Eurocentrism in Middle East

Some have criticized the term Middle East for its perceived Eurocentrism. The region is only east from the perspective of western Europe. To an Indian, it lies to the west; to a Russian, it lies to the south. The description Middle has also led to some confusion over changing definitions.

Before the First World War, Near East was used in English to refer to the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire, while Middle East referred to Persia, Afghanistan and Central Asia, Turkistan and the Caucasus. In contrast, Far East refers to the countries of East Asia e.g. China, Japan, Koreas, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc.

With the disappearance of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, Near East largely fell out of common use in English, while Middle East came to be applied to the re-emerging countries of the Islamic world. However, the usage of Near East was retained by a variety of academic disciplines, including archaeology and ancient history, where it describes an area identical to the term Middle East, which is not used by these disciplines .

So in shorter words, the term Middle East came about when the UK/French part of the world used the term. In German the Term Naher Osten (Near East) is still in common use and in Russian (Near East) remains to be the only appropriate term for the region.

The criticism of Eurocentrism is of course related to the fact that ‘East’ and ‘West’ are defined in relation to the lines of Longitude relative to the Prime Meridian or Greenwich Meridian and therefore inherently Eurocentric. This was a result of the British cartography standard being widely accepted in 1884 at the International Meridian Conference.