Wave of Arab Immigration to the United States

[XNM]

What would be a plausible scenario for a wave of immigration from the Arab World, during the Nineteenth (or early Twentieth) Century?

[Royiss]

Increased Ottoman oppression, combined with access to ships and information. Also, perhaps some influential Arab leader in America proclaims its virtues to the Arab world?

[Ridwan Asher]

This was rather attempted once (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=83703&highlight=Overview+Muslims+America), although that TL was more focused on building a muslim community in the US as big as OTL's US Catholic community, hence it's not exclusively Arab, at all.

Indeed that the only way I can think of to realize this is more problems in the Ottoman Empire. But I don't think that the Arabs will be the first wave of muslims, and since you only said a wave of Arab immigrants without any further specs, I'll take the liberty provided by it. Let's say that 1878 disaster comes sooner, or at least graver, though better if happens sooner, for in much of 1870s Ottoman was at its strongest point during 19th century. If it happens sooner and/or maybe that Ottoman 19th century reforms were considerably less successful, certainly that Russia can be able to grind Bulgaria, which population during much of 19th century was approximately half muslim, faster than they did IOTL. More distrust to Ottoman authority by its own citizens regarding to its competency is indeed to be required, after all, for with that, they will have to think to immigrate elsewhere other than the other parts of the empire. And better yet, if you can draw Austria in to take Bosnia as well, : this should add a well number of first muslim wave to US. With a considerably less competent Ottoman government, and an already established muslim community in the US, and thus the necessary "facilitations" (for ex : Halal foods), should attract enough Arabs to migrate to the US. And that's the factors required from the muslim side. As to the US', certainly that they need to be made receptive enough towards a serious amount of Islamic influx towards their country, though this probably shouldn't be to hard....

[Dan1988]

What would be a plausible scenario for a wave of immigration from the Arab World, during the Nineteenth (or early Twentieth) Century?

The only areas I could see are probably the Maghreb and the Levant - the latter for the same reasons as OTL (indeed, IIRC, Levantine immigrants or descendants thereof constitute the majority of Arab-Americans in OTL), and the Maghreb primarily to get away from the French (and the Spanish). There could probably be some "exotic" appeal attached to these immigrants in 19th-century America because of Orientalism - then imagine the disappointment when the romantics realize that these immigrants don't match up to the idealized picture.

Another factor to consider - in OTL, most of the Arab-Americans who emigrated from the Levant were Christians. This could also be the case in TTL, but in the case of immigration from the Maghreb, most immigrants would be Muslim or Sephardi - plus, not all immigrants would be speaking Arabic (indeed, there may be those who speak Berber or haquítia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haketia), for example). This, of course, means that Americans would have to confront Islam - and their own preconceptions of it - earlier than OTL.

[Ridwan Asher]

Increased Ottoman oppression, combined with access to ships and information. Also, perhaps some influential Arab leader in America proclaims its virtues to the Arab world?

Ottomans were far from the Mongol Yuan Dynasty to their subjects, though certainly that they were not perfect. But it was a certainty that oppression of their citizens was not their sole goal in life, let alone listed in their agenda (and this actually applies, to a bit lesser extent, to the Yuans as well, mind you.). Indeed, that with less success in their reforming attempts, this should prevent or at least lessen the cutting of corruptions in the administration machinery, amongst other problems, thus resulting in a more annoyed populace etc. Maybe that we can even prevent the Janissary class from being ousted ? For it will certainly be harmful for the empire in the long run. As for access to informations and more certainly ships, I think it shouldn't be anymore harder than to make the 19th century US accepting a large wave of muslim immigrants... But it's still possibly a rather valid concern, taken into context that the unfavorable situations for the Ottoman muslim subjects that is required as the pretext to immigrate, shouldn't come into the stage to early as well. The timing seems to be quite a crucial factor as well here.....

[XNM]

The original idea was a wave of Muslim immigration to the United States. So Ridwan Asher's scenario works. I'd imagine that with a wave of Muslim immigration, there would be a resurgent nativist movement, like the one that sprang up in the midst of Catholic immigration.

[Ridwan Asher]

The only areas I could see are probably the Maghreb and the Levant - the latter for the same reasons as OTL (indeed, IIRC, Levantine immigrants or descendants thereof constitute the majority of Arab-Americans in OTL), and the Maghreb primarily to get away from the French (and the Spanish). There could probably be some "exotic" appeal attached to these immigrants in 19th-century America because of Orientalism - then imagine the disappointment when the romantics realize that these immigrants don't match up to the idealized picture.

Another factor to consider - in OTL, most of the Arab-Americans who emigrated from the Levant were Christians. This could also be the case in TTL, but in the case of immigration from the Maghreb, most immigrants would be Muslim or Sephardi - plus, not all immigrants would be speaking Arabic (indeed, there may be those who speak Berber or haquítia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haketia), for example). This, of course, means that Americans would have to confront Islam - and their own preconceptions of it - earlier than OTL.

Egypt should be able to provide a larger pool for immigrants compared to Maghreb, and making the environment there uncomfortable enough to drive those who can and have the will to get out of the country shouldn't be all to hard.

As for Levant, if we can make the Ottoman government as a valid "Sickman" as the real context of the word suggest (and we actually don't have to go that far, really !) I think it'll be rather hard to make the Christian Arab making as much % of the Arab Americans ITTL as IOTL. But we basically are quite nearly to have to build the kind of environment required for the OP's demand from scratch so I think it's still doable indeed.

As for how the US' society, and more importantly, goverment, will have to be made to accept numerous of muslim newcomers, I think this is the one factor that's as important(or maybe even more) as to how drive the Arabs to migrate to US. While I've said that this shouldn't be to hard, doesn't that it'd be easy either.....

[Dan1988]

Egypt should be able to provide a larger pool for immigrants compared to Maghreb, and making the environment there uncomfortable enough to drive those who can and have the will to get out of the country shouldn't be all to hard.

Hmm, Egyptian immigration to the US during the 19th century? Now that would be a flood comparable to some of the "big ticket" ethnicities that immigrated during the 19th century.

[Dan1988]

The original idea was a wave of Muslim immigration to the United States. So Ridwan Asher's scenario works. I'd imagine that with a wave of Muslim immigration, there would be a resurgent nativist movement, like the one that sprang up in the midst of Catholic immigration.

Ah, I see - when I see "wave of Arab immigration" I'm thinking OTL, where the majority of (Levantine) Arab immigrants were Christians (hence giving people like the Maronites and the Melkites a good deal of prominence). You're still going to get some of that in this scenario, however - the Arab Christians would tend to assimilate faster into the mainstream; both Arab Muslims and Christians, though, would be in the same situation as the Eastern European Jews.

[Alratan]

As alluded to above, I think this would be a lot more successful if this was a major wave of Christian Arab migration.

Using the same PoD as above, i.e. greater Austrian and Russian success against the Ottomans, but taking a different slant. Let's say these defeats lead to the government scapegoating Christians, so that the Levantine Christian Arabs migrate earlier. This could, if they were welcomed, in turn set of a migration of Copts from Egypt (who would certainly be seen as Arab in the US).

[MerryPrankster]

Abdul said Arab nationalism was not a big deal in the Ottoman Empire, even during the time of the Arab revolt.

So unless we have a much earlier Arab nationalism and the Porte responding oppressively, an "oppressive Ottoman regime" isn't in the cards as far as Arabs are concerned.

However, in one of Carl Sagan's books, he talks about how his great-grandfather (or something to that effect) came to America to avoid the draft.

Perhaps the Ottomans get in a worse spot re: the Powers and have to increase the military call-ups of the Muslim population. This gets to the point huge numbers emigrate rather than serve.

[The Kiat]

I don't know if they'd be allowed to enter. I mean, if you thought anti-Catholic sentiments were bad, how do you think 19th Centurty Protestant Anglo-Saxons are going to react to muslims? Besides, a good portion of Arabs were nomads at the time, and quite content with that life.

[Skokie]

I thought we had Arab immigration in the 19th century. huh...

As far as the xenophobia of the Protestants, I think they might actually have preferred Muslims to Catholics. :p Certainly during the 18th century we see instances of colonial Americans having quite good things to say about Islam and having actually published Quranic verses in translation in newsletters. Not too dissimilar, I imagine, to how a lot of Westerners today just love Buddhism.

(I remember seeing a political cartoon of the time depicting the Muslims preserving reason and science from the angry, irrational hordes of Papists and Greeks.)

[MerryPrankster]

I don't know if they'd be allowed to enter. I mean, if you thought anti-Catholic sentiments were bad, how do you think 19th Centurty Protestant Anglo-Saxons are going to react to muslims? Besides, a good portion of Arabs were nomads at the time, and quite content with that life.

They might also be much less familiar with Muslims then with Catholics, so they might not be as (initially) hostile.

This may surprise you, but the Chinese were initially welcomed to California. It wasn't until there were too many people (of all races) and too few jobs that things got ugly.

Besides, there might not have even been formal nationality quotas up until a certain point. The first batch might come in without problems because there's no law against it.

Of course, then you might have a panic and an Arab Exclusion Act...

[Dan1988]

I don't know if they'd be allowed to enter. I mean, if you thought anti-Catholic sentiments were bad, how do you think 19th Centurty Protestant Anglo-Saxons are going to react to muslims? Besides, a good portion of Arabs were nomads at the time, and quite content with that life.

Like I said - for the first couple of batches, Orientalism/romanticism is going to set in when Americans initially see Arab immigrants - in this case, it's the preconceived notions that they had put on the Ottoman Empire. When you then find out that it's people from all three Abrahamic religions that are immigrating - and once the romanticism wears off - then yeah, America would have to deal with Islam (and forms of Christianity that are not Protestant, i.e. the Maronites and the Melkites).

[MerryPrankster]

Here's some information on Arab immigration to the US in OTL.

http://www.adc.org/education/AAImmigration.htm

It seems Arab peddlers weren't ill-thought-of.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Increased Ottoman oppression, combined with access to ships and information. Also, perhaps some influential Arab leader in America proclaims its virtues to the Arab world?

Yeah, no.

But that does lead to a more realistic reason, the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and colonization of the Arab territories by Christian powers. That might do it, although you couldn't get much worse than the French in Algeria, and that didn't really result in much emigration to America.

But, if you can establish a community, people will go there.

[Skokie]

Like I said - for the first couple of batches, Orientalism/romanticism is going to set in when Americans initially see Arab immigrants - in this case, it's the preconceived notions that they had put on the Ottoman Empire. When you then find out that it's people from all three Abrahamic religions that are immigrating - and once the romanticism wears off - then yeah, America would have to deal with Islam (and forms of Christianity that are not Protestant, i.e. the Maronites and the Melkites).

They're Catholic, btw.

There wouldn't be any need to "deal" with Islam, much like there was no need to "deal" with Judaism. Assimilation to Teh American Way was by far a stronger pull in those days than any kind of religious revivalism, never mind a politically-tinged religious revivalism of the sort we tend to associate these days with Christianity and Islam.

I think Muslim immigrants in the 19th century would quickly try to assimilate, even going so far as to "americanize" or "protestantize" their religion in certain (probably naive) ways, much like the Catholics and Jews. Old Catholic churches in the US were spartan on the outside (no statues) and there even emerged a movement within the US Catholic church that sought to Americanize and individualize the religion (it was anathematized as "The Americanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)) heresy" by Pope Leo XIII). Similarly the Jews began treating their synagogues as Protestant meeting houses, singing hymns, and speaking in the vernacular (I think, even in one instance, moving the sabbath to Sunday!). So I can picture mosques taking on the form of a Protestant meeting house, with hymns to "God the Most Merciful," no Arabic at all, and little handbooks detailing "Lessons from the life of God's friend, Mahomet." They might even merge with the Unitarians or something.

By far the most important aspect of their social standing in America would have been their acceptance as white people in the eyes of the law...which was the case, at least for lighter-skinned Arabs (according to a recent PBS series on immigration, they were the group who went to court the most in OTL to "prove" their whiteness).

[King Gorilla]

Yeah, no.

But that does lead to a more realistic reason, the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and colonization of the Arab territories by Christian powers. That might do it, although you couldn't get much worse than the French in Algeria, and that didn't really result in much emigration to America.

But, if you can establish a community, people will go there.

I concur. If the Russian Empire for instance was ever able to achieve their fever dream of serving as the protector of the holy land and the middle east's Christians, many Arabs would have good reason to seek immigration elsewhere.

[MerryPrankster]

Could an earlier appearance of Arab nationalism lead to issues within the Ottoman Empire and Arab immigration?

Perhaps a particular battle against the Russians or some other state in which Arab troops die in large numbers could serve as a TTL analogue to Gallipoli, which IIRC inspired nationalism in Australia and New Zealand.

[Tyr]

The big trouble I can see is in racism. Only white people could become naturalised Americans and though Arabs are caucasian they're not white, the legal precedent seems to say they wouldn't be welcome.

[Dan1988]

But that does lead to a more realistic reason, the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and colonization of the Arab territories by Christian powers. That might do it, although you couldn't get much worse than the French in Algeria, and that didn't really result in much emigration to America.

But, if you can establish a community, people will go there.

Hmm, I wonder what reasons could be concocted for having Algerians immigrate to the US, and try extrapolating that to the rest of the Maghreb.

They're Catholic, btw.

I know that - but are part of the wider Christian world.


There wouldn't be any need to "deal" with Islam, much like there was no need to "deal" with Judaism. Assimilation to Teh American Way was by far a stronger pull in those days than any kind of religious revivalism, never mind a politically-tinged religious revivalism of the sort we tend to associate these days with Christianity and Islam.

I think Muslim immigrants in the 19th century would quickly try to assimilate, even going so far as to "americanize" or "protestantize" their religion in certain (probably naive) ways, much like the Catholics and Jews. Old Catholic churches in the US were spartan on the outside (no statues) and there even emerged a movement within the US Catholic church that sought to Americanize and individualize the religion (it was anathematized as "The Americanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)) heresy" by Pope Leo XIII). Similarly the Jews began treating their synagogues as Protestant meeting houses, singing hymns, and speaking in the vernacular (I think, even in one instance, moving the sabbath to Sunday!). So I can picture mosques taking on the form of a Protestant meeting house, with hymns to "God the Most Merciful," no Arabic at all, and little handbooks detailing "Lessons from the life of God's friend, Mahomet." They might even merge with the Unitarians or something.

That sounds like an interesting idea - and you're thinking of Reform Judaism with the Sabbath being moved to Sunday.


By far the most important aspect of their social standing in America would have been their acceptance as white people in the eyes of the law...which was the case, at least for lighter-skinned Arabs (according to a recent PBS series on immigration, they were the group who went to court the most in OTL to "prove" their whiteness).

Well, if Arab immigrants are accepted as white, that should help - then again, that didn't help other "whites", like the Irish and the French-Canadians.

The big trouble I can see is in racism. Only white people could become naturalised Americans and though Arabs are caucasian they're not white, the legal precedent seems to say they wouldn't be welcome.

If they can prove that they are white in court, then the legal precedent would be that if you're an Arab (or, more likely, "Arabian") immigrant, then you would be considered as a white person. Once that happens, then it would be somewhat easier for Arab immigrants to go to the US.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

If they can prove that they are white in court, then the legal precedent would be that if you're an Arab (or, more likely, "Arabian") immigrant, then you would be considered as a white person. Once that happens, then it would be somewhat easier for Arab immigrants to go to the US.

If we look at the actual experience of Muslim Ottomans that emigrated to the USA, we can extrapolate from there. They were horrendously discriminated against, and most of them pretended to be Christian to survive, until they had saved up money and went back home.

Maybe ironically, Turks tended to live in Armenian communities in the USA, due to common culture and language.

[Ofaloaf]

If we look at the actual experience of Muslim Ottomans that emigrated to the USA, we can extrapolate from there. They were horrendously discriminated against, and most of them pretended to be Christian to survive, until they had saved up money and went back home.

Maybe ironically, Turks tended to live in Armenian communities in the USA, due to common culture and language.
Going from local history in the Detroit area and the like, the Arab community there wasn't discriminated against particularly harshly-- the Irish and Polish communities got just about as much flak from "natives" as the Arabs got.

The Armenian community in the Detroit area, if family reunions are any judge of things, associates more with Greeks than Turks.

[Tyr]

Well, if Arab immigrants are accepted as white, that should help - then again, that didn't help other "whites", like the Irish and the French-Canadians.



If they can prove that they are white in court, then the legal precedent would be that if you're an Arab (or, more likely, "Arabian") immigrant, then you would be considered as a white person. Once that happens, then it would be somewhat easier for Arab immigrants to go to the US.

I guess it depends on a coin toss. The first landmark case will set the presedent but will the judge over that case be a liberal accepting type or a racist.
IOTL....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

[Skokie]

I guess it depends on a coin toss. The first landmark case will set the presedent but will the judge over that case be a liberal accepting type or a racist.
IOTL....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

IOTL we have the George Dow case:

ON 14 SEPTEMBER 1915, George Dow, a Syrian immigrant living in South Carolina appeared before a circuit court judge and waited to hear the fate of his petition for naturalization. Twice already, it had been denied in a lower court because he was deemed racially ineligible for citizenship. Specifically, Dow had been refused naturalization on the grounds that he did not meet the racial requirement of the United States law, which limited naturalization to "aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." George Dow could not, therefore, be accepted into the fold of American citizenry. The Syrian community—which by conservative estimates numbered around 150,000 persons nationwide—was outraged by the refusal to naturalize Dow. His was not the first case to ignite a community response, but around it Syrian immigrants mobilized to a degree that was unprecedented. Their efforts would ultimately prove effective, for in this, George Dow's final appeal, the judge ruled that Syrians "were to be classed as white persons," and were eligible for naturalization.4 Although it was not the last time a Syrian appeared before the courts attempting to litigate his (the cases involved men only) racial status, the Dow case established a weighty legal precedent in favor of Syrian whiteness.

http://jaeh.press.illinois.edu/20/4/gualtieri.html

And also the instance of Moroccans being granted white status in 1790 by the South Carolina legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_Sundry_Act_of_1790

[EvolvedSaurian]

I guess it depends on a coin toss. The first landmark case will set the presedent but will the judge over that case be a liberal accepting type or a racist.
IOTL....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

Actually, in the case of Indian Americans, it seems to have flipped back and forth, at least according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_classification_of_Indian_Americans).

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Going from local history in the Detroit area and the like, the Arab community there wasn't discriminated against particularly harshly-- the Irish and Polish communities got just about as much flak from "natives" as the Arabs got.

The Armenian community in the Detroit area, if family reunions are any judge of things, associates more with Greeks than Turks.

We're talking about the 19th c, not the recent past.

[Dan1988]

If we look at the actual experience of Muslim Ottomans that emigrated to the USA, we can extrapolate from there. They were horrendously discriminated against, and most of them pretended to be Christian to survive, until they had saved up money and went back home.

Maybe ironically, Turks tended to live in Armenian communities in the USA, due to common culture and language.

:eek:

OK, now that is interesting. No wonder why the Arab Christians tended to remain after immigrating.

[Alratan]

Referring back to my above post on Christian Arab migration - how many of them were there to serve as the pool to migrate from?

I do think this is the easiest way to get the US to accept such a migration, otherwise the twin barriers of race and religion would be too much.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Referring back to my above post on Christian Arab migration - how many of them were there to serve as the pool to migrate from?

I do think this is the easiest way to get the US to accept such a migration, otherwise the twin barriers of race and religion would be too much.

From 5-15% of the population depending on the region, except Mount Lebanon, which had a Christian majority. A pretty large number of Arab Christians did go to the Americas - most wanted to make money then return home.

The thing is, though, that if the Ottoman Empire remains, they will behave largely as per OTL, and if it doesn't, Arab Christians will be heavily favored by the colonial powers as per post-WWI OTL and will be incentivized to stay.

Maybe a potential POD would be that Egypt retains control over Syria in the 1840s - heavy taxation and conscription was causing great suffering and could potentially have caused an exodus of Muslims. Whether they would just flee across the border into the empire proper or go all the way to America is a difficult question.

[Ofaloaf]

We're talking about the 19th c, not the recent past.
I confess that the family reunion bit isn't the best stuff to work with here, but there's an exhibit (http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/Coming-to-America.id.18.htm) down at the Arab-American Museum in Dearborn that addressed this very issue, and from what I could gather from it all was that it wasn't particularly worse for the Levantine (at least) immigrants, compared to the treatment of Poles, Greeks, etc. who came to Detroit in roughly the same period.

[The Wanderer]

I don't know if they'd be allowed to enter. I mean, if you thought anti-Catholic sentiments were bad, how do you think 19th Centurty Protestant Anglo-Saxons are going to react to muslims? Besides, a good portion of Arabs were nomads at the time, and quite content with that life.

During the 19th Century, there was a large amount of immigration of Jews to the US and while there was some anti-Semitism directed at them, it was not nearly to the extent that anti-Catholicism was directed at Irish immigrants.

While certainly not loved, the Jewish immigrants just weren't seen as nearly the threat the Catholic immigrants were. In part this was because Judaism just wasn't seen as a threat the way Catholicism was and also in part because they didn't come in nearly the numbers and were economically and educationally better off than the Irish immigrants.

If the Muslim immigrants who came over were of the similar economic background as the Jewish immigrants to the 19th Century America and in comparable numbers, I don't think there would be that much of a problem.

One last thing to remember is that most of the Arabs who came over would come from the Levant region and could therefore plausibly claim to be white.

That would be a big deal. In 19th Century America, race was far more important than religion.

Just compare the treatment of Chinese immigrants to that of Eastern European and Jewish immigrants.

[The Wanderer]

The big trouble I can see is in racism. Only white people could become naturalised Americans and though Arabs are caucasian they're not white, the legal precedent seems to say they wouldn't be welcome.

As others have pointed out, Syrians and Lebanese were considered whites.

Now, Arab immigrants from North Africa who were the descendants of Arabicized Berbers might have a more difficult time getting accepted.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I confess that the family reunion bit isn't the best stuff to work with here, but there's an exhibit (http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/Coming-to-America.id.18.htm) down at the Arab-American Museum in Dearborn that addressed this very issue, and from what I could gather from it all was that it wasn't particularly worse for the Levantine (at least) immigrants, compared to the treatment of Poles, Greeks, etc. who came to Detroit in roughly the same period.

Yes, almost all Christian. Whatever Muslims did come over would change their names and pretend to be Christian. You just couldn't be Muslim in the 19th c.

[Ridwan Asher]

If we look at the actual experience of Muslim Ottomans that emigrated to the USA, we can extrapolate from there. They were horrendously discriminated against, and most of them pretended to be Christian to survive, until they had saved up money and went back home.

Maybe ironically, Turks tended to live in Armenian communities in the USA, due to common culture and language.

IOTL we have the George Dow case:



http://jaeh.press.illinois.edu/20/4/gualtieri.html

And also the instance of Moroccans being granted white status in 1790 by the South Carolina legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_Sundry_Act_of_1790

From 5-15% of the population depending on the region, except Mount Lebanon, which had a Christian majority. A pretty large number of Arab Christians did go to the Americas - most wanted to make money then return home.

The thing is, though, that if the Ottoman Empire remains, they will behave largely as per OTL, and if it doesn't, Arab Christians will be heavily favored by the colonial powers as per post-WWI OTL and will be incentivized to stay.

Maybe a potential POD would be that Egypt retains control over Syria in the 1840s - heavy taxation and conscription was causing great suffering and could potentially have caused an exodus of Muslims. Whether they would just flee across the border into the empire proper or go all the way to America is a difficult question.

During the 19th Century, there was a large amount of immigration of Jews to the US and while there was some anti-Semitism directed at them, it was not nearly to the extent that anti-Catholicism was directed at Irish immigrants.

While certainly not loved, the Jewish immigrants just weren't seen as nearly the threat the Catholic immigrants were. In part this was because Judaism just wasn't seen as a threat the way Catholicism was and also in part because they didn't come in nearly the numbers and were economically and educationally better off than the Irish immigrants.

If the Muslim immigrants who came over were of the similar economic background as the Jewish immigrants to the 19th Century America and in comparable numbers, I don't think there would be that much of a problem.

One last thing to remember is that most of the Arabs who came over would come from the Levant region and could therefore plausibly claim to be white.

That would be a big deal. In 19th Century America, race was far more important than religion.

Just compare the treatment of Chinese immigrants to that of Eastern European and Jewish immigrants.

Yes, almost all Christian. Whatever Muslims did come over would change their names and pretend to be Christian. You just couldn't be Muslim in the 19th c.

Seems like to make US accepting an exodus of muslim immigrants in is the biggest concern of all here, for with an exodus, the muslims will going to have some trouble in disguising themselves as Christians.....

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Seems like to make US accepting an exodus of muslim immigrants in is the biggest concern of all here, for with an exodus, the muslims will going to have some trouble in disguising themselves as Christians.....

It doesn't seem to me that anything is insurmountable. But most of the Muslims that came here weren't all that skilled or educated - mostly agricultural workers, so they're not going to be all that highly thought of.

There were Jews, and Chinese - both groups suffering from some pretty bad discrimination, especially the latter... maybe if Muslims formed a volunteer regiment in some war attitudes would change.

I don't think the bias is insurmountable, just already there and really strong. The Ottomans were Europe's "Soviet Union", and Turk, Ottoman, and Muslim were all used interchangeably back then, so there was a long, long history of animosity, which crossed the ocean with the colonists... and then there were the Pirate Wars...

[Keenir]

I thought we had Arab immigration in the 19th century. huh...


we did - the late 1800s is when Her Majesty Queen Noor's family arrived in the US.

and the Syrians back then were seen as far far better than other immigrants...and that was even before Syrians were declared legally white.

[Dilvish]

we did - the late 1800s is when Her Majesty Queen Noor's family arrived in the US.

and the Syrians back then were seen as far far better than other immigrants...and that was even before Syrians were declared legally white.

Down here in Dothan, southeast Alabama, there is the large and well connected Saliba family. They came from Lebanon/Syria in the late 1800's and had established a business or two by the early 1900's. Apparently they didn't have any problems in the Jim Crow south.

If you look at the early history of the ice cream cone, Syrian immigrants play a prominent role. One of those families, the Doumars, still has some prominent members, with a federal judge in Norfolk, and having an ice cream and BBQ joint.

[Dilvish]

We're talking about the 19th c, not the recent past.

Abdul,
Are all Arabs Muslims, or is that just the posters making the usual leaps of logic? :)

[EvolvedSaurian]

Abdul,
Are all Arabs Muslims, or is that just the posters making the usual leaps of logic? :)

Not even close, especially in the Levant. Even today, 10%ish of Egyptians are Christians.

[Ridwan Asher]

Abdul,
Are all Arabs Muslims, or is that just the posters making the usual leaps of logic? :)

The OP's actually quite needing for muslim Arabs though. He just doesn't mind Christian ones as well, but for an exodus only Christian ones just won't form as enough Arab community in US as the OP's most likely aiming....

[Ridwan Asher]

It doesn't seem to me that anything is insurmountable. But most of the Muslims that came here weren't all that skilled or educated - mostly agricultural workers, so they're not going to be all that highly thought of.

There were Jews, and Chinese - both groups suffering from some pretty bad discrimination, especially the latter... maybe if Muslims formed a volunteer regiment in some war attitudes would change.

I don't think the bias is insurmountable, just already there and really strong. The Ottomans were Europe's "Soviet Union", and Turk, Ottoman, and Muslim were all used interchangeably back then, so there was a long, long history of animosity, which crossed the ocean with the colonists... and then there were the Pirate Wars...

Well, I mean more about the ever possibility of a quite an exodus of muslims into US can actually be let to step on US soil the way the East Europeans did, rather than about sentiments toward muslims. Polish Catholics were maybe hated, but they managed to set their feet on the US in a visible number. Could the US authority have ever let the muslims to do the same without some major tweaks ?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Abdul,
Are all Arabs Muslims, or is that just the posters making the usual leaps of logic? :)

I'm not sure what you mean - around 10% of Arabs are Christian, and in Lebanon, much more - in the 19th c Lebanon (which was smaller), it was two-thirds.

Both the families you referenced above were Christian.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well, I mean more about the ever possibility of a quite an exodus of muslims into US can actually be let to step on US soil the way the East Europeans did, rather than about sentiments toward muslims. Polish Catholics were maybe hated, but they managed to set their feet on the US in a visible number. Could the US authority have ever let the muslims to do the same without some major tweaks ?

A lot of people claimed "religious persecution" in order to get in, although that dried up around 1900 as the USA realized none of these people were being persecuted. Still, I wonder if anyone would even care if Muslims were being persecuted by a Muslim government.

[Ridwan Asher]

I'm not sure what you mean - around 10% of Arabs are Christian, and in Lebanon, much more - in the 19th c Lebanon (which was smaller), it was two-thirds.

Both the families you referenced above were Christian.

I'm not sure that a lazy-reader with an instant accusation offered to you are someone you need to give a positive presumption about his motive. Nevertheless, he's a lazy reader, so maybe it was only accidental.....

A lot of people claimed "religious persecution" in order to get in, although that dried up around 1900 as the USA realized none of these people were being persecuted. Still, I wonder if anyone would even care if Muslims were being persecuted by a Muslim government.

That pretty much negates the chance for muslim Arabs to become the first wave of Islamic exodus to US, I think. There simply no strong enough power that's close enough to Levant or Maghreb let alone Egypt to conquer any of the countries mentioned and than either force the inhabitants to leave their faith or ethnically cleanse them. The geographically closest candidate is Persia, and Levant would still be to far off for them to conquer and then exert control strong enough to conduct Shiafication. Let alone the chance to get the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam into US' immigration officers' heads.......

Seems to me that this pretty much leaves "Balkan muslims first than the Arabs" option as the only alternative to make an American Arabic muslim community....

[Dilvish]

I'm not sure that a lazy-reader with an instant accusation offered to you are someone you need to give a positive presumption about his motive. Nevertheless, he's a lazy reader, so maybe it was only accidental.....

I am far from a lazy reader. Please reread what I posted, and note the smiley face at the end. And please make more of an effort to understand the meaning of what I wrote in the context of the entire thread.

[Ridwan Asher]

I am far from a lazy reader. Please reread what I posted, and note the smiley face at the end. And please make more of an effort to understand the meaning of what I wrote in the context of the entire thread.

Well, good thing if it's just an expression directed towards another poster :), for if it wasn't it would be rather confusingly.... challenging.... to Pasha's point, especially since the examples that you brought up were Christians....

[MerryPrankster]

Well, I mean more about the ever possibility of a quite an exodus of muslims into US can actually be let to step on US soil the way the East Europeans did, rather than about sentiments toward muslims. Polish Catholics were maybe hated, but they managed to set their feet on the US in a visible number. Could the US authority have ever let the muslims to do the same without some major tweaks ?

NOT letting them in would require "major tweaks" like an Arab Exclusion Act or a Muslim Exclusion Act.

It took acts of Congress to exclude the Chinese, non-European immigration, etc. The default is to let them in.

[Ridwan Asher]

NOT letting them in would require "major tweaks" like an Arab Exclusion Act or a Muslim Exclusion Act.

It took acts of Congress to exclude the Chinese, non-European immigration, etc. The default is to let them in.

Good point. However the established bias is still something to worry about. Unlike the Chinese, for example, the bias against muslims, as Pasha said, was already well laid and really strong. We surely have to at the very least make the Mohammedan Exclusion Act won't come to fast....

Volunteers provided by muslim newcomers during the ACW should be able to change the established preception, but it was also during the Crimean War, when the two largest western European powers were backing the Ottomans.....

[MerryPrankster]

A "Mohammedan Exclusion Act." Given the general non-PC-ness of the times, that seems like a good name for it.

[Skokie]

Do you guys really think that's realistic? We didn't have a Jewish exclusion act.

I still think the biggest problem would have been race. Darker-skinned Muslims would have had problems. Lighter-skinned ones would have done everything they could to integrate into white society, like all the different "white ethnics" of the Christian and Jewish religions did.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

NOT letting them in would require "major tweaks" like an Arab Exclusion Act or a Muslim Exclusion Act.

It took acts of Congress to exclude the Chinese, non-European immigration, etc. The default is to let them in.

I agree with this, but that won't change that they'll face unbelievable persecution and discrimination which isn't going to tempt a lot of people to come here.

The Chinese were horrendously treated, but they were brought here for a specific reason, to build the railroads, so they had jobs in advance of coming - plus, they were escaping a bad situation at home.

There's no such problem in the Ottoman Empire, which was poor, but not overpopulated, with generally plentiful food. An Arab Ottoman in a difficult situation can just move a short distance to solve his problems, not sail across the sea to an infidel land where he has no prospect for employment.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

During Napoleon III's Mexican adventure, a battalion of Muslim Sudanese Blacks was lent to Maximilian by the Ottomans for service between Vera Cruz and Mexico City, as the plain between had a yellow fever problem and Africans have a greater resistance.

They provided excellent service and were well-thought of. I wonder if some similar thing might clear the way for Muslim immigrants in US opinion.

[MerryPrankster]

Do you guys really think that's realistic? We didn't have a Jewish exclusion act.

I still think the biggest problem would have been race. Darker-skinned Muslims would have had problems. Lighter-skinned ones would have done everything they could to integrate into white society, like all the different "white ethnics" of the Christian and Jewish religions did.

There were many Jews in America before the Revolution (a Jew named Benjamin Solomon gave his whole fortune to help the cause) and their religion was the precursor to the religion most Americans practiced.

Islam would probably be subjected to a much greater religious critique--from a Christian perspective, Judaism is outdated (Jesus is the Messiah and fulfillment of the OT), but Islam is the teaching of a false prophet.

Plus Jews are much more familiar to the Americans of the time than Muslims are. And much American familiarity with Islam might not be the right kind for acceptance--the Barbary Wars.

More problematic than the above, however, is the skin color issue. Many people might not care about Moses vs. Mohammed or the shores of Tripoli, but a bunch of darker-skinned strangers coming to live in "their" town might bother them.

[MerryPrankster]

During Napoleon III's Mexican adventure, a battalion of Muslim Sudanese Blacks was lent to Maximilian by the Ottomans for service between Vera Cruz and Mexico City, as the plain between had a yellow fever problem and Africans have a greater resistance.

They provided excellent service and were well-thought of. I wonder if some similar thing might clear the way for Muslim immigrants in US opinion.

That's an interesting idea. The Civil War, perhaps?

[Ridwan Asher]

That's an interesting idea. The Civil War, perhaps?

ACW happened after Crimean War, where British and French, to counter Russian ambition for the Balkans, have largely guarding OE for this end, and with the British support for Confederates and the consequent Russia-US closeness, I think that a muslim contingent supporting the Union would be irrelevant to the contemporary political climate......

[Skokie]

There were many Jews in America before the Revolution (a Jew named Benjamin Solomon gave his whole fortune to help the cause) and their religion was the precursor to the religion most Americans practiced.

Islam would probably be subjected to a much greater religious critique--from a Christian perspective, Judaism is outdated (Jesus is the Messiah and fulfillment of the OT), but Islam is the teaching of a false prophet.

Plus Jews are much more familiar to the Americans of the time than Muslims are. And much American familiarity with Islam might not be the right kind for acceptance--the Barbary Wars.

More problematic than the above, however, is the skin color issue. Many people might not care about Moses vs. Mohammed or the shores of Tripoli, but a bunch of darker-skinned strangers coming to live in "their" town might bother them.

I think Muslims would have been located somewhere in between Chinese and Jews on the ethno-racial-religious hierarchy of 19th century America.

For all the intolerance, there were also bouts of acceptance, especially in the very early period of the republic. The Adams-Onis treaty explicitly rejected any claims to being a Christian nation or having any enmity against Islam. Washington made explicit comments to the effect that Jews, Muslims, Hindus and all the rest ought to be welcomed in the new republic. The Moors Sundry Act of 1790 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_Sundry_Act_of_1790) gave Moroccans in South Carolina the same rights as white people, in recognition of the Moroccan government having been the first country to recognize US independence.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

ACW happened after Crimean War, where British and French, to counter Russian ambition for the Balkans, have largely guarding OE for this end, and with the British support for Confederates and the consequent Russia-US closeness, I think that a muslim contingent supporting the Union would be irrelevant to the contemporary political climate......

I'm not so sure. That's a pretty strong symbolic thing.

[NothingNow]

I'm not so sure. That's a pretty strong symbolic thing.
Yeah, Americans love the whole symbol bit. Especially if it's a Patriotic thing as well. Could the Moors Sundry Act actually serve as a precedent that Arab/Berber=White if taken to court later on?
Because, under the Constitution, a Citizen of one state is a Citizen of every state. So, if they can become Citizens in SC (since being white allows someone to become a citizen), then they should be considered as White as an Albino Norwegian under the law.

[Ridwan Asher]

I'm not so sure. That's a pretty strong symbolic thing.

Not so much about the US will refuse the muslim contingent sent by Ottomans, but the ever possibility of Ottomans sending one at all. You sure such wouldn't be considered an offense to the British support for the Confederates ? Not to mention about whatever that the Ottomans can ever get from sending one at all....

Or it doesn't have to be Ottomans who would supply the Union with a muslim contingent. Maybe Morocco ?