Symbolic ethnicity is a healthy and enriching social and cultural phenomenon in countries like the United States, which embrace dual identities. We see its manifestations clearly in television interviews with celebrities, as well as in films and television series, when guests speak about their Italian, Irish, Greek, or Mexican heritage, even when their families were among the earliest immigrants to America.
These individuals speak openly and sometimes proudly about their heritage while expressing a strong sense of American identity and a readiness to stand with their country in any conflict that might arise between the United States and the country from which their parents or grandparents originated.
This acknowledgment of one’s origins is not as evident in our countries, where many people try to change or modify their accents, and sometimes even their religious affiliations and names, in an attempt to distance themselves from what they consider shameful and to conform to the majority. This “cultural or psychological” attachment to former homelands, even after several generations, is a common experience among many immigrants to the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia from Britain, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and South American countries.
Living in close-knit communities helped preserve these identities, even after immigrants became fully integrated into their new societies. The loyalty and devotion these individuals developed towards their new homelands did not arise by chance. Rather, they stemmed from the opportunities for employment and better living conditions they found there, which generally afforded them equal rights and responsibilities, even when they belonged to a different race, religion, or culture than the majority, with some exceptions.
A few days ago, I was surprised by a statement from a former official who said that if it were not for the American military bases in Kuwait, we would be speaking Persian today. The statement was met with widespread condemnation, as reflected in the volume of negative comments it received. I do not know what prompted him to make such a statement, which was marked by a degree of foolishness and perhaps even ill intent, especially since it contradicts reality. For nearly three centuries, Kuwait has found itself in close proximity to Iran.
Over the centuries, tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iranians migrated to Kuwait, and Persian was the language spoken by the majority of them. Yet they quickly adopted Arabic and, over time, largely lost the language of their ancestors, unlike what happened elsewhere in the region. Kuwait’s security relationship with neighboring Iran between 1979 and 1990 was never ideal, but there was never any real possibility of Kuwait becoming an Iranian lake.
We must also not forget the inhumane and immoral Iranian aggression that Kuwait has endured in recent months. It is worth noting that in April 1925, the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, deceived Sheikh Khaz’al, the ruler of Ahwaz, kidnapped him, and annexed Ahwaz to Iran. Despite this, the people of that region, even after more than a century of Iranian rule, continue to speak Arabic.
By Ahmad alsarraf
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
