Gulf Horse and New York Italian
“Symbolic ethnicity” is a healthy and rich social and cultural phenomenon in countries like the United States, which embrace dual identities. We see clear examples of this in television interviews with celebrities, as well as in films and series, when guests speak about their Italian, Irish, Greek, or Mexican origins, even if their families were among the first to immigrate to America. They do so with ease, and often with pride, while maintaining a strong attachment to their American identity and readiness to stand by it in any conflict that might arise between the United States and the country from which their parents or grandparents emigrated. We do not clearly observe this acknowledgment of “origin” in our own countries, where many try to change or modify their accents, sects, and even names, in an attempt to escape what they consider a stigma, and out of a “perhaps natural” desire to resemble the majority.
This “cultural or psychological” attachment to former homelands, even after generations have passed, occurred with most who emigrated to the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia from Britain, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and South American countries. They lived in close-knit neighborhoods to reinforce their previous identities, even after fully integrating into their new societies. The loyalty and allegiance of these immigrants to their new homeland did not come about arbitrarily; rather, it was the result of the job opportunities and good life they found, after justice in rights and duties was generally ensured, even if they belonged to an ethnicity, religion, or culture different from the majority, with some exceptions here and there.
***
A few days ago, I was surprised by a statement from a former official who claimed that “if it were not for the presence of U.S. military bases among us, we would be speaking Iranian today” (!!). The statement drew widespread condemnation, evident in the volume of negative comments it received. I do not know what prompted such a remark, which was marked by a degree of foolishness, and perhaps bad faith, especially since the opposite is closer to reality.
Kuwait found itself, nearly three centuries ago, a neighbor to Iran. Over the course of centuries, tens or hundreds of thousands of people emigrated from Iranian coastal cities to Kuwait. The majority of these migrants spoke Persian, but they soon switched to speaking Arabic and completely forgot their ancestors’ language. The reverse never happened, not even with other countries in the region.
Furthermore, U.S. bases have been present in Kuwait for only 36 years, i.e., after the liberation from Saddam’s occupation. Did they come to protect our language? Also, our security situation with neighboring Iran, from 1979 (i.e., after the Iranian Revolution) and even before it, up to the Saddam invasion and occupation in 1990, was never ideal. Yet, we were never at risk of becoming an “Iranian lake.” We must not forget the blatant, inhumane, and unethical aggression we recently suffered from Iran.
It is also worth noting that Iran’s Shah, Reza Pahlavi, deceived Sheikh Khazal in April 1925, kidnapped him, and annexed the semi-autonomous Sheikhdom of “Mohammerah” (Ahvaz) to Iran. Even so, more than a century later, under Iranian rule, the residents of that region still speak Arabic.
To be continued tomorrow.
Ahmad Al-Sarraf
