Stereotyping Saudi Arabia

[Arabian Legend]

Stereotyping the Kingdom

JAMAL DOUMANI
Published — Sunday 29 September 2013
Last update 28 September 2013 11:23 pm


IF the pen, as it is generally assumed, is mightier than the sword, then Saudi Arabs have every reason to be concerned about the spate of books penned about their country by American writers.
Since the oil embargo in 1973, and most decidedly since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2011, literally hundreds of books have been released, by both political analysts and academics, purporting to edify readers on the history, culture and politics of the Kingdom.

Given the significant role the country plays in the region, indeed the world at large, you would imagine that these authors would’ve been careful to lend depth and authority to their research, and equally careful not to let their preconceived prejudices insinuate themselves into their writing. That, sadly, is not the case.

The most recent tome, published ten months ago but released in paperback quite recently, attests to that wretched fact. Titled “On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines and Future,” it is written by Karen House, a Pulitzer Prize winner and former executive editor at the Wall Street Journal. Plugging the book, the publisher tells us that the author has been visiting the country for thirty years and thus “has an unprecedented knowledge of life inside this shrouded Kingdom”.

If there is anything shrouded here it is House’s analysis, which is infantile and, yes, outright racist, as she dredges up every tired stereotype Americans harbor about Saudis. Consider this improbably banal description of the land House has visited repeatedly over the last three decades, where she attempts to wax poetic but ends up waxing pathetic. “For millenia,” she writes, “Saudis struggled to survive in a vast desert under searing sun and shearing winds that quickly devour man’s energy, as he searches for a wadi of shade trees and water which are few and far between, living on only a few dates and camel’s milk. These conditions bred a people suspicious of each other and especially of strangers, a culture largely devoid of art or enjoyment of beauty.”
My, my, and this is a professional writer who has won the Pulitzer Prize, the most prestigious accolade in the journalistic enterprise.

Where did she get the notion that Saudis, whose tradition of hospitality and openness to strangers are legion, could be so mean-spirited to each other? And where did she get the equally bizarre notion that the Kingdom’s culture, so rich in its poetic effusions that go back centuries, is “largely devoid of art or enjoyment of beauty”? Clearly, it all came from one place: her racist phantasies.

And, yes, in another egregious generalization, not to mention a show of wanton psychologizing, she gets into the collective psyche of Saudi Arabs and discovers that they all “feel trapped”. The sad part of it all is that House is verbalizing the thoughts of a great many — though clearly not all — Americans, for most of whom the Kingdom remains more like another world than another country. That is not only unfortunate but also inexplicable.

It’s been exactly 80 years since the United States and the Kingdom established diplomatic relations, and sixty eight since that historic encounter between King Abdul Aziz and President Roosevelt onboard the cruiser USS Quincy in the Great Bitter Lake of the Suez Canal (where the American chief executive pledged not to do anything hostile to Arabs, especially Arab interests in Palestine, only to die a week later, with his pledges dying along with him).

That’s long enough, surely, for both area specialists and political analysts to get a responsible grip on what they write about, to free themselves, as it were, of their bigotry and racialist myths about the Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is not just a major regional player, but also the economic and spiritual center of the Middle East, and the cradle of Islam, a faith that, though embraced by a quarter of the world’s population, remains in the US both misunderstood and often maligned.

It is ironic that Saudis, who allegedly come from a “culture largely devoid of art or enjoyment of beauty,” appear to understand America a devil lot more than Americans understand Saudi Arabia. Since the early 1960’s, tens of thousands of Saudi students have graduated from US colleges. In fact, as of 2012, Saudis have formed the fourth largest group of international students studying in the US. You wonder then, given how dumb Saudis are, if there was something wrong with their curricula there.

Karen House’s book is not alone in demonizing the Kingdom. There are countless others like it, in bookstores and libraries, and on lists for suggested or required reading for students majoring in Middle Eastern Studies on campuses across the US. My favorite is Robert Lacey’s “Inside the Kingdom” (2009) — and Lacey is not a lightweight among his peers —which begins, on its first page, with the puerile observation: “In theory Saudi Arabia should not exist — its survival defies the laws of logic and history. Look at its princely rulers … trusting in God rather than man, and running their oil rich country on principles that most of the world has abandoned with relief.” I say my “favorite” because the book is pedestrian beyond belief, so bad that it is good, embodying, as it does, the best in what we call camp.

And no, ignorance is not bliss. It is what sent Americans to Vietnam and Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world to fight wars in countries whose culture and history they knew little about because their intellectual and scholarly elite opted to cling to facile racial stereotypes in diffusing ideas.

Stereotyping the Kingdom | Arab News

Very interesting article speak out against stereotyping of Saudi Arabia by American media, journalists and book writers.

 

[Arabian Legend]

@al-Hasani @Yzd Khalifa @JUBA @BLACKEAGLE

your kind comment on this issue please.

 

[Solomon2]

...“For millenia,” she writes, “Saudis struggled to survive in a vast desert under searing sun and shearing winds that quickly devour man’s energy, as he searches for a wadi of shade trees and water which are few and far between, living on only a few dates and camel’s milk. These conditions bred a people suspicious of each other and especially of strangers, a culture largely devoid of art or enjoyment of beauty.”
My, my, and this is a professional writer who has won the Pulitzer Prize, the most prestigious accolade in the journalistic enterprise.

Where did she get the notion that Saudis, whose tradition of hospitality and openness to strangers are legion, could be so mean-spirited to each other?

What we see here is that the reviewer prefers a different stereotype than the writer, while both are perfectly myopic in that they accept "Saudi" as a "millennia"-old identity rather than one that has existed for less than a hundred years.

...(where the American chief executive pledged not to do anything hostile to Arabs, especially Arab interests in Palestine, only to die a week later, with his pledges dying along with him).

The bias of the reviewer becomes more clear. If he knows about the Quincy meeting he likely also knows that King Saud practically invaded the Quincy with his horsemen and accosted the visibly ailing U.S. president with demands. If Roosevelt hadn't acceded an ugly situation might have followed; but it's unlikely that Roosevelt ever intended to keep such promises, nor did they have any substance in international or U.S. law, nor did they represent any kind of binding "gentleman's agreement" (as might be the case if the Brits made such a promise) between the two parties.

 

[al-Hasani]

What we see here is that the reviewer prefers a different stereotype than the writer, while both are perfectly myopic in that they accept "Saudi" as a "millennia"-old identity rather than one that has existed for less than a hundred years.

Nice fallacy. So Yemen or Iraq (both one of the oldest civilization in the world - including areas of what is now KSA (Dilmun etc) just to name a few clear examples and fellow Arab/Semitic countries and neighbors also only have less than 100 years of identity? Your comment embodies the articles points perfectly. Thank you very much. I will make you sort out why that is the case without giving too many hints away.

@al-Hasani @Yzd Khalifa @JUBA @BLACKEAGLE

your kind comment on this issue please.

In general there is no need to take Western literature on the Middle East seriously when we have our own much older literature. Let alone much more accurate one.

You don't read the works of North Korean historians if you want to know the Brazilian history in depth.

 

[Solomon2]

Nice fallacy. So Yemen or Iraq (both one of the oldest civilization in the region - including areas of what is now KSA (Dilmun etc) just to name a few clear examples and fellow Arab/Semitic countries and neighbors also only have less than 100 years of identity?

I never wrote that. But "Saudi" is an identity less than a hundred years old, yes - at least when applied, as appears to be the case here, to be synonymous with the generalization of all Arabs living in what used to be loosely-controlled Turkish-ruled Arabia.

In general there is no need to take Western literature on the Middle East seriously when we have our own much older literature.

I have to smile a little at this, as Arab scholars in the late 19th and early 20th century were most perturbed that to read their own history - and find their own Arab sources - they had to study Western Arabists.

You don't read the works of North Korean historians if you want to know the Brazilian history in depth.

You're assuming NK and Western scholarship is equal. They're not. This is a particular annoyance for Pakistanis - and maybe for Saudis, too - that some people, both individually and as a group, are simply better than others. This is of course logically true - you wouldn't want to trade places with a convict in prison, would you? - but can be annoying to those peoples who clearly don't objectively measure up to others. Hence, taking refuge in phony "straw man" platitudes serves as a kind of comfort - and, it seems, a time-honored font of excuses.

 

[al-Hasani]

I never wrote that. But "Saudi" is an identity less than a hundred years old, yes - at least when applied, as appears to be the case here, to be synonymous with the generalization of all Arabs living in what used to be loosely-controlled Turkish-ruled Arabia.

I have to smile a little at this, as Arab scholars in the late 19th and early 20th century were most perturbed that to read their own history - and find their own Arab sources - they had to study Western Arabists.

You're assuming NK and Western scholarship is equal. They're not. This is a particular annoyance for Pakistanis - and maybe for Saudis, too - that some people, both individually and as a group, are simply better than others. This is of course logically true - you wouldn't want to trade places with a convict in prison, would you? - but can be annoying to those peoples who clearly don't objectively measure up to others. Hence, taking refuge in phony "straw man" platitudes serves as a kind of comfort - and, it seems, a time-honored font of excuses.

And what is the so-called "Saudi identity" then? Did people change within 82 years? Did their history change? The ancient regions and their culture that still exist to this day? In fact nothing really changed aside from a unification headed by the Al-Saud family. Eh, you once again show your ignorance. By far the majority of KSA was not controlled by the Ottomans. Only Hijaz and the northern parts of the Eastern Province but those, especially the first, was ruled by local rulers. For example the Sharif of Makkah that predated the Ottomans by many hundred years. The Sharif of Makkah was highly revered by the Sultan in Istanbul and enjoyed considerable autonomy as a descendent of Prophet Muhammad (saws) and the senior Muslim ruler in the Muslim world.

Haha. More fantasies I see. Keep believing and telling yourself this. After all you have to speak for your Zionist audience here. History will not change for that reason though. Arab scholars and travelers already described European societies over a millennia ago and parts of Europe were there was hardly any local information about. Arabs were masters in recording history, names - hence the richness in poetry. The same Arabs were the greatest patrons of the arts in the Middle Ages when Europe were in the Dark Ages. Ever heard about the Bayt al-Hikma and Harun al-Rashid? Arab controlled Al-Andalus was the only exception until the renaissance in Italy in the late 1300's.

Your last part of your message is just one big rant without any coherence at all. Your point being?

The Western litterature on the Middle East is often biased and inaccurate compared to the various local scholars who described the local societies way before any European stepped on Middle Eastern soil.

If not then we should take Arab/Muslim scholars accounts of Africans, Chinese and Europeans as the only face value. We can play that game. Or that of fellow ancient Semitic peoples whom encountered European Peoples.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

What we see here is that the reviewer prefers a different stereotype than the writer, while both are perfectly myopic in that they accept "Saudi" as a "millennia"-old identity rather than one that has existed for less than a hundred years.

The bias of the reviewer becomes more clear. If he knows about the Quincy meeting he likely also knows that King Saud practically invaded the Quincy with his horsemen and accosted the visibly ailing U.S. president with demands. If Roosevelt hadn't acceded an ugly situation might have followed; but it's unlikely that Roosevelt ever intended to keep such promises, nor did they have any substance in international or U.S. law, nor did they represent any kind of binding "gentleman's agreement" (as might be the case if the Brits made such a promise) between the two parties.

You being jew shouldnt stereotypes your cousins like this. Remember these stereotype gave birth to Hitler

 

[Solomon2]

And what is the so-called "Saudi identity" then? Did people change within 82 years? Did their history change? The ancient regions and their culture that still exist to this day? In fact nothing really changed aside from a unification headed by the Al-Saud family. Eh, you once again show your ignorance. By far the majority of KSA was not controlled by the Ottomans. Only Hijaz and parts of Northern Eastern Province but those, especially the first, was ruled by local rulers. The Sharif of Makkah that predated the Ottomans by many hundred years. The Sharif of Makkah was even revered by the Sultan in Istanbul and enjoyed considerable autonomy.

Dig a little further and you'll see that the position of Sharif of Makkah was not exclusively hereditary but alternated between clans. I think a hundred years ago people in the area thought of themselves as members of their tribe or clan first, "Arabs" second, and "Saudis" not at all. After all, the name of your country isn't "Saudistan" but Saudi's Arabia - the country the Sauds won by betrayals and backstabbing and secured by machine-gunning their own army, once its job was done.

you have to speak for your Zionist audience here.

I speak for myself. Is there a "Zionist" audience here? Not Jews, surely.

History will not change for that reason though. Arab scholars and travelers already described European societies over a millennia ago -

And when Napoleon landed in Egypt Arabs discovered just how out-of-date those histories were.

The same Arabs were the greatest patrons of arts in the Middle Ages when Europe were in the Dark Ages. Arab controlled Al-Andalus was the only exception until the renaissance in Italy in the late 1300's.

Arab art and Western art are almost as different as Arab music and Western music. What Arab-controlled Spain had that Christian Europe did not was scholarship yet even that decayed after the twelfth century or so - al-Ghazali's influence that was so favorable for tyrants.

Your last part of your message is just one big rant without any coherence at all. Your point?

The point was to interpret what the "North Korea" argument meant to you.

 

[Arabian Legend]

@Solomon2 I dont really need to repeat what Al-hasani has said to further substantiate the shortsighted of the writer in regards to what have been stated in his book that now made you bewildered blabbering which further reveals the already revealed ''american lack of knowledge of Arab history''.

 

[Solomon2]

You being jew shouldnt stereotypes your cousins like this.

Read again: the only one NOT doing the stereotyping in this thread is me.

Remember these stereotype gave birth to Hitler

While the Nazis were the very antithesis of Christian Europe the institutionalization of supremacist ideology and Jew-hatred by the Catholic Church over millennia set the stage for the Holocaust; that's the Church's own conclusion back in the 1960s. That's why the postwar Popes changed Church doctrine, to try to make sure the Church didn't create the background for such crimes again.

By contrast, the idea of eliminating institutionalized Zionist-hatred is regarded as something close to treason by many Arabs, yes? I suppose Saudis might protest otherwise yet since they do not permit Jews to remain in Saudi-conquered territories (they kicked Yemeni Jews out of territories Saudis captured) or build their synagogues anew why should Saudis be believed in such matters?

 

[al-Hasani]

Dig a little further and you'll see that the position of Sharif of Makkah was not exclusively hereditary but alternated between clans. I think a hundred years ago people in the area thought of themselves as members of their tribe or clan first, "Arabs" second, and "Saudis" not at all. After all, the name of your country isn't "Saudistan" but Saudi's Arabia - the country the Sauds won by betrayals and backstabbing and secured by machine-gunning their own army, once its job was done.

I speak for myself. Is there a "Zionist" audience here? Not Jews, surely.

And when Napoleon landed in Egypt Arabs discovered just how out-of-date those histories were.

Arab art and Western art are almost as different as Arab music and Western music. What Arab-controlled Spain had that Christian Europe did not was scholarship yet even that decayed after the twelfth century or so - al-Ghazali's influence that was so favorable for tyrants.

The point was to interpret what the "North Korea" argument meant to you.

Wrong. You are embarrassing yourself for each post. Time to either stop or open a few books. Wikipedia is not going to help you here. I happen to be a Meccan Hashemite. Yes it was hereditary within the family/clan. Like in every other dynasty be it European or non-European. No, people ALL over the world firstly identified with their religion, ethnic group and larger family rather than a nationality. Nationalities is a new concept.

Betrayal? What betrayal are you talking about? Which own army? Are you drunk?

Well your type of audience (Zionist one) and its likes.

Yes, the world evolves. The majority of the Europeans aside from the Romans and Greeks could not remain backward compared to the cradle of civilization (Middle East) that we Middle Eastern people inhabit. Something had to change. Nor could we Arabs continue to rule large parts of Europe like other Middle Eastern people before us did. Long before any European aside from Alexander the Great, the Greeks and Romans had stepped on Middle Eastern soil. Mostly confined to the Levant.

What it all goes down to is the fact that very little of the European literature about the Middle East let alone non-Europe is accurate. Especially the literature written before WW2. All biased either by racial theories, religious chauvinism or political motivations. Thankfully this has changed since 1945 when Europe regained freedom (at least half of it) after they had killed themselves in the millions. More than any other period in human history. This is largely due to the abolishment of the extreme political ideologies (made in Europe) that were largely abolished although not in the mindset of many Europeans where it still foolishly lives on to this very day. They will be up for a surprise or two in a few decades but that is not the topic of this discussion.

English literature about KSA still lacks in quality and material although some of the lesser known literature is better than the examples given in the article highlighted in this thread.

Also since you claim to be a Jew you should know the history/position of Europeans and their attitude towards the Jews. If anything the Jewish demonization is an European invention.

So much for that ah?

Besides tell me why I should further waste my precious time on you? Are you not the same Zionist who claimed that all Arabs (or were it Palestinians?) were violent by nature and wanted to kill every single Jew a few months ago?

No matter how articulate you think you are (or try to appear as) then you will remain a simpleton on many issues as clearly seen in this very own thread and plenty of others. History has shown this. Time to change your disc. I am afraid that it is badly broken.

 

[Mugwop]

Iranians and Saudis have beef with each other. It makes sense if they take shots at each other (Even thou I don't recommend it).

All those others creating Arabian-Phobia here need to stop now.

 

[Arabian Legend]

Iranians and Saudis have beef with each other. It makes sense if they take shots at each other (Even thou I don't recommend it).

All those others creating Arabian-Phobia here need to stop now.

What has Iran got to do with this, I don't really get what you are aiming at?

 

[Mugwop]

What has Iran got to do with this, I don't really get what you are aiming at?

Iran has nothing to do with this,I am talking about Stereotyping Arabs and KSA on this forum by some sadistic people who have no animosity with them. They need to stop. Maybe you didn't see the threads and posts they are making now.

 

[Arabian Legend]

Iran has nothing to do with this,I am talking about Stereotyping Arabs and KSA on this forum by some sadistic people who have no animosity with them. They need to stop. Maybe you didn't see the threads and posts they are making now.

Now I get your point but its unfortunately off topic, thanx anyway.