"[British] State schools in predominantly white areas are putting Arabic lessons on the curriculum for the first time as students show increasing interest in understanding the Middle East."
sounds good. But let's read more...
[According to some official] "...young people's choices have been affected by the news agenda. They know about the tensions in the Middle East and also the influence and strength of some Middle Eastern economies. Part of helping young people understand these tensions is understanding the culture and language of the region."
Humm.
So taking a couple of compulsory courses in Arabic will help studens understand the "culture" and therefore the "tensions" between them and the Middle East?
Something is not right here. It's that word "culture" again that does't sit well with me.
You know why? Because I think Middle Eastern culture has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the "tensions" between us and them.
If white British students want to understand these tensions, they need to look elsewhere. I suggest a course on "Middle Eastern Oil" instead of a course of "Middle Eastern culture." Learning to say "Al Salamu 3alaykum" won't help ease tensions (actually if the accent is pretty bad it can exasperate them!)
Am I unfair? I love Arabic (what else is left?) and it makes me sad that people's motivation in learning it is the "know thy enemy" kind.
But think of it from the point of view of the British student: it's not enough that he is scared of the Arabs and their violence (isn't that what "tensions" really mean? It can't be referring to the killing of the Arabs by the British, can't it now?), but now he is forced to study this language of theirs.
Ya. That will ease tensions allright!
Listen, Lawrence of Arabia knew Arabic. At least he knew how to say "Aqaba, Aqaba." What good did that do?
2 comments:
Hi Amal, I agree with you (I recall when I did a three year stint in a british primary school having to sing "onward christian soldiers" every morning.)
In the official British nomenclature the word "culture" could
have a different meaning than in say the US. This is because of the official emphasis in Britain and its colonies on a policy of multiculturalism: the view that there are many centers of culture in the state and that the Government should promote the uniqueness of these cultures. The main difference with the US is that this policy is well articulated in the British commonwealth.
I observe for example that you use the language "tensions between us and them. This is something that is very natural in the US. Indeed within a month of arriving to take an academic appointment in the US I found my self using the same language: we, us, I abhor our president. While I felt very uncomfortable, even after decades of living in a multicultural commonwealth country, using that type of language.
So if as part of multiculturalism they want to teach middle eastern culture is schools, then all the power to them. If on the other hand, they are motivated, as it seems, by a desire to "understand their enemy," then this is abhorrent.
Of course, the question now is what will they teach? and who will develop the curriculum? As you understand if for example they teach modern Palestinian poetry, then perhaps they will get some idea about and the tragedies that have been imposed on the Middle East. If on the other hand, they siphon programs from Al-hurra (almurra) and other "good Arab" sources, then we have a problem.
Rabee,
I should've put "us and them" in quotations.
Interesting point, though, about the difference between US and Britian. Still, this colonial multiculturalism was not benign or egalitarian. Some cultures were better than others.
Post a Comment