This paper describes three contexts of differentiation (arabness-‘ajamness / Turks-Kurds / Kurdish territory) and their evolution during the Middle Ages from a rudimentary definition of “Kurd” to a more diversified conception. It interprets them through three lenses: micro-social (actor subjectivity), meso-social (competition/transaction between groups or categories), and macro-social (state ascription). In medieval Arabic sources, the use of “Kurd” (kurd, pl. akrâd) generally does not fit into contemporary social and ethnic categories. Many scholars have resolved the issue by simplistic statements: “The term Kurd is not an ethnic term, it is a social one”, or: “Kurd is synonymous with Iranian nomads”. The process of categorization is multiform, originating from several sources and resulting in a polysemic category. It is undergirded by social, political and intellectual environments that implement many constructions. As Catherine Quiminal writes: “While categorizing one doesn’t only arrange objects in pre-given classes of belonging. One selects a principle of classification which defines the situation.” Like other ethnonyms (‘arab, turk, furs, and ‘ajam) “Kurd” is used in various contexts of meaning defined by evolving conceptions of difference. From al-J??i? to Ibn Khald?n, Arabic medieval authors – whether they vaguely mention “Kurds” or insert them in a sophisticated social theory – articulate conceptions of “Kurdish” difference. Three main (rhizomatic) models appear: First, during the classical era (700s-1000s AD) a binary framework of reference developed, situating Kurdishness in--between “`arabness” and “`ajamness”. Second, during the following centuries (1100s-1300s AD) the collapse of an exclusively Arab empire enabled a more diverse conception of difference, which included the Kurds in the Khald?nian register of ‘bedouinity’ or the broader narrative of “barbarians” of the edges. Parallel to these processes of utterance a rather paradoxical one crystallized the category “Kurd”. Essentially recognized for their military skills, the Kurds seemed to enter the city (civitas) along with the Turks. While associated with Turks within military oligarchies, “Kurds” reinforced a process of differentiation necessary to compete for resources. Third, my paper considers the geo-ethnic dimension of Kurdish identity. In Arab geographers’ and chroniclers’ spatial conception of the medieval East, some designations referred clearly to a Kurdish presence (Bilad al-Akrâd, Zûzân al-Akrâd, Kurdestân, etc.) in Upper Mesopotamia. This dimension emerged from the frontier culture among the Kurds that has lasted until today, an in-between situation that actors have shaped and exploited, and that is shaping Kurdishness in return, due to the intimate association of people and environment.

This paper will investigate the construction of blackness in the narratives of 19th century Egyptian writer Rifa’a Al-Tahtawi (1801-1873), who lived during the era of Arab Egyptian nationalism. The paper builds upon the work of Dr. Eve Trout Powell’s book A Different Shade of Colonialism, an excellent study of Egypt’s nationalist response to the phenomenon of colonialism. Powell shows how central the issue of the Sudan was to Egyptian nationalism and frames her discussion of Al-Tahtawi’s attitudes towards race and slavery within the contexts of European colonialism and Egyptian nationalism. She attributes Al-Tahtawi’s racist characterizations of the Sudanese to the notions of civilization which he inherited from Europe. My paper will build upon her work, and will examine Al-Tahtawi’s views on race not only within the context of Egyptian nationalism and European colonialism, but also within the larger context of Arab discourse on race, racial identity and empire. Primary sources include Al-Tahtawi’s Manahij Al-Albab al-misriya fi mabahij al-adab al-asriya, Takhlis al-ibriz fil takhlis Bariz, as well as the introduction to his translation of Fenelon’s Les Aventures de Télémaque.

After decades of silence, harkis (Algerians often of Berber heritage who fought on the side of the French during the Algerian War) seem to have become all the rage in French public, literary and scholarly discourse. Long ignored by the French, and deemed traitors by many Algerians, a (re)examination of the role of harkis in French and Algerian national narratives has begun to claim a more prominent place in political and literary imaginations. Yet as Algerian historian Mohammed Harbi, renowned for his provocative body of work on le Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) and the Algerian War, challenges, “we must reevaluate the question of the harkis” by “dissociating the phenomenon of the harki himself from the situation of their children.” France has begun to “remember” the harki, passing laws (such as the 1994 Romani law and the 2005 Mekachera law) and staging national events (in 2001) to acknowledge their role in the Algerian War and the French national narrative. Yet for many, such as families deemed “irretrievable” by French administrators, these responses have been inadequate after years of neglect and marginalization spent in “temporary” internment camps on French soil. The result has been a community of French-born citizens who are not fully French, and who have not shared a common experience with the larger Algerian diaspora community. Yet these “children” (adults now and often today’s Beur) have begun to challenge their invisibility and marginalization by both France and Algeria. Using Harbi’s challenge identified above as a starting point, this paper will examine recent publications by and about children of harkis, such as Dalila Kerchouche’s Mon père ce harki (2003), Des vies: 62 enfants de harkis racontent (2010), Stéphanie Abrial’s Les enfants des Harkis, de la révolte à l’intégration (2002) and Vincent Crapanzano’s The Harkis: The Wound That Never Heals (2011). My paper is concerned with exploring this current project of remembering and re-membering harkis and the ways this re-imagined history – whether official, literary or subaltern – can shape current political and governmental policy in France and Algeria – for the harkis themselves but especially for their descendants. Through a juxtaposition of official and personal French, Algerian, and French Algerian voices, this paper will be considering the role of history in the following: what are the limits of inclusion and grounds for exclusion from national bodies, and how does one reconcile multiple marginalizations with the demands and responsibilities of national and cultural belonging?