Africa?

Er, most of what we're calling the "Middle East" is in south-west Asia.

I've heard both... so I looked at a map. Simple enough, that.

always historically a part of Africa

I dont think this is accurate. Im sure certain areas were considered africa in historic times, but others were considered asia instead. To be honest, i think even in historic times the vast majority of this region was always thought of as seperate from africa and asia and europe, no matter what demonym they used to describe those peoples.

But, arguing only semantics makes my response worthless, imo. So, ill now turn my focus on a "what if" scenario: What if they used the term "Middle East" for a specific purpose?

Well, this term is inherently ambiguous, unless we consider the entire globe. However, the globe is a sphere, so how can we do that?

I recall a point in northern egypt (actually, Giza IIRC) as being the center of all landmass on the globe. Thus, this could explain the use of "Middle" in "Middle East". But what about the "East" part?

This is where a more unilateral decision was likely made, consciously, for a certain reason. What constitutes East versus West, on a sphere? (North and South are quite easy). To be honest, it makes more sense to me to consider the longitude of Giza (the center of all land mass) as the dividing line between the western and eastern hemispheres. Yet, it is that this longitude is in Greenwich, United Kingdom, aka the Greenwich Meridian.

Considering this, it woukd be more logical to label the Indian Subcontinent region as the Middle East, as it is right in the middle of the eastern hemisphere.

This leads me in two directions, wherein i will pause for awhile at the fork:

1. The europeans, most likely the British, are the originators of this term. For brevity, ill save consideration of purpose for later comment. However, i would make a small bet that says it has something to do with Greenwich and the designation of the Prime Meridian.

2. The Westerners (most likely the Americans, with strong influence from the British in regards to this topic) came up with this term. For this to make any sense, semantically speaking, we could surmise that by labelling the Middle East as such, it was from the American continent's perspective, which would mean europe would be, more or less, the near east (reasoning that the European continent would still be considered the "East".

Version 1 might have more malintent than the 2nd, imo.

Food for thought

Masticated. Your turn to swallow.

Well, how far back are we talking about? I would assume that before widespread geographical knowledge was a thing, these areas were described as individual regions that make up the whole. It would only seem logical, imo, for one to be able to label this as one region versus another, and in reference to another, if they were privvy to all of the surrounding areas as well.

This, to me, would make it seem as if this conversation is only relevant to the time periods of continental conquest was a thing. In ancient times, for example, europeans didnt know much about africa (other than northern africa) at all, save for a few trade routes. And prior to the age of discovery, many europeans considered egypt as a part of asia. (Concluded via rudimentary research in the past hour)

Are there any free pdfs for those books, by any chance? Id like to look into this more. I respect you, but i dont see where you are coming from, so this makes me feel like i am missing something...

Forget about the "middle East" for a second, just look at a map and you'll see that at least Egypt is clearly a part of the African continent.

But only from an observer who already knows the larger picture. Many civilizations around the era of the age of discovery only knew of geographical boundaries in their locale. They certsinly have gained word of other lands (from traders, and other adventurers), but my main point, here, is that its all in perspective. Many viewed egypt as part of the then widely held vision of asia, which didnt go far beyond turkey. China and other far east regions were almost fiction for these people, as they only knew of its mysteries and its treasures.

Basically, the people of that age only graphed the northern fringes of africa. Egypt, as you said, was still connected to the areas of jerusalem and that region. Egypt was considered a part of that area, while the north western region of africa was known as (Maghreb)[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Africa], and also called Barbary.

This is the timeframe of the Muslim conquests (or maybe just prior) and the Barbary Corsairs (aka Barbary Pirates) along with their slave trades. These Barbary peoples were known for their fierceness, amd often conducted raids up along the atlantic coast of europe to get white people slaves to sell to subsaharan regions. I believe this is the origination of the term "Barbarian", btw. These folks knew much about africa, but the europeans, especially before this time, didnt know much at all of the greater african continent.

This is why i suspect that egypt was considered a part of asia, as was other areas of the mesopotamian region, and that it is all about perspective.

However, i will concede that after the age of discovery, terms were more defined to suite the european interests/standards. But this could only have been accompkished by them after they have thoroughly charted the entire african continent, which again, happened during the age of discovery.

We say they considered it as a part of africa, while they say they considerdd it a part of asia, while at the same time, they didnt even have any real distinction from tue two continents as their knowledge of these kands at that time were rudimentary.

Like you said, i bekieve the terms became more important in the later centuries, whem geographical knowledge encompassed almost the entire world.

But back to the main points in your OP, to what purpose would they re-label this area? How does it benefit them, if other than maintaining their views (the europeans) of being the center of everything?

Amd for those books, woukd you mind just paraphrasing the main points? I trust you wont be disingenuous..

I think i see where the differences in our thought have provoked this in depth conversation. Essentially, if i understand what youre saying by now, we are almost presenting the same case, with the minor difference of what the early europeans thought, (from my perspective, i suppose im considering only the average person's extent of knowledge) concerning the placement of egypt and other regions.

In any case, the middle east, asia, africa, mesopotamia, maghreb, they were all "other" regions, amd classified as such. But the classification, from the europeans perspectives, couldnt be done evenly, for the reasons you mentioned. This made it necessary to stratify their labels, even to isolate the "undesirables" (africa) from the holy lands. This makes sense now that i think about it, as religion has always been a strong factor in power-mongering and the persuant conquests and manipulations.

This may explain why the "now" Middle East includes egypt, as egypt is (and was) a major player in the affairs of the holy lands...

I feel like i am getting closer to what you were getting at, am i right?

Ive always been intetested in this region. Take morocco for example. Moroccans are african, but when you see them, you think "middle eastern."

I had a moroccan boss at a large period of my life. I also worked with a white, jewish, african (he was from south africa). So ive always had exposure to the differences, but even today, if someone says "an african person" i think of a black person. This may illustrate the effectiveness of such a ploy.

I also married a pakistani, who is typically considered middle eastern, though technically she is asian, as pakistan isnt considered part of the middle east.

Neither are indians.

I guess im realizing now that the term middle eastern has more to do with culture (religion is a big part of this) than geographical positions. I would bet this is another aspect of what youre getting at...?

Okay, check this out. My last reply to you made me ask why morocco wouldnt be considered the middle east as well, if it indeed was a cultural thing.

So i looked into it for a moment, and the wrotten history of morocco starts with the phoenicians, who originated from the canaanites. The land of Canaan is essentially the levant, so i was puzzled that they werent included. Then i found this:

where it is thought to refer to a class of merchants or to non-monotheistic worshippers in Israel or neighbouring Sidon and Tyre

Maybe morroco isnt considered the middle east because their ancestors, during the same period as we discussed in our recent transactions, werent of the same faith, and thus, might have been considered "undesirables."

I wonder if the same pattern can be found for the indian subcontinent areas that share similar cultures and are informally (if ignorantly) considered "middle easterners"...?

We used to call it the "near east" as opposed to the "far east" -- China and India, but that is a little euro-centric for modern times so now we call it the middle east.

Wow, what a revolutionairy conspiracy. Also what periods are you talking about? In roman times it was in Asia

Africa for the Romans was north Africa. Egypt was where it is now but everything from the Bosporus eastwards was Asia.

Also what even is the conspiracy her?

I cannot see a conspiracy anywhere sorry.

Romans also invented the term Asia. Africa was primarily referring to the north of it.

In another comment you agreed with the word barbarian originating from the wrong route. It came from the Greeks who called everyone barbarians because it sounded like they were saying "bar bar"

I am interested to here what the conspiracy is

Seems fairly rambling and not a conspiracy. Just a name. It has had many different names, Mesopotamia, Asia

I just feel that it is not important. Just a name. But go ahead and have fun with it :)

In another comment you agreed with the word barbarian originating from the wrong route. root.

Upon further investigation, it appears you are actually correct, here.

But as far as the conspiracy aspect of this post, it has to do with how the meanings of words, and the manipulations thereof, can be used for less than honorable motives...

Right. Well I think it is just naming for the sake of making it easier to talk about

making it easier

Easier for whom?

People when they talk about the world. Like the Balkans or eastern europe

People

...for whom?

Anyone. Old, young, as long as they have a decent idea of what different regions are called

Hmm... Well the point i was trying to get is that people in the middle east dont refer to themselves as middle easterners. This was more true not too long ago than it is now, and this is one of the points.

The OP is positting that the term was originated by the europeans, which it was. The post is also suggesting that there is a reason for this... For political manuevering, more or less.

Whether you agree with it or not, some theorists (myself included) acknowledge that by manipulating the definitions, meanings, and use of words allows you to control the people who depend on those definitions, meanings, and usage -- with an advantage that this takes effect fairly subtly.

Furthermore, there are some conspiracy theories that concern this type of "War on Words". This thread is pointing out one front of this "war," which happens to have a lot of cultural and religious connections, which ultimately connects to other theories.

But the middle east is a region which covers multiple countries. It was invented by Europeans because Europeans were so dominant across the world and in the middle east (especially after WW1)

Is western Europe a conspiracy? No.

Africa originally only referred to north Africa and has never referred to Asia (which originally only referred to the middle east i.e. to todays 'western asia'). In Jewish tradition one of the reasons the Israelis destroyed the Canaanites was that they were trespassing in the land that God had given to the descendants of Shem and not to the descendants of Ham (the Canaanites) who God had given the land of North Africa west of Egypt to.

This reflects wiki page on Africa

Afri was a Latin name used to refer to the Carthaginians, who dwelt in North Africa in modern-day Tunisia. This name seems to have originally referred to a native Libyan tribe; however, see Terence#Biography for discussion. The name is usually connected with Phoenician afar, "dust", but a 1981 hypothesis[8] has asserted that it stems from the Berber ifri (plural ifran) "cave", in reference to cave dwellers.[9] The same word[9] may be found in the name of the Banu Ifran from Algeria and Tripolitania, a Berber tribe originally from Yafran (also known as Ifrane) in northwestern Libya.[10]

Under Roman rule, Carthage became the capital of Africa Province, which also included the coastal part of modern Libya.[11] The Latin suffix "-ica" can sometimes be used to denote a land (e.g., in Celtica from Celtae, as used by Julius Caesar). The later Muslim kingdom of Ifriqiya, modern-day Tunisia, also preserved a form of the name.

According to the ancient Romans, Africa lay to the west of Egypt, while "Asia" was used to refer to Anatolia and lands to the east. A definite line was drawn between the two continents by the geographer Ptolemy (85–165 AD), indicating Alexandria along the Prime Meridian and making the isthmus of Suez and the Red Sea the boundary between Asia and Africa. As Europeans came to understand the real extent of the continent, the idea of Africa expanded with their knowledge.

As the middle east (today's western Asia or western Orient) is not the central asia that is to the east of it or the far east that is to the east of central asia what part of Asia (i.e. the orient) is to the west of the middle east (or Western orient / east)? Israel now according to some, maybe the once Hittite Turkey although they are mongolian asians descendants now?

But Asia: east of Suez.

Africa: west of Egypt.

Europe: north west of Turkey.

Egypt is the anomaly.

Duh.

Good point!

George Orwell's quote, "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

edit: shame on anyone that has forgotten this, including me.

So let Mali run the whole place, it's OK with me

Wow, what a revolutionairy conspiracy. Also what periods are you talking about? In roman times it was in Asia

I cannot see a conspiracy anywhere sorry.

Romans also invented the term Asia. Africa was primarily referring to the north of it.

In another comment you agreed with the word barbarian originating from the wrong route. It came from the Greeks who called everyone barbarians because it sounded like they were saying "bar bar"