation-states) as the determinant for our concept of a civilization. For example, I'm assuming you guys have no problem conceptualizing Greece, Japan, or India as individual civilizations and that is because these names are synonymous with contemporary sovereign states. Cat Master's reply is especially indicative of this misconception because he calls the closest thing to an Arabian civilization ever existing to be Saudi Arabia; in this same sentence, he conflates civilization with nation, privileges Saudi Arabia as the premier Arab state, and forgets the existence of the Rashidun Caliphate which was an empire originating in a unified Arabia from which it expanded.
	::So I will have to give an extensive explanation, first by introducing the problematique with an example familiar to me. Where one civilization starts or ends should obviously not be taken as absolute. There are no clear-cut lines. Chinese people would usually argue that Chinese civilization, i.e. China, has a millennia-old continuous history. However, which historic state should conceptually fall under this broad category of "China" is disputable when we get to regimes like the Yuan and Qing, which were foreign empires which annexed China. Chinese nationalists tend to argue vociferously that these were obviously Chinese regimes, so that they may maintain the traditional historiographical myth of fluid, dynastic continuity, and so that they may use Mongol and Manchu conquests as justification for Chinese conquests today. Anti-CCP activists, on the other hand, tend to argue that the Yuan and Qing are more accurately analyzed as distinct states discontinuous with those that came before and after, that they were foreign empires, but also that the debate as to how "Chinese" a state was is inconsequential.		::So I will have to give an extensive explanation, first by introducing the problematique with an example familiar to me. Where one civilization starts or ends should obviously not be taken as absolute. There are no clear-cut lines. Chinese people would usually argue that Chinese civilization, i.e. China, has a millennia-old continuous history. However, which historic state should conceptually fall under this broad category of "China" is disputable when we get to regimes like the Yuan and Qing, which were foreign empires which annexed China. Chinese nationalists tend to argue vociferously that these were obviously Chinese regimes, so that they may maintain the traditional historiographical myth of fluid, dynastic continuity, and so that they may use Mongol and Manchu conquests as justification for Chinese conquests today. Anti-CCP activists, on the other hand, tend to argue that the Yuan and Qing are more accurately analyzed as distinct states discontinuous with those that came before and after, that they were foreign empires, but also that the debate as to how "Chinese" a state was is inconsequential.

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

2021-01-18T23:48:29Z

Sources

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:48, 19 January 2021
Line 20:		Line 20:
	::The Umayyad Caliphate were known for their extreme racial policies favoring Arabs. During this period, Arab and Islamic identity were closely linked as the Umayyads wished to keep the Islamic community "pure" by restricting the religion solely to Arabs. This is another evidence in favor of the interpretation that an Arabian country has existed historically. Heavy discrimination against the non-Arab population was one of the major factors which led to the multi-ethnic Abbasid Revolution. Because the Abbasid Revolution overturned these racial policies and opened the gates for a pluralistic Islamic state which thereafter became increasingly Persianized, I am personally more hesitant to place the Abbasid Caliphate definitively as the "Arabian Empire", but ''Dynasty'' refers to it as such because historically it was perceived as still a continuation of the Arabian Empire by the Chinese.		::The Umayyad Caliphate were known for their extreme racial policies favoring Arabs. During this period, Arab and Islamic identity were closely linked as the Umayyads wished to keep the Islamic community "pure" by restricting the religion solely to Arabs. This is another evidence in favor of the interpretation that an Arabian country has existed historically. Heavy discrimination against the non-Arab population was one of the major factors which led to the multi-ethnic Abbasid Revolution. Because the Abbasid Revolution overturned these racial policies and opened the gates for a pluralistic Islamic state which thereafter became increasingly Persianized, I am personally more hesitant to place the Abbasid Caliphate definitively as the "Arabian Empire", but ''Dynasty'' refers to it as such because historically it was perceived as still a continuation of the Arabian Empire by the Chinese.
	::Regardless, I believe that, as a matter of organizational consistency, it makes logical sense to employ the name Arabia in the same capacity that we employ the names China, Egypt, Japan, Iran, and India. The instinct to do otherwise stems from the fact that we do not, in the present day, currently have one single state encompassing a majority of the Arab people. On the sole basis of this, on the basis that there isn't a state commonly named "Arabia" (with the exception of Saudi Arabia which I should point out is just the name of the ruling house appended to the name Arabia), the idea that an Arabian country ever existed becomes readily objectionable. This, once again, privileges our modern geopolitical world as the definers of what political categories are "factual", but if China, Iran, and Japan at certain points in time being splintered into a multitude of states for a duration as long as a century does not change our notion that "China", "Iran" and "Japan" exist and have existed, I don't see how it is objective to take the current frame of time that we live in where the Arab world is divided to argue that Arabia as a country has never existed. Our conceptualization is being biased towards our own current time.		::Regardless, I believe that, as a matter of organizational consistency, it makes logical sense to employ the name Arabia in the same capacity that we employ the names China, Egypt, Japan, Iran, and India. The instinct to do otherwise stems from the fact that we do not, in the present day, currently have one single state encompassing a majority of the Arab people. On the sole basis of this, on the basis that there isn't a state commonly named "Arabia" (with the exception of Saudi Arabia which I should point out is just the name of the ruling house appended to the name Arabia), the idea that an Arabian country ever existed becomes readily objectionable. This, once again, privileges our modern geopolitical world as the definers of what political categories are "factual", but if China, Iran, and Japan at certain points in time being splintered into a multitude of states for a duration as long as a century does not change our notion that "China", "Iran" and "Japan" exist and have existed, I don't see how it is objective to take the current frame of time that we live in where the Arab world is divided to argue that Arabia as a country has never existed. Our conceptualization is being biased towards our own current time.
	:::As a massive disclaimer, I am not arguing for a pan-Arabist ideology that Arabs must reunify into one state someday. This disclaimer is one of the main reasons why I felt the need to go into such a lengthy exposition on the problems with using the term ''civilization''. On one hand, we should be considerate that the British had promised the Arabs an independent, unified Arabian state in return for their revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. That they betrayed this promise and arbitrarily drew lines across West Asia to partition colonial territories for themselves and for France is one of the reasons why I am inclined to find it distasteful to presume that the concept of Arabia as a sociopolitical category has no basis. On the other hand, I must reiterate that the nation-state concept of one ethnicity, one state has always been extremely destructive towards minority groups whenever nationalization projects in the name of this ideal has occurred. Moreover, I recognize that Arab identity is tremendously complex, and I would be out of my depth to comment further on it. Hence, I am by no means making any political statement regarding how Arabian identity should be constituted. I do not have that right, for I am not Arab and have no personal experience with their political issues.		::As a massive disclaimer, I am not arguing for a pan-Arabist ideology that Arabs must reunify into one state someday. This disclaimer is one of the main reasons why I felt the need to go into such a lengthy exposition on the problems with using the term ''civilization''. On one hand, we should be considerate that the British had promised the Arabs an independent, unified Arabian state in return for their revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. That they betrayed this promise and arbitrarily drew lines across West Asia to partition colonial territories for themselves and for France is one of the reasons why I am inclined to find it distasteful to presume that the concept of Arabia as a sociopolitical category has no basis. On the other hand, I must reiterate that the nation-state concept of one ethnicity, one state has always been extremely destructive towards minority groups whenever nationalization projects in the name of this ideal has occurred. Moreover, I recognize that Arab identity is tremendously complex, and I would be out of my depth to comment further on it. Hence, I am by no means making any political statement regarding how Arabian identity should be constituted. I do not have that right, for I am not Arab and have no personal experience with their political issues.
	::'''Rather, I am arguing for the organizational soundness of having an article on Arabia paralleling that of our articles for Greece, Egypt, Iran, Japan, and China. I would make the same argument for having an article on [[Roman civilization\|Rome]] as a "civilization" or constant political unit transcending multiple regimes, which encompasses the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire.''' If anything, this usage is, again, already attested in ''Assassin's Creed: Dynasty''. Once more, I have been well aware that the boundary of where one civilization begins and where one civilization ends is fraught with contention and highly arbitrary. I have been conscious that writing our articles in this way, we could inadvertently exhibit ethnonationalist implications, such as by implying we politically support pan-Arabism, which is not the meaning.		::'''Rather, I am arguing for the organizational soundness of having an article on Arabia paralleling that of our articles for Greece, Egypt, Iran, Japan, and China. I would make the same argument for having an article on [[Roman civilization\|Rome]] as a "civilization" or constant political unit transcending multiple regimes, which encompasses the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire.''' If anything, this usage is, again, already attested in ''Assassin's Creed: Dynasty''. Once more, I have been well aware that the boundary of where one civilization begins and where one civilization ends is fraught with contention and highly arbitrary. I have been conscious that writing our articles in this way, we could inadvertently exhibit ethnonationalist implications, such as by implying we politically support pan-Arabism, which is not the meaning.
	::The same issue arises elsewhere, such as how our China article treats both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as current states of China. As a supporter of Taiwanese independence myself, I understand that this may be discomforting to Taiwanese people who desire the Republic of China to be reorganized and recognized as a solely Taiwanese state, removed from the KMT's claims to China and free from threats of CCP conquest. At the same time, it would also be a gross political statement to designate the People's Republic of China as sole representative of all China. This is all notwithstanding that ''Assassin's Creed: Templars'' is set during the Warlord era, where the Republic of China was the nominal government of China (even though in actuality the KMT's ROC initially only controlled the south while the rest of the country was a patchwork of other states claiming the ROC name), so treating the ROC as a Chinese government is more relevant lore-wise.		::The same issue arises elsewhere, such as how our China article treats both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as current states of China. As a supporter of Taiwanese independence myself, I understand that this may be discomforting to Taiwanese people who desire the Republic of China to be reorganized and recognized as a solely Taiwanese state, removed from the KMT's claims to China and free from threats of CCP conquest. At the same time, it would also be a gross political statement to designate the People's Republic of China as sole representative of all China. This is all notwithstanding that ''Assassin's Creed: Templars'' is set during the Warlord era, where the Republic of China was the nominal government of China (even though in actuality the KMT's ROC initially only controlled the south while the rest of the country was a patchwork of other states claiming the ROC name), so treating the ROC as a Chinese government is more relevant lore-wise.
	::It is not possible to avoid appearing to make a political statement when we are forced to organize our articles around countries because erasure of certain perspectives is an issue fundamental to the concept of a nation. I have to emphasize that the problem would have been worse had we continued to equate modern sovereign states with historical peoples, states, and societies which lived in the same region, for then, we would be basing our understanding of past countries on modern states which emerged out of violent ethnonationalist projects or colonialism.		::It is not possible to avoid appearing to make a political statement when we are forced to organize our articles around countries because erasure of certain perspectives is an issue fundamental to the concept of a nation. I have to emphasize that the problem would have been worse had we continued to equate modern sovereign states with historical peoples, states, and societies which lived in the same region, for then, we would be basing our understanding of past countries on modern states which emerged out of violent ethnonationalist projects or colonialism.
	::I hope this helps explain my extensive thought process behind the creation of this article and more broadly, the way I have reorganized our articles around countries. I realize I could have just focused specifically on Arabia, but I thought it would be safer to share all the problems I had anticipated ahead of time. But as I close this, I have to return one last time to Cat Master's reply to home in on this. The statement that Arabia was never a civilization is tantamount to saying that Arabs never had a civilization, i.e. they never developed a culture or society, and even if you were not aware of the implications of that statement, it was still very inappropriate. I understand that you had probably meant to say that a ''nation named Arabia'' never existed—which I have already explained is false—but a conventional understanding of the term ''civilization'' does not refer to a sovereign nation-state but to a complex society distinguished from paleolithic or neolithic levels of technological and social development. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		::I hope this helps explain my extensive thought process behind the creation of this article and more broadly, the way I have reorganized our articles around countries. I realize I could have just focused specifically on Arabia, but I thought it would be safer to share all the problems I had anticipated ahead of time. But as I close this, I have to return one last time to Cat Master's reply to home in on this. The statement that Arabia was never a civilization is tantamount to saying that Arabs never had a civilization, i.e. they never developed a culture or society, and even if you were not aware of the implications of that statement, it was still very inappropriate. I understand that you had probably meant to say that a ''nation named Arabia'' never existed—which I have already explained is false—but a conventional understanding of the term ''civilization'' does not refer to a sovereign nation-state but to a complex society distinguished from paleolithic or neolithic levels of technological and social development. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

2021-01-18T23:48:10Z

Sources

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:48, 19 January 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:Arabia is a geographic region. There never was a civilization called Arabia. The closest thing to a civilization with that name is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia which was founded in the 1930s. [[User:The Cat Master\|The Cat Master]] ([[User talk:The Cat Master\|talk]]) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		:Arabia is a geographic region. There never was a civilization called Arabia. The closest thing to a civilization with that name is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia which was founded in the 1930s. [[User:The Cat Master\|The Cat Master]] ([[User talk:The Cat Master\|talk]]) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
	::I assume what is meant here is the {{wiki\|Arab world}}. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		::I assume what is meant here is the {{wiki\|Arab world}}. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
			:::This is close to the mark, but not entirely as I meant to exclude North African countries. Arabia here refers specifically to any country which indisputably was established by Arabs and had its origins in Arabia, principally the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates. At the time of their existence, they were commonly known as Arabia. For the modern state field, I simply included all states in Asia whose majority identifies as Arab if I'm not mistaken. With Arab states in Africa, it is more complicated since, to my knowledge, not all Egyptians, Berbers, etc. who some might consider Arabized are comfortable being called Arabs, so I wished to avoid this controversy. However, I do not mind not using the field on this page if you guys think it is too confusing. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
	::This is a typical issue stemming from privileging modern sovereign states (and nation-states) as the determinant for our concept of a civilization. For example, I'm assuming you guys have no problem conceptualizing Greece, Japan, or India as individual civilizations and that is because these names are synonymous with contemporary sovereign states. Cat Master's reply is especially indicative of this misconception because he calls the closest thing to an Arabian civilization ever existing to be Saudi Arabia; in this same sentence, he conflates civilization with nation, privileges Saudi Arabia as the premier Arab state, and forgets the existence of the Rashidun Caliphate which was an empire originating in a unified Arabia from which it expanded.		::This is a typical issue stemming from privileging modern sovereign states (and nation-states) as the determinant for our concept of a civilization. For example, I'm assuming you guys have no problem conceptualizing Greece, Japan, or India as individual civilizations and that is because these names are synonymous with contemporary sovereign states. Cat Master's reply is especially indicative of this misconception because he calls the closest thing to an Arabian civilization ever existing to be Saudi Arabia; in this same sentence, he conflates civilization with nation, privileges Saudi Arabia as the premier Arab state, and forgets the existence of the Rashidun Caliphate which was an empire originating in a unified Arabia from which it expanded.
	::So I will have to give an extensive explanation, first by introducing the problematique with an example familiar to me. Where one civilization starts or ends should obviously not be taken as absolute. There are no clear-cut lines. Chinese people would usually argue that Chinese civilization, i.e. China, has a millennia-old continuous history. However, which historic state should conceptually fall under this broad category of "China" is disputable when we get to regimes like the Yuan and Qing, which were foreign empires which annexed China. Chinese nationalists tend to argue vociferously that these were obviously Chinese regimes, so that they may maintain the traditional historiographical myth of fluid, dynastic continuity, and so that they may use Mongol and Manchu conquests as justification for Chinese conquests today. Anti-CCP activists, on the other hand, tend to argue that the Yuan and Qing are more accurately analyzed as distinct states discontinuous with those that came before and after, that they were foreign empires, but also that the debate as to how "Chinese" a state was is inconsequential.		::So I will have to give an extensive explanation, first by introducing the problematique with an example familiar to me. Where one civilization starts or ends should obviously not be taken as absolute. There are no clear-cut lines. Chinese people would usually argue that Chinese civilization, i.e. China, has a millennia-old continuous history. However, which historic state should conceptually fall under this broad category of "China" is disputable when we get to regimes like the Yuan and Qing, which were foreign empires which annexed China. Chinese nationalists tend to argue vociferously that these were obviously Chinese regimes, so that they may maintain the traditional historiographical myth of fluid, dynastic continuity, and so that they may use Mongol and Manchu conquests as justification for Chinese conquests today. Anti-CCP activists, on the other hand, tend to argue that the Yuan and Qing are more accurately analyzed as distinct states discontinuous with those that came before and after, that they were foreign empires, but also that the debate as to how "Chinese" a state was is inconsequential.
Line 23:		Line 24:
	::The same issue arises elsewhere, such as how our China article treats both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as current states of China. As a supporter of Taiwanese independence myself, I understand that this may be discomforting to Taiwanese people who desire the Republic of China to be reorganized and recognized as a solely Taiwanese state, removed from the KMT's claims to China and free from threats of CCP conquest. At the same time, it would also be a gross political statement to designate the People's Republic of China as sole representative of all China. This is all notwithstanding that ''Assassin's Creed: Templars'' is set during the Warlord era, where the Republic of China was the nominal government of China (even though in actuality the KMT's ROC initially only controlled the south while the rest of the country was a patchwork of other states claiming the ROC name), so treating the ROC as a Chinese government is more relevant lore-wise.		::The same issue arises elsewhere, such as how our China article treats both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as current states of China. As a supporter of Taiwanese independence myself, I understand that this may be discomforting to Taiwanese people who desire the Republic of China to be reorganized and recognized as a solely Taiwanese state, removed from the KMT's claims to China and free from threats of CCP conquest. At the same time, it would also be a gross political statement to designate the People's Republic of China as sole representative of all China. This is all notwithstanding that ''Assassin's Creed: Templars'' is set during the Warlord era, where the Republic of China was the nominal government of China (even though in actuality the KMT's ROC initially only controlled the south while the rest of the country was a patchwork of other states claiming the ROC name), so treating the ROC as a Chinese government is more relevant lore-wise.
	::It is not possible to avoid appearing to make a political statement when we are forced to organize our articles around countries because erasure of certain perspectives is an issue fundamental to the concept of a nation. I have to emphasize that the problem would have been worse had we continued to equate modern sovereign states with historical peoples, states, and societies which lived in the same region, for then, we would be basing our understanding of past countries on modern states which emerged out of violent ethnonationalist projects or colonialism.		::It is not possible to avoid appearing to make a political statement when we are forced to organize our articles around countries because erasure of certain perspectives is an issue fundamental to the concept of a nation. I have to emphasize that the problem would have been worse had we continued to equate modern sovereign states with historical peoples, states, and societies which lived in the same region, for then, we would be basing our understanding of past countries on modern states which emerged out of violent ethnonationalist projects or colonialism.
	::I hope this helps explain my extensive thought process behind the creation of this article and more broadly, the way I have reorganized our articles around countries. I realize I could have just focused specifically on Arabia, but I thought it would be safer to share all the problems I had anticipated ahead of time. But as I close this, I have to return ~~directly~~ to Cat Master's reply to home in on this. The statement that Arabia was never a civilization is tantamount to saying that Arabs never had a civilization, i.e. they never developed a culture or society, and even if you were not aware of the implications of that statement, it was still very inappropriate. I understand that you had probably meant to say that a ''nation named Arabia'' never existed—which I have already explained is false—but a conventional understanding of the term ''civilization'' does not refer to a sovereign nation-state but to a complex society distinguished from paleolithic or neolithic levels of technological and social development. Now I use the term more narrowly to refer to a shared cultural and sociopolitical identity as a constant across different states because I have struggled tremendously to find a better word to encapsulate the category which words like "China", "Iran", "Greece", "Egypt", "India", etc. belong to. Either way, that comment is a prime example of what I was referring to by individuals typically privileging modern sovereign states as the codifiers for how countries and societies ought to be conceptualized throughout all time. If there isn't a sovereign state with that exact name as a common name, suddenly a people cannot ever have had a shared cultural identity to speak of irrespective of state boundaries? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)		::I hope this helps explain my extensive thought process behind the creation of this article and more broadly, the way I have reorganized our articles around countries. I realize I could have just focused specifically on Arabia, but I thought it would be safer to share all the problems I had anticipated ahead of time. But as I close this, I have to return one last time to Cat Master's reply to home in on this. The statement that Arabia was never a civilization is tantamount to saying that Arabs never had a civilization, i.e. they never developed a culture or society, and even if you were not aware of the implications of that statement, it was still very inappropriate. I understand that you had probably meant to say that a ''nation named Arabia'' never existed—which I have already explained is false—but a conventional understanding of the term ''civilization'' does not refer to a sovereign nation-state but to a complex society distinguished from paleolithic or neolithic levels of technological and social development. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Arabia - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */ Proofreading

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

imported>Sol Pacificus: I'd be happy to do so, but this isn't an open discussion from a request via edit summary to check if it *should* be reopened.

imported>Lacrossedeamon: Sol can we get a TLDR for your last "comment" to see if we should continue discussing or decide everyone is satisfied

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Sources */

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Sources */

imported>Sol Pacificus: I'd be happy to do so, but this isn't an open discussion from a request via edit summary to check if it should be reopened.