The legacy of intra-Syrian disputes and value of language in nationalism
-
Curtis notes that the disputes between Christians and Muslims coming from Syria to Turtle Island were not over religion, but over access to economic resources, social status, and the avoidance of social discrimination. By that logic, Christian Syrians were aware of the implications of being seen as 'Asiatic', 'Brown', or 'Muslim', and decided to use it to their advantage to be allowed into Canada and the US. The issue I raise is that the selfish tactic they utilized has had repercussions that still resonate, today. Indeed, this idea that Christian Arab immigrants are inherently better than their Muslim compatriots and that Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate for a number of reasons still exists nowadays and is often used to justify anti-Muslim policies.
Decades after this tactic was implemented, its rhetoric has been adopted by far-right Christian nationalist parties that argue that they are superior and better than Muslims and that they should form their own nation. In a course on ethnonationalism, the topic of the importance of language in nationalism was often discussed. In my opinion, language serves as the basis for nation-building, and religion comes after. In fact, even before the nation-state existed, communities were held together by a language that all its members could communicate with. So was the case with the Arabs in the Middle East, whether Christian or Muslim. If Arabs, no matter their religion, previously formed a community and viewed each other as equals, then did the idea of Christian supremacy only arise after Christian immigrants began claiming to be white and different from their Muslim compatriots? These two religions shared a language and a culture long before they began leaving their native land, but it seems like the sectarian divisions between them only started after the Christians adopted islamophobic rhetoric to gain entry to the US/Canada.