Middle East K Districts 2012

1NC-Middle East Kritik

The use of term Middle East and traditional place names for topically designated geographic areas turns the case- All of
these terms are just vestiges of colonialism. It promotes an orientalist conflation of the unique peoples there which has real
policy implications. Their language justifies American geopolitical control of the region even if they intentions are
otherwise. Only using alternative terms like Arab Homeland and putting Middle East in quotes when you talk about it
solves
KAREN CULCASI- assistant professor of geography at West Virginia University- 2010- GEOGRAPHICAL RECORD
CONSTRUCTING AND NATURALIZING THE MIDDLE EAST- Wiely online
Dening or locating the Middle East is a precarious endeavor. 1 The territory and the characteristics that have been used to delimit and describe this world re-
gion have varied immensely over time and space. Even a cursory examination of maps or encyclopedias quickly reveals that the Middle East and the various
criteria that have been used to dene it are variable and ambiguous. Nevertheless, the re- gion has been naturalized as a real and denable place. Indeed, popular
and politi- cal discourses on the Middle East are so commonplace that we rarely scrutinize their socially constructed origins and connotations. Critical
examinations of naturalized geographical concepts such as space, scale, and place-specic identities have sparked vibrant discussions (Hkli ; I
van Schendel , ), but the world region has received scant attention. Gener- ally dened as groupings of contiguous states that have some cultural, ^^
historical, economic, and even physiographic similarity, world regions are a taken-for-granted concept (N. Smith , ; Lewis and Wigen I
, ; Harvey , ). How- ever ^^ , world regions are not naturally existing, homogeneous spaces; rather, they are
social constructs that are formed and altered in a myriad of discourses (Murphy , ; Paasi , , ; Hagen ^^
). In this essay I analyze the construction and naturalization of the Middle East as a world region. Specically, I provide a com- prehensive and critical ^^
examination of the origins, denitions, delineations, and meanings of Middle East that have been formative in incorporating this place in our everyday
geographies. My goal is to move beyond questions such as What is the proper designation of the Middle East? What is its
actual extent? and What criteria best determine the regions name and limits? (Held , ), ^^ in order to show that the
Middle East and world regions more generally is not a naturally existing place waiting to be dened, labeled, and
described but a discursive con- struct that is enmeshed in a variety of power relationships. The construction of the Middle
East is deeply embedded in Orientalist discourses. In his seminal book Orientalism, Edward Said argued that, since
early European the geographical review explorations, I Westerners have imagined the Orient and its inhabitants
as time- less, backward, violent, and inferior ( , ). These geographical imaginings of the Orient were pivotal in constructing the I
Other as inherently di erent from us. Once established as di erent and inferior, Western domination of these Other peoples and places was not merely justied
but also warranted. Although imaginings of the backward, violent, and inferior Other have been altered slightly since the early nine- teenth century, as Douglas
Little argued in American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since ( ), they have survived and are now deeply in- grained in ^^
everyday American life. Today, however, the terminology has changed from the Orient to the Middle East. As we
perceive the Orient, so too do we often perceive the Middle East in nega- tive and particularistic contexts, such as
terrorism, instability, violence, Islamic fun- damentalism, anti-Americanism, oppression of women, or oil wealth (Held
, ). ^^ Such manufactured and oversimplied geographical imaginings have not only shaped many peoples
perceptions of the Middle East but also inuenced material practices and political decisions (Driver , ; Haldrup, Koefoed, ^^
and Simonsen ; Painter , ). Since / , American prejudices against Middle Easterners, Arabs, and Muslims have increased (Saad ), and so have ^^ ^^ I ^^
reported incidents of racial/cultural proling and hate crimes (Elias ; Cole ; Lockman b; Gardner ). Furthermore, recent geographical ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
imaginings of this Other as a threat to America have helped to frame and legitimize U.S. hegemonic endeavors in the Middle East (Little , ; Flint and Falah ; ^^ ^ ^^
Gregory ; Merskin ; Culcasi ; Sparke ). Focused on the role of scholars, politicians, travelers, and the mass media (Fromkin ; Said ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ I
; Steet ; Shaheen , ), numerous works have critiqued the power relationships involved in the representation of the Middle East. Yet no critiques ^^^ ^^ ^^I
focus specically on the creation and naturalization of this region as a geographical place. As Dona Stewart highlighted in the Geographical Reviews special issue on Ge- ographies of
the Middle East ( a), the need for geographers to contribute a spa- tial perspective in understanding the post- / world is great. Furthermore, Zachary Lockman, president ^^
of the Middle East Studies Association, recently wrote that too many Americans . . . remain profoundly ignorant (or grossly misinformed) about the Middle East ( a), ^^
and he charges his readers with educating people about this region with which the United States is so deeply involved.She ContinuesIn this essay I
showed that the Middle East has been constructed and naturalized as a specic geographical place through the creation
and institutionalization of the term Middle East, the vague but nevertheless continued delineations of its geo- graphical existence, and the
oversimplication of the traits that are used to dene the region. The sources I used to elucidate the regions construction were diverse, but together they showed
that, even though the Middle East is a Western geopoliti- cal construction that cannot be denitively located, the region frequently invokes oversimplied
connotations and imaginings. the geographical review Although the idea of the Middle East and use of the term are ubiquitous
in the United States, neither has been uniformly adopted across the globe; rather, from within the Western-dened Middle East the term has been implemented only spo-
radically and hesitantly. When it is used, it is generally in a geopolitical context re- lating either to Western oil interests or to Arab-Israeli conicts (Khalidi , ; Bilgin I
; Manners and Parmenter , ; Culcasi , ). Furthermore, in Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, or Libya ^^^ ^^I ^^ , the regional
designation Arab World and Arab Homeland are much more common and meaningful than is the Middle
East (Culcasi ). Dividing the world in discrete regions that are theoretically unied by human and physical geographical traits is a commonly ^^
accepted way in which to order and understand our world. Whether we are referring to Western Europe, Southeast Asia, or the Middle East, all world
regions have been created, imagined, and naturalized through various historical, economic, and political discourses. What is unique about the
Middle East is that pejorative discourses about this place are wide- spread and readily accepted. As the media scholar Jack
Shaheen shows through his comprehensive analyses of media representations ( ), Arabs, Muslims, and ^^I Middle
Easterners are today subjected to derogatory and racist stereotypes that would be considered unacceptable for other
groups, such as Asians, blacks, Jews, or His- panics. Much of the reason for the persistent and seemingly acceptable stereotypes
of the Middle East is political. Imagining the Orient as an inferior and backward place has helped to justify Western
geopolitical ambitions in the region for centu- ries. And today, the Othering of the Middle East has helped to legitimize
U.S. foreign policies in that region. As both Brian Whitakers quip in the epigraph and my comparative analysis clearly show, even though no one
knows where the Middle East is, this place is part of our everyday geographies. Our complacent acceptance not merely of the regions
existence but also of its fundamental separation from us has made us prisoners of our own geographical imaginations.
Critiquing the foundational myths of the re- gionits Western geopolitical origins, its tenuous extent, and the common charac- teristics used to
dene itprovides an essential component for critically examining our everyday, taken-for-granted imaginings of the
Middle East K Districts 2012
region. Since / and the in- creased involvement of the United States in the region, it is now more crucial than ever to critically examine our
oversimplied notions of the Middle East.
Middle East K Districts 2012
AT- We use it in a good way, to Kritik it
( ) Our alt solves all your offense. You could have put the words Middle East in quotes. The fact that you didn't means
you participate in a system that legitimates that region as a real thing, not the discursive construction that it is.
( ) The fact that you use it means you can't solve, so your critical analysis does not matter. It is the very existence of the
idea of a Middle East that allows for Oreintalist conflation of the region. The fact that you incorporate a kritik of the
terminology prevents your aff from smashing the essential tools of Orientalism. At the very least this is terminal defense to
the Aff and you can vote neg on presumption.
( ) Reluctant use of the term Middle East is worse that flagrant use of it. It promotes that notions that even if you don't
like the term Middle East , you have to use it because that's all there is. His make the political construction of the Middle
East seem inevitable, thus inoculating it from all criticisms because people will say Even anti-imperialism scholars use the
term.
( ) This argument just proves the need for the alt. The fact that even K teams don't know alternative languages to talk
about the Middle East is proof that just reading some Said cards on the Aff does not produce good education. Only a deep
analysis of the form of debate creates the space for radical re-thinkings of the basic structures of power
AND
Their claims that the term can be utilized for good are wrong. It promotes people in the Arab Homeland using the term
Middle East, meaning they internalize its negative connotations and reproduces its legitimacy even when they seek to
undermine it
Karen Culcasi- Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, Morgantown, -2011- Mapping the Middle East
from Within: (Counter-)Cartographies of an Imperialist Construction- Wiely Online -
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00941.x/pdf
At the end of World War II, the term Middle East was becoming more common throughout much of the world, but it had
not yet entered into the consciousness the people of the region (Bilgin 1998:19). Yet in the latter half of the twentieth century
discourses of the Middle East were adopted within the region, albeit hesitantly and sporadically (Manners and
Parmenter 2004:9). Today, as Rashid Khalidi (1998:74) notes, the Arabic term al-sharq al-awast, which literally translates as
the Middle East, is sadly prevalent in countries of the western dened region, though its meaning is nothing more
than a translation for the English term. Similarly, I found in my cartographic analysis that the term Middle East is used,
but it is rare and only used in very specic circumstances. Of all the atlases I analyzed, I never found one that used the
term Middle East in its title. Likewise, I was unable to locate any textbooks specically focused on the Middle East.
However, I was able to nd four maps of the Middle East in four different world atlases. 8 In this section, I examine these
exceptional maps. As it will become evident below, these maps provide unique insights into how the Middle East is
cartographically conceptualized from within this western-dened geographical entity. Further, this discussion also highlights
how western geographical categories and place names, even ones that have their roots in European imperialism, are at
time re-created from within. ...She continues. In these last two maps, the Middle East takes form only in the context
of oil, and thus the Middle East becomes dened in large part by oil. This connection of the Middle East to oil is
perhaps unsurprising. Not only is there a common perception in western geographical discourses and imaginings that
the Middle East is full of oil (Held 2005:34; Manners and Parmenter 2004:9), but this focus on oil indicates that
economic interests in oil exploitations are so prevalent that they have come to legitimize the idea that the Middle East
is indeed dened by the geography of this natural resource. The four maps that I located that used the term Middle East
were exceptions to a normative world regional geography that generally rejects this western construct. Indeed, these four
maps show a hesitant and tenuous acceptance of the western- centric label Middle East. Further, considering that the term
was used either in reference to oil or that it needed explanatory text to clarify its meaning indicates that the Middle East is
an uncommon label or discourse from within many Arab states. Nevertheless, the adoption of this term on maps, though
rare, is poignantly telling of the power and pervasiveness of western geographic standards, even ones that are so
blatantly imperialist.
Middle East K Districts 2012
Only rejection solves-Even if it's the dominate phrase everyday fights to re-frame our view of the Arab Homeland is key.
This means we must reject their use of terms like Middle East and their use of imperial place names
Karen Culcasi- Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, Morgantown, -2011- Mapping the Middle East
from Within: (Counter-)Cartographies of an Imperialist Construction- Wiely Online -
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00941.x/pdf
The Middle East is an exonym, or a toponym that has been stamped on a place by European imperialists and
subsequently accepted and used by across much of the world (Monmonier 2006:99100); however it is not a label that is
readily adopted by local inhabitants. The banality of maps of the Arab Homeland and the rarity of maps of the Middle
East construct a cartographic discourse that counters dominant western norms that so readily embrace the idea of the
Middle East. It is ironic that in the USA most people speak so unreservedly of the Middle East and Middle Easterners, yet the referentor the
signied (Barthes 1972) does not use similar terms. Indeed the term Middle East is used far more often, and carries much greater signicance in the
western world than it does within the region. The term and the idea of the Middle East are so deeply embedded in discourses in
the west that is unlikely to vanish in the near future . Nevertheless, it is quite reasonable to suggest that within our own
academic or professional communications as well as in our everyday lives that we stress the constructedness of the
Middle East and adopt less imperialists terms that reect the local geography of the people who reside in this western
constructed place.
Middle East K Districts 2012
Alt solves
Only our alt solves - We did not pick this term, it is what the vast majority of those in relevant countries call the area.
Their act is an act of self naming that fights colonial control and should be integrated into American Scholarship
Karen Culcasi- Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, Morgantown, -2011- Mapping the Middle East
from Within: (Counter-)Cartographies of an Imperialist Construction- Wiely Online -
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00941.x/pdf
In the United States and much of the rest of the world, both the term and the idea of the Middle East are readily
accepted parts of geographical discourses. 1 However, from within the Arab states of the Middle East,
discourses of the Middle East are often rejected as western imperialist constructs. 2 As described in a recent
Economist (2010) article titled Labels and categories, a menagerie of monikers, the label Middle East reeks of
imperialism. Indeed, the label Middle East and its vague boundaries are undeniably imperialist. The actual toponym
originated in the early twentieth century in reference to British geopolitical interests in the land that was literally in the
middle of Great Britains east. Further, it was British and French powers after World War I that drew the
majority of the borders of the states that today are generally considered the core of the Middle East.
Considering its direct imperialist roots, it is perhaps unsurprising that from within the Middle East there is a
strong hesitation to accept and use this geographic category. Instead, as the epigraph suggests, the Arab states of
the western dened Middle East have created different regional geographic delineations that stress its Arab
character and unity. Several historians and geographers have shown that, in addition to its being a western-imperialist
construct, the idea, term, denition, and even the location of the Middle East is variable and ambiguous (Adelson
1995; Bonine 1976; Culcasi 2010; Davison 1960; Fromkin 1991; Keddie 1973; Owen 2000; Whitaker 2004). This paper
provides a unique contribution to critiques of western constructions of the Middle East by focusing on cartographic
discourses within the Arab states of the western-dened Middle East. Through a largely empirical study, I systemically
and critically examined an extensive sample of cartographic materials produced in eight different Arab states of the
Middle East. I focus on maps because, as I discuss in detail below, they are powerful geopolitical discourses that
not only help to create places and identities at a variety of scales, but they are also used as a form of resistance to
hegemonic or dominant norms (Harris and Hazen 2006:115 117; Pickles 2004; Wood 2010:111155). As I outline in
this paper, the dominant cartographic discourse I found contests the existence of the Middle East by simply not
mapping such a place, but also by cartographically constructing a slightly different place called the Arab
Homeland. 3 The cartographic rejection of the Middle East and the construction of a specically Arab
geographical entity is a subtle but powerful form of counter mapping that echoes the practice of a newly
independent state removing its colonial place names and adopting more internally meaningful ones (Cohen and
Kliot 1992; Hagen 2003; Kadmon 2004; Monmonier 1996:110; 2006:7289; Ramaswamy 2004:209; Rundstrom
1991:9). However, the construction and labeling of any geographical entity is a geopolitical process that is replete with
variations, alterations, and exceptions to the norm. Even though the Arab Homeland is a common regional category from
within Arab states, a few maps of the Middle East have been produced. My focus in this paper is on these exceptional
maps, as opposed to the normative cartographies of the Arab Homeland. A critical examination of these exceptional or
atypical maps provides unique insights into how the Middle East is conceptualized cartographically from within
this western-constructed region, while also highlighting the ubiquity and hegemony of western geographical
categories and place names.