> The good news is that most modern browsers are performing well. > browsers I tested in Windows 7, GNU/Linux, and Android. > I made some changes for clarity of language and updated the results for the > Just updated the web browser tests for and Hebrew diacritic In any case, please take what I've done here and if it inspires you, you are free to take the source and make improvements. With some JS indicating to the user that their browser may not be setup correctly to view a website with Hebrew, users could be better informed. I've seen browsers set to other encodings display Hebrew correctly even when the code should be instructing the browser to use utf8. It would be really great to have some javascript to report back on what the browser has set as the default character encoding. Links (CLI) will not do unicode Hebrew and although its GUI version will, it will display asterisks in place of niqqud. Unfortunately, Hebrew only displays LTR, rather than RTL. I saw improvement with Lynx (CLI) and Links (the GUI version) which will now display Hebrew without having to make any settings changes. In my tests, Epiphany also is still having trouble positioning Hebrew with niqqud correctly. The bad news is that I'm still seeing niqqud positioning errors on Android's browser and Firefox on Android. The good news is that most modern browsers are performing well. I made some changes for clarity of language and updated the results for the browsers I tested in Windows 7, GNU/Linux, and Android. Examining a range of canonical and less canonical authors, this interdisciplinary approach to The Making of the Modern Arab Intellectual will be of interest to students and scholars of the Middle East, history, political science, comparative literature and philosophy.Just updated the web browser tests for and Hebrew diacritic positioning. The communities that Arab intellectuals imagined, including the Pan-Islamic, Pan-Arab and socialist sat astride many a polity and never became contained by post-colonial states. Located between Empire and Colony, the emerging Arab public sphere was a space of over- and under-regulation, hindering accountability and upsetting allegiances. Focusing on the period after the tax-farming scholar took the bow and before the alienated intellectual prevailed on the contemporary Arab cultural scene, it situates the making of the Arab intellectual within the dysfunctional space of competing states’ interests known as the ‘Nahda’. This dual preoccupation with self-definition and all things public is the central concern of this book. Despite his fledgling status, he catered for the public interest all the more so since new professionals such as doctors, engineers and lawyers endorsed this latest social role as an integral part of their own self-image. Gradually, the scholar morphed into the public writer. Some found employment in the state’s new institutions as translators, teachers and editors, whilst others resisted civil servant status. In the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s nineteenth-century reforms, as guilds waned and new professions emerged, the scholarly ‘estate’ underwent social differentiation. While clear definition for what constitutes such a controversy is provided, I close by offering a sample of views about the Arabic newspaper by four prominent Ashkenazi Zionists. My decision to let primary texts speak for themselves at greater length than is customary results from my conviction that – in this case – extensive recourse to source material can convey best to twenty-first-century readers why the exchange is effectively “the mother” of all ensuing Mizrahi–Ashkenazi ethnic controversies. It was nonetheless October 1911 that encapsulated the peak of the controversy, mainly due to writing by Mizrahi intellectual and activist Dr Shimon Moyal (1866–1915) and Ashkenazi intellectual and activist Dr Avraham Ludvipol (1865–1921). Lasting between 19, the spirited exchange regarding the Arabic newspaper involved two dozen writers, mainly of the Sephardi–Mizrahi Haherut newspaper, and about one third of ethnic Ashkenazim writing elsewhere. This is with the smallest risk of the superimposition in hindsight of the terms and signifiers usually associated with Israel’s post-1971/Black-Panthers era onto the Ottoman period. The question was simple: should the Hebraist Zionist movement in Ottoman Palestine invest in publishing a newspaper in Arabic and, if yes, should it be communitarian Jewish or general in its topics? What began as yet another obscure intra-Zionist deliberation gradually crystallized into what I argue merits the label of the earliest, explicitly Ashkenazi–Mizrahi ethnic controversy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |