Well, the end of the semester is here and it is time to wrap up my blog. This class met my expectations. I was unsure what I would learn since the course was on a topic that I knew very little about. Now I feel a lot more knowledgeable.
The most valuable thing I think I took from this class was an understanding of the history of a region in a way that helps me apply it to present day situations. I was most interested in the recent history of the Middle East including the Armenian Genocide, Islamic Revolution and Arab Israel Conflict. These events all taking place in the 20th century, it is easy to see how they relate to present day because they for the most part they are still existing, occurring or impacting the present society of the country in which they originated.
In this course, we discussed more than anything, the Arab Israel conflict which I found significant to my knowledge of the middle east as well as current events. We were able to learn about the origins of this conflict and how it applies to the situation today from several perspectives and in discussion were able to formulate opinions of our own which i think is necessary in a history course. this is so for not just the topic of the Arab Israel conflict but for all aspects of the history of the region.This course was a lot of work but i feel rewarded having completed it and believe that I am walking away with a decent knowledge of a region i previously knew nothing about.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Gate of the Sun
Gate of the Sun was not my favorite book we read so far in this class. At first i found it confusing and hard to understand the narrative. Once I got used to that I began to like it a little better, until i started to feel like it was becoming repetitive. However, I did get something out of it.
I liked the perspective that is showed on the Arab- Israel conflict. Although it was fiction, i felt that it captured the activities and the situations in the camps well enough to think of it as a true story. in my paper on it, i focused on the Palestinian resistance movement group called Fatah in which Yunes belonged to. I thought it interesting how he was able to recruit people for this group, gain support and still travel across the border to see his wife and raise a child in his life time. these were enormous accomplishments for a refugee and he was viewed as a hero.
Life in these camps was depicted exactly how it is in Cleveland and exactly how we have discussed it in class. The novel explains how these camps were meant to be temporary but the longer the refugees lived there, the more permanent they became. it was depicted as people fleeing their homes, leaving whatever they were doing behind and going wherever they could to survive. It is a sad thing to think about. These Palestinian refugees were stranded in these countries with no real home since they were driven out of theirs and now as the books showed other people lived in their homes. Israeli inhabitants replaced them in their own homes. even in one case where an Israeli woman living in a Palestinians old home had so much in common with her, it was almost her parallel, yet she was Israeli and therefore the enemy. Cleveland explains how these Palestinians weren't even granted any type of secure citizenship in the countries they were living in as refugees.
the novel tells a powerful story, i just found it hard to get into or at least stay into. the dialogue was hard to understand and at times it got very depressing. i feel like everything we have discussed or read about this conflict is depressing and books like these make it hard not to take a Palestinian stance, despite what the media shows in America in favor of Israel.
I liked the perspective that is showed on the Arab- Israel conflict. Although it was fiction, i felt that it captured the activities and the situations in the camps well enough to think of it as a true story. in my paper on it, i focused on the Palestinian resistance movement group called Fatah in which Yunes belonged to. I thought it interesting how he was able to recruit people for this group, gain support and still travel across the border to see his wife and raise a child in his life time. these were enormous accomplishments for a refugee and he was viewed as a hero.
Life in these camps was depicted exactly how it is in Cleveland and exactly how we have discussed it in class. The novel explains how these camps were meant to be temporary but the longer the refugees lived there, the more permanent they became. it was depicted as people fleeing their homes, leaving whatever they were doing behind and going wherever they could to survive. It is a sad thing to think about. These Palestinian refugees were stranded in these countries with no real home since they were driven out of theirs and now as the books showed other people lived in their homes. Israeli inhabitants replaced them in their own homes. even in one case where an Israeli woman living in a Palestinians old home had so much in common with her, it was almost her parallel, yet she was Israeli and therefore the enemy. Cleveland explains how these Palestinians weren't even granted any type of secure citizenship in the countries they were living in as refugees.
the novel tells a powerful story, i just found it hard to get into or at least stay into. the dialogue was hard to understand and at times it got very depressing. i feel like everything we have discussed or read about this conflict is depressing and books like these make it hard not to take a Palestinian stance, despite what the media shows in America in favor of Israel.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Man Who Changed the World
The Islamic Revolution is depicted in this video, i think better than any text book could tell it. This being an occurrence of the late 70's early 80's everything was video taped and I think it helped me understand the whole weight of the situation better because I was able to learn about it while watching real footage and hearing the story first hand from the people who were involved.
This video made my sympathize with Jimmy Carter, although in the beginning of the video I didn't find it all that shocking that there would be an uprising against American imperialism disguised as a monarchy under the Shah who basically did nothing. Granted, I understand how this arrangement benefits America but after having studied the history of the Middle East, I do not find it at all surprising that there would be a revolution because of this.
Although at first i thought perhaps America, morally, is at fault here, when the students seized the American embassy I felt a line had been crossed. This is when I began to sympathize with Carter. Despite his efforts, the odds were never on his side. At the end of the documentary when it was explained how it was the first time a foreigner was able to influence an American election and humiliate a US president, I really began to feel sorry for him because although I knew he only served one term and had therefore lost the election Reagan, I felt that he put some serious effort into the situation. This issue in Iran spans the entirety of his term. When you think Jimmy Carter, you think Iran.
Khomeini on the other hand, I find fascinating. For one man in the modern world to cause such an enormous revolution to me was astonishing to watch. The really footage of the events of the revolution took me back. The amount of support he had showed the majority without a doubt. It is mind boggling to think that an entire countries majority is that unhappy with the way their state is being run. To me it seemed to be almost like French Revolution status. I found this revolution interesting and didn't feel a bias towards it at all, until the episode with the hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran. This is a situation that as an American hits you in the heart and can create a bias. Those poor people were pushed around by Iranians for 15 months and there was so little that could be done about it. And the fact that they waiting 5 mins after Reagan was sworn in was so humiliating to Carter. I find it unfortunate that Carter basically spent his whole term handling the issues in Iran and a large majority of it was designated to the hostage situation, yet the foreign leaders deliberately wouldn't free them until Carter was no longer responsible.
This video made my sympathize with Jimmy Carter, although in the beginning of the video I didn't find it all that shocking that there would be an uprising against American imperialism disguised as a monarchy under the Shah who basically did nothing. Granted, I understand how this arrangement benefits America but after having studied the history of the Middle East, I do not find it at all surprising that there would be a revolution because of this.
Although at first i thought perhaps America, morally, is at fault here, when the students seized the American embassy I felt a line had been crossed. This is when I began to sympathize with Carter. Despite his efforts, the odds were never on his side. At the end of the documentary when it was explained how it was the first time a foreigner was able to influence an American election and humiliate a US president, I really began to feel sorry for him because although I knew he only served one term and had therefore lost the election Reagan, I felt that he put some serious effort into the situation. This issue in Iran spans the entirety of his term. When you think Jimmy Carter, you think Iran.
Khomeini on the other hand, I find fascinating. For one man in the modern world to cause such an enormous revolution to me was astonishing to watch. The really footage of the events of the revolution took me back. The amount of support he had showed the majority without a doubt. It is mind boggling to think that an entire countries majority is that unhappy with the way their state is being run. To me it seemed to be almost like French Revolution status. I found this revolution interesting and didn't feel a bias towards it at all, until the episode with the hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran. This is a situation that as an American hits you in the heart and can create a bias. Those poor people were pushed around by Iranians for 15 months and there was so little that could be done about it. And the fact that they waiting 5 mins after Reagan was sworn in was so humiliating to Carter. I find it unfortunate that Carter basically spent his whole term handling the issues in Iran and a large majority of it was designated to the hostage situation, yet the foreign leaders deliberately wouldn't free them until Carter was no longer responsible.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Carl Smith Lecture
Regarding the origins of the Arab-Israel conflict I was confused. Carl Smith's lecture that we watched in class on Thursday helped me understand it better and I was glad we watched it. From listening to him I was able to understand all the things that i found difficult to understand while I was trying to read his book. I liked how he explained everything as if it was a story and did not at all make the conflict seem like one side was more at fault than the other. He simply told the facts and I was able to listen to him talk and get a better picture of the whole development of the state of Israel from its origin.
What I was thinking while listening to his lecture was how this conflict is still going on, and how from the beginnings of it, it just seems so hopeless. Like there is no solution to this land situation regardless of all the aspects of influence that have been applied to it from the start in order to calm it. If one side gets what they wanted its never enough or than the other side is unhappy and vice verse. And in regards to such a dispute over land and religion I feel like until one side completely collapses, this conflict will just continue.
I found it interesting how Carl explained the strength of the Zionists during the early years of the conflict. When learning about them in class and the development of the movement, I imagined them as a group of people who would struggle greatly against the rest of the Arab nation and those opposed to the Zionists and their intentions. I was honestly surprised when Carl explained the military strength of these people. I guess I should have considered it common sense that they would be so powerful, especially considering that they were able to establish their own state eventually. That's got to take a lot of military tactics to throw the Arabs off their land like the did.
I feel like this conflict is really complex and there are still aspects of it that I have been reading about to further understand the entire issue and though Carl definitely helped me obtain a better visual. I think it is important for me to continue to grasp the whole weight of this conflict because it is such a huge issue in the middle east today and because, as shown from the video we watched in the beginning of the semester, America has much involvement in the conflict. Knowing more about the origins of the conflict leads me to view the current situation slightly different than I had previously although for the most part I still view it without bias, like Carl does.
What I was thinking while listening to his lecture was how this conflict is still going on, and how from the beginnings of it, it just seems so hopeless. Like there is no solution to this land situation regardless of all the aspects of influence that have been applied to it from the start in order to calm it. If one side gets what they wanted its never enough or than the other side is unhappy and vice verse. And in regards to such a dispute over land and religion I feel like until one side completely collapses, this conflict will just continue.
I found it interesting how Carl explained the strength of the Zionists during the early years of the conflict. When learning about them in class and the development of the movement, I imagined them as a group of people who would struggle greatly against the rest of the Arab nation and those opposed to the Zionists and their intentions. I was honestly surprised when Carl explained the military strength of these people. I guess I should have considered it common sense that they would be so powerful, especially considering that they were able to establish their own state eventually. That's got to take a lot of military tactics to throw the Arabs off their land like the did.
I feel like this conflict is really complex and there are still aspects of it that I have been reading about to further understand the entire issue and though Carl definitely helped me obtain a better visual. I think it is important for me to continue to grasp the whole weight of this conflict because it is such a huge issue in the middle east today and because, as shown from the video we watched in the beginning of the semester, America has much involvement in the conflict. Knowing more about the origins of the conflict leads me to view the current situation slightly different than I had previously although for the most part I still view it without bias, like Carl does.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Response to Touba and the Meaning of Night
I found it interesting how when Touba was a young girl she was taught many things by her father. It was rare for Iranian women to learn to read and write and other educational material. When her father died she was the only one in her family with any educational experience, therefore ran the household. This was one example of Touba as an unconventional character in the story, however, although she was slightly unconventional according to traditional Iranian culture, in light of the changes in society Touba was completely normal.
The novel speaks a lot about the reform issues occurring with the constitutionalist who were seeking a change in government from the Qajar Dynasty to a constitutional monarchy. Touba’s first husband blamed her marriage to him for these issues occurring regarding changes in the government and a political upheaval of the constitutionalist. Touba during this marriage encounters Mr. Khiabani who is a revolutionary constitutionalist. From him she learns more about this new form of government that is spreading into the Iranian Parliament. This is significant in the history of Iran because it demonstrates the changes made due to the Western Influence. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East many things were changing and the Middle East, not just Iran was becoming more modernized and modernization looked towards the West for influence.
Moving further in Touba’s life she enters her second marriage without choice of her own to a prince of the Qajar dynasty. It is though him that she at first experiences many of the issues regarding these changes in Iran. At one episode in the novel, Touba is at a party where she is dressed in her traditional Iranian clothing but meanwhile notices the attire of the other people at the party. They were Russians and even Iranian’s were dressed similar to them. This was a change Touba had noticed and was almost shocked since it was something she had not expected. She did learn through out her life experiences of the changes occurring in Iran but for the majority of the history she was sheltered form the outside world because of her marriage. The book shows many examples of the changes that were occurring but Touba sees them indirectly. A history of Iran is important to have known while reading this book in order to fully understand what it is that Touba is living though. Cleveland provides a detailed history of 20th century Iran.
In Cleveland he explains the influence of these Western powers, particularly Great Britain and Russia was due to their interest in their oil supply. With the Qajar Dynasty coming to an end, Iran was experiences some economic difficulties therefore they set up trade systems with Great Britain and Russia regarding Oil. At the onset of WWII in order to protect their Oil interests from Germany the British and the Russians set up zones of occupation and exercised leadership in these areas as their troops continued to stay there. Through this Iran was provided with western ideas and a relationship with these European Powers.
When the Qajar Dynasty ended, a new one emerged, the Pahlavi Dynasty. The novel explains the changes that arose in Iran as a result of the new shah- Reza Shah who was bent on reform. We discussed him in class which was very interesting. We talked about his attempts to reform the nation through enforcing laws to change tradition. His idea was to break away from the old influence of the Ottoman Rule and to incorporate western forms of government, education, social activity including clothing and language. It is interesting to see how all these changes were portrayed in the book. Touba noticed in one episode that women were not wearing their veils and the men were wearing European style hats rather than their traditional fezzes. She was confused by this and not used to such a sight since her whole life had been surrounded but those customs, regardless of how simple they might sound. This is a significant turning point in Iranian history and it was interesting to see how in all unfolded over the course of Touba’s life.
I enjoyed this book, although I did find it hard to keep up with because there is just so much history. Touba’s character was an interesting one as well. I found that the book stood out not only because it was a detailed account of Iranian history though a fictional tale but because it focused on a female character. This is something I find interesting. I think this novel would have a completely different effect if it were a male protagonist. I would find it interesting to reads a different novel of the same history from the point of view of an traditional Iranian like Touba’s father. Had he not died when he did and instead lived to see these changes, I wonder how he would react to them. It would also interest me to read about these political changes from a member of the declining Qajar Dynasty.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Arab- Isreal Conflict
For the remainder of my blog entries for this course I was planning on writing about material other than the Israeli- Palestine conflict since I have written about it and it has been discussed in so many different view points in class. However I find it hard to steer clear of an issue that spans over such a long period of time in Middle Eastern history. I think I find this topic so interesting because it regards current events and this is the first time that I have studied something in history that continues to take a toll on the world today.
After looking at the website: www.deiryassin.com which was created by Palestinian Jews in memory of and as an account of what had happened with one massacre in particular during the first stages of tensions between Palestinian Jews and the Arabs. Reading further into the subject as an entire history rather than just an account of a specific event in the Charles Smith's book "Palestine and the Arab Israel Conflict" I am having a difficult time fully understanding the entire history behind the origins of this decade long conflict, however I do find it interesting and useful to know since this conflict has not yet seen an end and does not show much sign of stopping.
It was interesting to learn about the origins of Zionism and put that into perspective with all the hardships Jews have had to face throughout history. What I am having such a hard time understanding and always have throughout my education in history is how religion, something that is supposed to be so spiritual and good can cause so much pain in the world. I cant help but think how every major conflict throughout history, not only in the Middle East but in Europe was centered around religion.
I also find it coincidential that Britain and France seem to have major involvement in many conflicts. In the case of the origins of the Arab Israel conflict, Britain played a major role. They had the British mandate ins Palestine and Trans Jordon in 1922 which caused issues among the Arabs who rioted in 1929 because of Jewish immigrants to Palestine and its increasing numbers. The British limited their immigration with the White Papers. There is so much European involvement in this conflict it is impossible to put it all in one blog entry, I just cant help but notice how issues like foreign presence in other territories only causes problems.
It is interesting, and shocking to think of these riots and massacres and mandates and arguments over land and how they still continue today. The idea of a Zionist movement and Arab nationalism and British Imperialism seems to me to be something that would have been solved thorough the years yet it hasn't been. I think the situation only got worse as I learned for the video To Die in Jerusalem. Never the less, it is interesting to learn the origins of such a conflict although in my honest opinion- I think this is the most complicated historical conflict to learn about. I am looking forward to the class colloquium on the Smith book to help put any linger confusions into perspective for me. My next blog will most likely be a continuation of this one. I am interested to see if my opinions and/or views change after class discussion.
After looking at the website: www.deiryassin.com which was created by Palestinian Jews in memory of and as an account of what had happened with one massacre in particular during the first stages of tensions between Palestinian Jews and the Arabs. Reading further into the subject as an entire history rather than just an account of a specific event in the Charles Smith's book "Palestine and the Arab Israel Conflict" I am having a difficult time fully understanding the entire history behind the origins of this decade long conflict, however I do find it interesting and useful to know since this conflict has not yet seen an end and does not show much sign of stopping.
It was interesting to learn about the origins of Zionism and put that into perspective with all the hardships Jews have had to face throughout history. What I am having such a hard time understanding and always have throughout my education in history is how religion, something that is supposed to be so spiritual and good can cause so much pain in the world. I cant help but think how every major conflict throughout history, not only in the Middle East but in Europe was centered around religion.
I also find it coincidential that Britain and France seem to have major involvement in many conflicts. In the case of the origins of the Arab Israel conflict, Britain played a major role. They had the British mandate ins Palestine and Trans Jordon in 1922 which caused issues among the Arabs who rioted in 1929 because of Jewish immigrants to Palestine and its increasing numbers. The British limited their immigration with the White Papers. There is so much European involvement in this conflict it is impossible to put it all in one blog entry, I just cant help but notice how issues like foreign presence in other territories only causes problems.
It is interesting, and shocking to think of these riots and massacres and mandates and arguments over land and how they still continue today. The idea of a Zionist movement and Arab nationalism and British Imperialism seems to me to be something that would have been solved thorough the years yet it hasn't been. I think the situation only got worse as I learned for the video To Die in Jerusalem. Never the less, it is interesting to learn the origins of such a conflict although in my honest opinion- I think this is the most complicated historical conflict to learn about. I am looking forward to the class colloquium on the Smith book to help put any linger confusions into perspective for me. My next blog will most likely be a continuation of this one. I am interested to see if my opinions and/or views change after class discussion.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
A Systematic Crime Against Humanity
The Armenian Genocide is a topic I can not seem to move away from. I have written about this previously in my blog about The Bastard of Istanbul, and again about the term genocide in relation to what is going on in Palestine,but after watching the documentary "The Armenian Genocide" in class I was provided with a visual aid to the horror of 1915 in which I am still shocked to be learning about now for the first time. What caught my attention the most was the clear effort of the Turks to deny these events even today. With the example of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany there is no denial that those events happened and I see very little difference in what happened to the Armenians as a result of this ruthless Turkish Nationalism. Understanding that the Turkey is under a different government from the one run by the Young Turks in 1915, I can understand their desire to hide such an atrocity, however when there is a group of people who are still in mourning of the deaths of their families and ancestors, the Turks are only pouring Salt in their wounds by not recognizing it.
According to the video, Theodore Roosevelt called this event "the greatest crime of the war"which I would agree with. I think what makes this so shocking is that it was permitted and systematically organized by the government and said to be condoned by the mosques which promoted participation from the local people. This created the notion that the systematic mass murder of a specific ethnic group or religion was a tool of government which easily promotes violence throughout a nation. This understandably could be something the Turks no longer wish to identify themselves with but as shown by this video they will go to any means necessary now to suppress the past even resort to violence. A couple living in Turkey, as shown in the video were attacked and their house was bombed as a reaction to their publication of book of the Armenian genocide. This shows me that Turkey is desperately trying to suppress a memory that is well known to many people, in most cases probably even the ones who are trying to hard to deny it.
In class we debated over if this event can really be called genocide. Without a doubt genocide is the first word I would use to describe it. However, since the Turks continuously deny that it was a genocide and instead refer to it as a "civil war" this issue can be argued. Was it a civil war? I guess if you look at the facts: The Turks were trying to establish a United Empire and therefore attacked Russian and lost. With Russia's faith being Christian and the Armenians faith being Christian many Armenians fought on the side of Russia which resulted in the first stage of the "genocide", the massacre of the Armenian soldiers who fought for the enemy. As a result of this the Turks began to look at the Armenians as a threat and from there pursued the execution of Armenian intellectuals who would have been the ones to organize any type of revolt. From this point it could been seen as the beginning to a civil war or the efforts of the Turks to suppress an ethnic group who was threatening to their leadership. The thing that I believed pushed this into an act of genocide was the mass killing of all Armenians, women and children included, the raping of women and young girls and the torture of innocent people simply because they fit the description of a group who the Turks were threatened by.
To an extent the Turks argument is understandable but I definitely would agree that they pushed the line into genocide. Since this term genocide did not exist 1915 the Turks may not have had a word so commonly known as one of the worse things a nation can be associated with but they still committed the crimes fitting the definition of the term. Had they had this term then, perhaps they would have modified their principles a little bit in effort to avoid their actions being labeled with this word, but regardless history is unavoidable despite their many effort to avoid it. I cant help but think about the current conflict with the Isreali's and Palestinians. Will this eventualy turn into an act of genocide? Can it be viewd as one already? A century from now will the Isreali government try to deny their actions? These are all questions I asked myself while watching this documentary.
According to the video, Theodore Roosevelt called this event "the greatest crime of the war"which I would agree with. I think what makes this so shocking is that it was permitted and systematically organized by the government and said to be condoned by the mosques which promoted participation from the local people. This created the notion that the systematic mass murder of a specific ethnic group or religion was a tool of government which easily promotes violence throughout a nation. This understandably could be something the Turks no longer wish to identify themselves with but as shown by this video they will go to any means necessary now to suppress the past even resort to violence. A couple living in Turkey, as shown in the video were attacked and their house was bombed as a reaction to their publication of book of the Armenian genocide. This shows me that Turkey is desperately trying to suppress a memory that is well known to many people, in most cases probably even the ones who are trying to hard to deny it.
In class we debated over if this event can really be called genocide. Without a doubt genocide is the first word I would use to describe it. However, since the Turks continuously deny that it was a genocide and instead refer to it as a "civil war" this issue can be argued. Was it a civil war? I guess if you look at the facts: The Turks were trying to establish a United Empire and therefore attacked Russian and lost. With Russia's faith being Christian and the Armenians faith being Christian many Armenians fought on the side of Russia which resulted in the first stage of the "genocide", the massacre of the Armenian soldiers who fought for the enemy. As a result of this the Turks began to look at the Armenians as a threat and from there pursued the execution of Armenian intellectuals who would have been the ones to organize any type of revolt. From this point it could been seen as the beginning to a civil war or the efforts of the Turks to suppress an ethnic group who was threatening to their leadership. The thing that I believed pushed this into an act of genocide was the mass killing of all Armenians, women and children included, the raping of women and young girls and the torture of innocent people simply because they fit the description of a group who the Turks were threatened by.
To an extent the Turks argument is understandable but I definitely would agree that they pushed the line into genocide. Since this term genocide did not exist 1915 the Turks may not have had a word so commonly known as one of the worse things a nation can be associated with but they still committed the crimes fitting the definition of the term. Had they had this term then, perhaps they would have modified their principles a little bit in effort to avoid their actions being labeled with this word, but regardless history is unavoidable despite their many effort to avoid it. I cant help but think about the current conflict with the Isreali's and Palestinians. Will this eventualy turn into an act of genocide? Can it be viewd as one already? A century from now will the Isreali government try to deny their actions? These are all questions I asked myself while watching this documentary.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)