Today was the last class of the semester and I thought I would reflect on some of the issues we have discussed but first I would like to make a few comments about the movie "Private" that we watched in class. I thought that the movie was very easy to understand and was a typical performance of how the Arab is Israeli conflict is damaging families. I thought it took a different spin on the movie when they introduced the sensitive Israeli soldier and sort of showed how people of both cultures do not even know what they are fighting for anymore. In other words, I thought the movie was appropriate and delivered the attitudes and feelings that it meant to to the viewers.
Next I would like to comment on the Palestinian Israeli issue:
The issue is very subjective and therefore makes a solution extremely difficult and complex. The British Mandate was in effect from 1920 to 1948 and it is offered that the recoil of this authorization has worsened the matter. When the mandate came to an end and British troops withdrew from Palestine, thousands of Jewish immigrants flooded in which created an overwhelming population of Zionist Jews in Palestine. The Arab people whom for many centuries dominated the land of Palestine were now a minority. The Israelis jumped on their golden opportunity to move back to their “holy land.” The Arabs were forced out of their homes leaving pots on the stove, leaving lives behind. Although the story may sometimes seem like it rightfully belongs to one group or another, a story has many sides. The Jewish communities had resided in Palestine during the first century but then they fled to Europe due to the Roman conquest. The Jews had always planned and hoped to return to Palestine, their “holy land” and it just seemed appropriate for them to go when the opportunity arose.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Today in class we discussed Islamic Revloution and reasons for the shift in different things. I find it so interesting how cultures can be so different yet similar in the same manner. Revolutions come about after a time of dispair and I think that is a common theme throughout empires.
"Gate Of The Sun" by Elias Khory focuses on the Nakba of Palestine people.
A quote from Khoury’s novel reveals the mood of the times. “I’m scared of history that has only one version. History has dozens of versions, and for it to ossify into one leads only to death.” I think that this quote reflects the fearfulness in one way of looking as history. If history was only interperted through one perception than there would be so many deaths to societies in terms of people not understanding the other side. There is always another side to history and it has many different versions. History is not finding out the truth of the past by analyzing the truths.
"Gate Of The Sun" by Elias Khory focuses on the Nakba of Palestine people.
A quote from Khoury’s novel reveals the mood of the times. “I’m scared of history that has only one version. History has dozens of versions, and for it to ossify into one leads only to death.” I think that this quote reflects the fearfulness in one way of looking as history. If history was only interperted through one perception than there would be so many deaths to societies in terms of people not understanding the other side. There is always another side to history and it has many different versions. History is not finding out the truth of the past by analyzing the truths.
The Deiryassin.org site was really interesting to look at because it posed a really good argument for the Palestinians. It really emphasizes the fact that Palestinians were "victims of zionism" and that what happened to them was unfortunate. The actual goal of the organization is to promost anti-prejudice against Palesntinians. Deir Yassin should be remembered and they have created a memorial for that.
The Deiryassin site makes me think that history is not about the truths of the past but the way in which people perceive them. The way in which people interpret different events or accounts from the past is essential to appropriately understand the Arab-Israeli dispute. There are several sides to every story and in this case it is not simple to sympathize for one side. This area of conflict is only about the size of the state of Massachusetts however it is seen as a gem to powers throughout the Middle East. This continuing dispute between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis launched during the first century during the Roman conquest but since then the issue has appeared blurry.
The Deiryassin site makes me think that history is not about the truths of the past but the way in which people perceive them. The way in which people interpret different events or accounts from the past is essential to appropriately understand the Arab-Israeli dispute. There are several sides to every story and in this case it is not simple to sympathize for one side. This area of conflict is only about the size of the state of Massachusetts however it is seen as a gem to powers throughout the Middle East. This continuing dispute between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis launched during the first century during the Roman conquest but since then the issue has appeared blurry.
Friday, April 17, 2009
This week in class we watched a lecture from Charles Smith, author of Palestinian Israeli conflict. I found if very interesting because I truly believe he takes a non-bias stance on the subject. Of no Middle eastern decent at all, he proposed both sides to the story in a orderly fashion. I did not find him sympathetic or favoritive towards one side or the other. Watching the lecture rather than speaking about the topic was a nice change from the typical lecture. I think Charles Smith is really knowledgeable in the area and I have learned alot from listening to him.
I think that this issue is very similar to the Armenian Genocide in terms of wanting some recognition of what has happened to them. The Bastard of Istanbul is a fictional but efficient historical account that focuses on existence and inexistence in terms of the Armenian genocide. People have memory of what they want to have memory of. Elif Shafak points out that it is crucial to examine the past and not just burry it. It is understandable that the past way be gloomy because of disturbing events that took place however denying that something did not happen and putting out of memory is not the answer. In terms of history and what is learned about it has everything to do with peoples’ recollections of the past and their interpretations. It is impossible to go back in history and to know exactly what happened. We can only go on what peoples’ interpretations were about certain things and what was actually done. Those are the things that travel through history and that is why it is important to have a sense of continuity and memory of the past.
I think that this issue is very similar to the Armenian Genocide in terms of wanting some recognition of what has happened to them. The Bastard of Istanbul is a fictional but efficient historical account that focuses on existence and inexistence in terms of the Armenian genocide. People have memory of what they want to have memory of. Elif Shafak points out that it is crucial to examine the past and not just burry it. It is understandable that the past way be gloomy because of disturbing events that took place however denying that something did not happen and putting out of memory is not the answer. In terms of history and what is learned about it has everything to do with peoples’ recollections of the past and their interpretations. It is impossible to go back in history and to know exactly what happened. We can only go on what peoples’ interpretations were about certain things and what was actually done. Those are the things that travel through history and that is why it is important to have a sense of continuity and memory of the past.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
WWI and on...
In class this week we learned about the outcome of WWI on the Middle East and how territory got divided up. Its strange how France and England can just take an area that used to be divided of 2 rival groups and then bring them together by saying those 2 regions are now 1. Maybe thats why a lot of these attempted treaties by England and France failed. Woodrow Wilson posed some attractive ideas for the Middle East in his 14 points...especially the point where he says that places should be able to decide their own governing system and be able to just rule themselves in any which we they decide. Unforunately, this did not end up panning out the way the Middle East has hoped.
I'd like to share an interesting feeling i have towards Middle Eastern profiling.
America is built upon the fact that this nation is made up of immigrants from various countries. That is what makes The United States so special and unique. Looking back in history for example, World War II, Japanese immigrants, native born citizens, and legal residents were interned in camps. Even though it may have taken some time, The United States government eventually apologized for the discriminating acts and paid reparations to the Japanese later on. Considering the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States, it is understandable why people may categorize Muslims and Arabs with the attack. As people of this country we want to stop these suicidal terrorists and check everyone that may fit the profile however, is it possible that this may become a standard procedure in law? What we need to do is analyze our history and think about how profiling has maybe hurt us in the past. Using race or ethnic appearance as part of a description of particular suspects may be helpful, but using it as a broad predictor will most definitely hurt our investigative efforts. Profiling Arabs and Muslims would be an ineffective waste of law enforcement.
A good example of profiling being ineffective and misleading would be how African Americans are disproportionately involved in drug crime. The Drug Enforcement Administration just focused on them. Now, we find out that the police in many jurisdictions were using racial profiling to determine these results. Latinos and African American are only responsible for a small percentage of the drug trade. Race and ethnicity of those two groups do a bad job of identifying the particular suspects police should be interested in. The rates of successful searches of Latino, African American, and minorities were actually lower than they were for whites. Race and ethnic appearance are very poor predictors just own their own for determining behavior. Another reason why Middle Eastern profiling should not be justified is the fact that it is pretty much assuming that Muslims and Arabs are the only terrorist parties out there. The most deadly attacks on American soil before September 11th was by two white men from the United States. This is why we should not just assume those terrorists are one race or ethnicity. We just do not know who might do damage to our country next. We must not subject what our country is best known for or what we think may be an answer in predicting the next terrorist. We must find more effective and efficient ways of looking at these issues.
I'd like to share an interesting feeling i have towards Middle Eastern profiling.
America is built upon the fact that this nation is made up of immigrants from various countries. That is what makes The United States so special and unique. Looking back in history for example, World War II, Japanese immigrants, native born citizens, and legal residents were interned in camps. Even though it may have taken some time, The United States government eventually apologized for the discriminating acts and paid reparations to the Japanese later on. Considering the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States, it is understandable why people may categorize Muslims and Arabs with the attack. As people of this country we want to stop these suicidal terrorists and check everyone that may fit the profile however, is it possible that this may become a standard procedure in law? What we need to do is analyze our history and think about how profiling has maybe hurt us in the past. Using race or ethnic appearance as part of a description of particular suspects may be helpful, but using it as a broad predictor will most definitely hurt our investigative efforts. Profiling Arabs and Muslims would be an ineffective waste of law enforcement.
A good example of profiling being ineffective and misleading would be how African Americans are disproportionately involved in drug crime. The Drug Enforcement Administration just focused on them. Now, we find out that the police in many jurisdictions were using racial profiling to determine these results. Latinos and African American are only responsible for a small percentage of the drug trade. Race and ethnicity of those two groups do a bad job of identifying the particular suspects police should be interested in. The rates of successful searches of Latino, African American, and minorities were actually lower than they were for whites. Race and ethnic appearance are very poor predictors just own their own for determining behavior. Another reason why Middle Eastern profiling should not be justified is the fact that it is pretty much assuming that Muslims and Arabs are the only terrorist parties out there. The most deadly attacks on American soil before September 11th was by two white men from the United States. This is why we should not just assume those terrorists are one race or ethnicity. We just do not know who might do damage to our country next. We must not subject what our country is best known for or what we think may be an answer in predicting the next terrorist. We must find more effective and efficient ways of looking at these issues.
Midterm and Map Quizes
It feels good to be finnished with the midterm and honestly, although it was long and tim consuming, it did help bring together everything we have learned so far. Cleveland's book really helped me put my thoughts and ideas together and his chapters followed our lectures accordingly. I think that Cleveland and Peirce have some interesting opinions on the women of the harem and their roles. Cleveland covers Middle Eastern history from about the 14th century up until semi-present. He has alot of informative material in there, but only touches upon the women of the harem a little bit compared to other things. Leslie Peirce writes a whole book about the status of women of the harem and how significant they were to just forget about them. Sulayman the Magnificent and Shah Abbas were very similar when identifying them. Actually, they shared alot of the same interests such as, a strong military and wanting to expand their territorial powers. The Bastard of Istanbul question was an interesting one because in the interview with Elif Shafak that I listened to, she explains that one of the main underlying themes of the book is the role of memory. How people perceive things and what actually happened. I think that this theme does a good job in explaining why people have different views and opinions on the Armenian Genocide. The other thing I wanted to mention was the map quizes. I think that they do a good job of making someone familiar with the region and where key places are located. If you do them then you do understand the importance of location ( i.e located near the seas).
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Bastard of Istanbul Discussion
Today I thought was a really interesting class. While the teacher was talking about the even of WWI and what was going on in different areas at this time, I kept thinking that she was going to mention the condition of the Armenians. I thought her next sentence was going to be about the relationship between the Turks and Armenians and the genocide but it never came up. She finnished the lecture and then stated that she herself had never learned about the Armenians in school. I concur, students typically do not learn about it. The discussion today was mostly about why don't we learn about it? One girl raised her hand and said "I think it's because there is no actual country called Armenia." Well I guess thats an example of a reason why people do not know about it. Because they are oblivious to what is going on in the world unless ther safety is threated. Futhermore, I enjoyed "The Bastard of Istanbul" and thought it was a great way to portray the dffferences in perception of the event. Although it takes place in modern day, the point of the novel was to examine the past. I can relate a bit to how Armanoush feels about her lack of identity. I think it is very easy to feel an absense of self when none of your family wants to talk about their historical past. A student made a comment about Armenians not being "proudful". In terms of Armenians in the US, that statement is quite the contrary. Amenians that are in the US are actually very unified with one another. One might say they play the victim however another may say they are just trying to acknowledge their troubled past.
Mainly, I think people need to view history through many different lenses.
Mainly, I think people need to view history through many different lenses.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Bastard of Istanbul
Throughout history genocide and destruction of a specific ethnicity has been a continuing theme in many backgrounds. Although genocide is a drastic action, some cultures fail to confront or acknowledge their troubled past and accept the contemporary damages. The intriguing novel titled The Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Shafak discusses the modern day psychological effects of the Armenian genocide and its influence on everyday life. It is better to know about the gloomy past than just to be forgotten. The Bastard of Istanbul also concentrates on both the Turkish and the Armenian perspectives and the way in which they internalize the past. Both cultures see things through a different lens and therefore a lot of unanswered questions. It is not really about the historical aspect of the event but rather the two different interpretations of the issue and how it corresponds to personal identity. Elif Shafak a young Turkish women was imprisoned for writing her novel The Bastard of Istanbul because the government of Turkey claimed she made fictitious comments and distorted the Turkish reputation. The charges were later dropped however the lasting rationale behind it lingers. The Ottoman Turks viewed this situation as a cultural betrayal and denied the accusations. The Bastard of Istanbul explores cultural identity issues and modern perceptions dealing with Turkey. Armanoush is a main character in the story that goes through a revelation about who she is and what her past has to do with her identity in the present. While Armanoush is visiting Turkey, she helps unravel one of the messages and long-term arguments of the Turkish and Armenian historical past. Armanoush’s step father Mustafa embodies more of an idea than a character. His refusal to confront the crime he committed represents Turkey’s prolonged denial of the Armenian genocide and their questionable past. Speaking about Mustafa and his estrangement to Istanbul, “At times Armanoush had the impression that he wanted to break away from his past, but she could not possibly tell why.“(1) Mustafa does not want to confront his passed and his secret is a metaphor of how the Turkish people react to this historical event. This also represents a lot of other Turkish peoples feelings. Another significant theme in Shafak’s novel is the use of the word genocide.” The use of this word is a political taboo in Turkey when describing the issue between the Ottoman Turks and the Armenian people. Armenians and Turks have a different sense of history and Shafak even goes as far as to state that Armenians are more past oriented and Turks are more future oriented. Basically meaning that one group is focused on what has happened to them while the other group is focusing more on what is going to happen and how does this affect them now. The past may be blurry for both ethnicities but the truths of the past event are something that should be uncovered and talked about. Elif Shafak’s book argues that it is beneficial to know more about the history of the Turks and Armenians so that people can have a better understanding of why certain things happened. It should not just be “history.“ When Armanoush asked her step-father about 1915 and what the Turks did, Mustafa replied, “I don’t know much about those things, it’s all history.“(2) Although many Turks grow up with a unawareness of their history before the new republic, their past should not be buried and forgotten. Shafak wants it to be known what happened and not have people be afraid to talk about it. The Bastard of Istanbul is about the tension between the need to examine the past and the desire to erase it. According to Shafak, a lot of people believe Turkish history begins with the start of the Republic in 1923 and anything before that is of no real interest. People have lost there connections and sense of continuity with the past. This novel helps reveal past issues and examines the modern affects. For Armanoush, there are several modern affects of the Armenian genocide that she is dealing with today. Her step-father’s family does not speak about their Turkish past and therefore leaves a lot of questions unanswered. “Because of her fragmented childhood, she had still not been able to find a sense of continuity and identity.”(3) By not confronting a big part of her cultural past, Armanoush feels as though she is incomplete, unaware of who she really is. An interesting point of view that Armanoush shares in the novel is a really significant one because it explains exactly how she feels about not really being placed in any category and therefore feels lost. “I do know how it feels to be torn between opposite sides, unable to fully belong anywhere, constsantly flucuating between two states of existence.”(4) Throughout the novel the search for identity is a common Armanoush battles with her estranged roots. Out of wedlock and abortion are also disucssed and contribute to the journey for a sense of individualism and self.
The Bastard of Istanbul is an intriguing novel that confronts many “taboo” issues such as genocide and even abortion. Elif Shafak has enlightened many people on the subject of genocide and is not afraid to express herself. This novel touches upon the relationship between the Turks and the Armenians in a different way. The psychological affects of their historical past is being seen today and it is something that should be discussed. Historical events should not be buried in the past but uncovered to examine and confront. Although genocide is a negative act, it is not okay for people to forget about it. The past may be gloomy but it is beneficial to not make history just history. I think that The Bastard of Istanbul was a great way to explain how similar but different cultures view the same event. I understand that a massacre is something people do not want to talk about however lessons can be learned from the past. One cannot understand the future without studying the past.
1. Page 104
2. Page 104
3. Page 116
4. Page 116
Shafak,E.. The Bastard of Istanbul. Viking Penguin, 2007.
Shafak, E.. "Writing Under A Watchful Eye." 2/6/2007.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7217653 (accessed 3/13/2009).
Throughout history genocide and destruction of a specific ethnicity has been a continuing theme in many backgrounds. Although genocide is a drastic action, some cultures fail to confront or acknowledge their troubled past and accept the contemporary damages. The intriguing novel titled The Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Shafak discusses the modern day psychological effects of the Armenian genocide and its influence on everyday life. It is better to know about the gloomy past than just to be forgotten. The Bastard of Istanbul also concentrates on both the Turkish and the Armenian perspectives and the way in which they internalize the past. Both cultures see things through a different lens and therefore a lot of unanswered questions. It is not really about the historical aspect of the event but rather the two different interpretations of the issue and how it corresponds to personal identity. Elif Shafak a young Turkish women was imprisoned for writing her novel The Bastard of Istanbul because the government of Turkey claimed she made fictitious comments and distorted the Turkish reputation. The charges were later dropped however the lasting rationale behind it lingers. The Ottoman Turks viewed this situation as a cultural betrayal and denied the accusations. The Bastard of Istanbul explores cultural identity issues and modern perceptions dealing with Turkey. Armanoush is a main character in the story that goes through a revelation about who she is and what her past has to do with her identity in the present. While Armanoush is visiting Turkey, she helps unravel one of the messages and long-term arguments of the Turkish and Armenian historical past. Armanoush’s step father Mustafa embodies more of an idea than a character. His refusal to confront the crime he committed represents Turkey’s prolonged denial of the Armenian genocide and their questionable past. Speaking about Mustafa and his estrangement to Istanbul, “At times Armanoush had the impression that he wanted to break away from his past, but she could not possibly tell why.“(1) Mustafa does not want to confront his passed and his secret is a metaphor of how the Turkish people react to this historical event. This also represents a lot of other Turkish peoples feelings. Another significant theme in Shafak’s novel is the use of the word genocide.” The use of this word is a political taboo in Turkey when describing the issue between the Ottoman Turks and the Armenian people. Armenians and Turks have a different sense of history and Shafak even goes as far as to state that Armenians are more past oriented and Turks are more future oriented. Basically meaning that one group is focused on what has happened to them while the other group is focusing more on what is going to happen and how does this affect them now. The past may be blurry for both ethnicities but the truths of the past event are something that should be uncovered and talked about. Elif Shafak’s book argues that it is beneficial to know more about the history of the Turks and Armenians so that people can have a better understanding of why certain things happened. It should not just be “history.“ When Armanoush asked her step-father about 1915 and what the Turks did, Mustafa replied, “I don’t know much about those things, it’s all history.“(2) Although many Turks grow up with a unawareness of their history before the new republic, their past should not be buried and forgotten. Shafak wants it to be known what happened and not have people be afraid to talk about it. The Bastard of Istanbul is about the tension between the need to examine the past and the desire to erase it. According to Shafak, a lot of people believe Turkish history begins with the start of the Republic in 1923 and anything before that is of no real interest. People have lost there connections and sense of continuity with the past. This novel helps reveal past issues and examines the modern affects. For Armanoush, there are several modern affects of the Armenian genocide that she is dealing with today. Her step-father’s family does not speak about their Turkish past and therefore leaves a lot of questions unanswered. “Because of her fragmented childhood, she had still not been able to find a sense of continuity and identity.”(3) By not confronting a big part of her cultural past, Armanoush feels as though she is incomplete, unaware of who she really is. An interesting point of view that Armanoush shares in the novel is a really significant one because it explains exactly how she feels about not really being placed in any category and therefore feels lost. “I do know how it feels to be torn between opposite sides, unable to fully belong anywhere, constsantly flucuating between two states of existence.”(4) Throughout the novel the search for identity is a common Armanoush battles with her estranged roots. Out of wedlock and abortion are also disucssed and contribute to the journey for a sense of individualism and self.
The Bastard of Istanbul is an intriguing novel that confronts many “taboo” issues such as genocide and even abortion. Elif Shafak has enlightened many people on the subject of genocide and is not afraid to express herself. This novel touches upon the relationship between the Turks and the Armenians in a different way. The psychological affects of their historical past is being seen today and it is something that should be discussed. Historical events should not be buried in the past but uncovered to examine and confront. Although genocide is a negative act, it is not okay for people to forget about it. The past may be gloomy but it is beneficial to not make history just history. I think that The Bastard of Istanbul was a great way to explain how similar but different cultures view the same event. I understand that a massacre is something people do not want to talk about however lessons can be learned from the past. One cannot understand the future without studying the past.
1. Page 104
2. Page 104
3. Page 116
4. Page 116
Shafak,E.. The Bastard of Istanbul. Viking Penguin, 2007.
Shafak, E.. "Writing Under A Watchful Eye." 2/6/2007.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7217653 (accessed 3/13/2009).
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Blog #7???
I thought we were only up to 6 blogs but I guess I miscounted or something. Anyways, I will be starting "Bastard of Istanbul" tonight and reading it over break. I look forward to a better novel this time around but I am cautious because I seem to struggle with this historical fiction stuff. I liked hearing a little introduction about the novel in class and it has kind of engaged me a little bit more. I am a bit more excited to start reading the book as it might pertain to my Armenian heritage. My fathers family was part of the massacre as I have a small family on that side. Maybe I will learn some interesting things aout the Massacre.
HBO Film and Snow Day
This week we had Monday off due to snow storm so we had an assignment to do. The HBO film regarding the Isareli/Palestinian issue was really interesting and entertaining. I honestly have never really watched a documentry like this before. It was a little hard to watch at times because I was angry at the fact that these mothers are both missing something. Although the suicide bomber killed the other teenage girl beause of purpose she thought she should believe in, her mother felt differently and did not agree with her suicide bomber daughter. Although one a killer and one a victim, both girls can be looked at as victims. Victims of their own misconceptions. I think when looking at this Middle Eastern issue it is crucial to understand what this conflict is really about. Today in class we discussed how this conflict is a political issue, not a religious fight as alot of people assume it is. I also found it interesting that alot of students confuse this rather modern conflict with something that has been "going on for thousands of years." I think alot of students make this mistake and it is most likely because of the way the United States teaches and portrays Middle Eastern history. Whenever we learned about the region in middle school it would be like a blur of issues and some how it all rounded in "A fight over the Holy Land and Religion." Todays class cleared some of this confusion up for me and it was helpful to really state what the issue is. I am glad we are learning about more modern Ottoman Empire and other civilizations bcause it seems like it will all relate to something I may be more familiar with. I am excited to start reading "Bastard of Istanbul" over the break, maybe I will read about some of my Armenian heritage or something.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Zanyi Barakat
I have finnished the Zanyi Barakat assignment and it has made me think about some things. It is an interesting period in time that this historical novel takes place. The last of the golden time for the Mamluks ends in 1517 when the Ottomans finally take over. Zanyi Barakat, though not an actual real character in the novel plays an important role for the community of Cairo that I never thought of before.
I think it is rather interesting that the Ottomans decided to let him still rule Egypt under their name after they took over. Egypt was key to expansion due to the fact that it controlled the holy cities such as Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. However Egypt was too far away from the central Ottoman power therefore they agreed to let Zanyi Barkat continue regulating Egypt under Ottoman reign. Zanyi Barakat illustrates an interesting contrast between corruption and success, injustice and whatever is necessary to maintain public behavior. My opinion of this novel is poor. I thought that it was confusing to read due to the fact that Zanyi Barakat is not an actual character, he is just spoken of through conversation and such. The chapters (if they were formed that way) were very weird, I could not understand they way in which it was organized.
------------------------------------------------
Political Corruption in Zayni Barakat
Gamal al-Ghitani’s historical novel Zayni Barakat establishes a world of political oppression. Al-Ghitani portrays the historical figure Zayni Barakat, a ruler of the Mamluk dynasty. The Mamluk dynasty took control in 1250 and ruled until 1517. The dynasty then fell to the legendary Ottoman Empire, a very influential realm within the Islamic world. Cairo is the center of all the action and symbolizes power and authority for the people of Egypt. Zayni Barakat brilliantly embodies the corruption that is prevalent in all levels of society, especially within the later period of the Mamluk dynasty. The importance of corruption and the struggle for power play a significant role in a functioning society - a theme established throughout Zayni Barakat. Although this theme was an important one in the time of the Mamluk dynasty, it is also a contemporary theme that is still played out in politics today.
The Mamluks, whose name means “to own”, was a group of people under the Mamluk dynasty consisting predominately of underprivileged slaves. Unlike the slaves of the Ottoman Empire, the Mamluk slaves were uneducated and lived a difficult life. The Mamluk dynasty became the strongest organized domain in Egypt under the Ayyubid realm. The region they controlled included the holy cities such as Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. They did not believe in transferring status rights to family members because they wished to prevent competition and danger amongst families. This created a problem within the Mamluk dynasty of determining who would be in control after the Sultan died. The dilemma thus existed within the Mamluk dynasty of figuring out who should take the throne after each Sultan died. By 1516 the Mamluk golden years were coming to an end as the Ottomans began to expand their power. The Ottoman Empire expanded into the weakening Mamluk territory and took over Egypt. Considering the great distance between the center of the Ottoman Empire and Egypt, the Ottomans decided to let a Mamluk ruler lead under the Ottoman name. This regulator was known as Zanyi Barakat, whose rise to power is seen in Gamal al-Ghitani’s novel.
Zanyi Barakat, the markets inspector of Cairo, disliked the notion of corruption. He wanted the best for his country and he would strive to achieve that no matter what it would take. Barakat had a powerful impact on the Mamluk people. This can be seen in the following example of one of Barakat’s policies: “From now on there shall be hung big lamps, which burn grease” (86 al-Ghitanti). Zanyi Barakat’s opinion of lighting the city of Cairo was strongly considered although it raised a very controversial matter. His men would be responsible for people of Cairo to sleep soundly in the comfort of knowing they are secure, but instead the people sat in darkness and refused the new enlightened possibilities. The Mamluk women worshipped Barkat as well, and trusted his actions because he “knew the conditions well and shuttered at the mere mention of acts of injustice” (87). Zanyi understood the way the dynasty functioned and was turned off by the idea injustice as a political strategy.
Although Zanyi Barkat strived to be a righteous ruler, corruption may have gotten the best of his reign. He maintained order and stability through a complex network of spies. Zanyi Barakat’s official title was market inspector of which he regulated the prices of goods and public behavior. Corruption is an important theme exemplified throughout the novel which drives the conflict. In relation to the Ottoman Empire, they too strategically killed off their enemies. In Zanyi Barakat the idea of persecuting their enemies was used which is similar to the Ottoman’s tradition of killing off other family members that could cause competition and rivalry to take the Sultan throne. Zanyi Barakat, although a righteous individual, saw it necessary to implement corruptive practices such as spies and the persecution of all possible enemies in order to maintain a moral civil order.
By presenting the theme that corruption is necessary for political success and stability, we see modern connections to today’s political world. In Zanyi Barakat, the methods of corruption are rather simple. Barakat relies on his use of spies and political persecution in order to keep his position as market inspector functioning. Barakat was described as a moral figure that used the power that he had to undermine, through his own corruptive practices, the corruption of the Mamluk royalty. In comparison, we see the use of corruptive practices (for similar reasons) through the practices of many United States Senators. Like Zayni Barakat, they hold high positions within government and use their power to promote the functioning of public works and, in a much larger sense, maintain social order. However, like Barakat, the use of corruptive practices helps them to reach and maintain their goals. In an effort to gain votes, Senators will sign bills, many of which are used to spend money on a large array of public works. Although this method of spending to improve governmental position is fundamentally different than the corruptive practices we see through Zayni Barakat, it is also very similar.
Zanyi Barakat by Gamal al-Ghitani is a historical novel that artistically illustrates the hardships of the early sixteenth century Mamluks. This novel proves that although corruption holds an injustice aurora, it may be necessary in maintaining stability and order within a society. Cairo stands as the powerhouse to the holy cities of which the Ottoman Empire strived to take over. Zanyi Bakart, although not an actual character in the book but rather a praised figured discussed throughout the novel controls the city of Cairo and continues to do so when the Ottoman’s take over. Corruption plays an important role and aids in Zanyi’s network of spies.
Work Cited
al-Ghitani,Gamal. Zanyi Barakat. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2004.
I think it is rather interesting that the Ottomans decided to let him still rule Egypt under their name after they took over. Egypt was key to expansion due to the fact that it controlled the holy cities such as Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. However Egypt was too far away from the central Ottoman power therefore they agreed to let Zanyi Barkat continue regulating Egypt under Ottoman reign. Zanyi Barakat illustrates an interesting contrast between corruption and success, injustice and whatever is necessary to maintain public behavior. My opinion of this novel is poor. I thought that it was confusing to read due to the fact that Zanyi Barakat is not an actual character, he is just spoken of through conversation and such. The chapters (if they were formed that way) were very weird, I could not understand they way in which it was organized.
------------------------------------------------
Political Corruption in Zayni Barakat
Gamal al-Ghitani’s historical novel Zayni Barakat establishes a world of political oppression. Al-Ghitani portrays the historical figure Zayni Barakat, a ruler of the Mamluk dynasty. The Mamluk dynasty took control in 1250 and ruled until 1517. The dynasty then fell to the legendary Ottoman Empire, a very influential realm within the Islamic world. Cairo is the center of all the action and symbolizes power and authority for the people of Egypt. Zayni Barakat brilliantly embodies the corruption that is prevalent in all levels of society, especially within the later period of the Mamluk dynasty. The importance of corruption and the struggle for power play a significant role in a functioning society - a theme established throughout Zayni Barakat. Although this theme was an important one in the time of the Mamluk dynasty, it is also a contemporary theme that is still played out in politics today.
The Mamluks, whose name means “to own”, was a group of people under the Mamluk dynasty consisting predominately of underprivileged slaves. Unlike the slaves of the Ottoman Empire, the Mamluk slaves were uneducated and lived a difficult life. The Mamluk dynasty became the strongest organized domain in Egypt under the Ayyubid realm. The region they controlled included the holy cities such as Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. They did not believe in transferring status rights to family members because they wished to prevent competition and danger amongst families. This created a problem within the Mamluk dynasty of determining who would be in control after the Sultan died. The dilemma thus existed within the Mamluk dynasty of figuring out who should take the throne after each Sultan died. By 1516 the Mamluk golden years were coming to an end as the Ottomans began to expand their power. The Ottoman Empire expanded into the weakening Mamluk territory and took over Egypt. Considering the great distance between the center of the Ottoman Empire and Egypt, the Ottomans decided to let a Mamluk ruler lead under the Ottoman name. This regulator was known as Zanyi Barakat, whose rise to power is seen in Gamal al-Ghitani’s novel.
Zanyi Barakat, the markets inspector of Cairo, disliked the notion of corruption. He wanted the best for his country and he would strive to achieve that no matter what it would take. Barakat had a powerful impact on the Mamluk people. This can be seen in the following example of one of Barakat’s policies: “From now on there shall be hung big lamps, which burn grease” (86 al-Ghitanti). Zanyi Barakat’s opinion of lighting the city of Cairo was strongly considered although it raised a very controversial matter. His men would be responsible for people of Cairo to sleep soundly in the comfort of knowing they are secure, but instead the people sat in darkness and refused the new enlightened possibilities. The Mamluk women worshipped Barkat as well, and trusted his actions because he “knew the conditions well and shuttered at the mere mention of acts of injustice” (87). Zanyi understood the way the dynasty functioned and was turned off by the idea injustice as a political strategy.
Although Zanyi Barkat strived to be a righteous ruler, corruption may have gotten the best of his reign. He maintained order and stability through a complex network of spies. Zanyi Barakat’s official title was market inspector of which he regulated the prices of goods and public behavior. Corruption is an important theme exemplified throughout the novel which drives the conflict. In relation to the Ottoman Empire, they too strategically killed off their enemies. In Zanyi Barakat the idea of persecuting their enemies was used which is similar to the Ottoman’s tradition of killing off other family members that could cause competition and rivalry to take the Sultan throne. Zanyi Barakat, although a righteous individual, saw it necessary to implement corruptive practices such as spies and the persecution of all possible enemies in order to maintain a moral civil order.
By presenting the theme that corruption is necessary for political success and stability, we see modern connections to today’s political world. In Zanyi Barakat, the methods of corruption are rather simple. Barakat relies on his use of spies and political persecution in order to keep his position as market inspector functioning. Barakat was described as a moral figure that used the power that he had to undermine, through his own corruptive practices, the corruption of the Mamluk royalty. In comparison, we see the use of corruptive practices (for similar reasons) through the practices of many United States Senators. Like Zayni Barakat, they hold high positions within government and use their power to promote the functioning of public works and, in a much larger sense, maintain social order. However, like Barakat, the use of corruptive practices helps them to reach and maintain their goals. In an effort to gain votes, Senators will sign bills, many of which are used to spend money on a large array of public works. Although this method of spending to improve governmental position is fundamentally different than the corruptive practices we see through Zayni Barakat, it is also very similar.
Zanyi Barakat by Gamal al-Ghitani is a historical novel that artistically illustrates the hardships of the early sixteenth century Mamluks. This novel proves that although corruption holds an injustice aurora, it may be necessary in maintaining stability and order within a society. Cairo stands as the powerhouse to the holy cities of which the Ottoman Empire strived to take over. Zanyi Bakart, although not an actual character in the book but rather a praised figured discussed throughout the novel controls the city of Cairo and continues to do so when the Ottoman’s take over. Corruption plays an important role and aids in Zanyi’s network of spies.
Work Cited
al-Ghitani,Gamal. Zanyi Barakat. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2004.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Colloquium Week
Thursday we had a discussion about The Imperial Harrem. I personally did not really enjoy reading the book but I did think that it was very informational and discussed a great deal about the Women in the Ottoman Empire. I understand why my Professor had us read the book but at the same time I wish it was not so independent because I was lost on alot of the information. So far, I feel as though the class has been based on assuming a strong background on Middle Eastern and African History. I defenitely do not have much prior information on this. The class is moving fast and I feel like when we take notes I am not writing down all of the information I am expected to have. I don't really feel like I am learning much. I feel like i'm doing the reading assignments and that I am expected to be learning all about Middle Eastern History from that. History books are dry, and I don't learn from just reading about a time in history. I can't always understand what some of the readings are about and I hope that the class is not just based on whether I successfully digested the books or not. I was looking on the syllabus and it says that the Professor will determine whether she thinks you read the book or not and that will determine like 30% of your grade. I am just nervous that I won't be learning as much as the Professor expects me to. I want to succeed and so far I feel a bit hostile and I wish I had some more concrete notes. The slides move so fast, maybe she would consider posting them on blackboard or something?? Lastly, I did enjoy discussing the book becuase I liked hearing how other people interperted the readings. I twas comforting to know that alot of people agreed that it was rather heavy dense reading. The map quizes were a good jog of my memory...I guess. I liked watching the movie about Suleyman and then discussing all of the false facts in the video. It is unbelievable how believable sources can sound.
My reaction to The Imperial Harrem is surprised. It is interesting how women and even how slaves are portrayed in this book. Women were important, for they raised the son that could be control one day. They moved with him to an outside town and guided him. Compared to what I have learned about women from other societies and cultures, it is quite refreshing to find that they were respected here. They lived a good life to a certain extent. However had a bargain to hold up...or at least thats they way I interperted it. This was a very informational book on women and women's role within the Imperial Harrem which is not to be burried. I think the author wrote this book to remind everyone that Women did have a role and in actuality, women had alot to do with many of the things that went on in this system.
My reaction to The Imperial Harrem is surprised. It is interesting how women and even how slaves are portrayed in this book. Women were important, for they raised the son that could be control one day. They moved with him to an outside town and guided him. Compared to what I have learned about women from other societies and cultures, it is quite refreshing to find that they were respected here. They lived a good life to a certain extent. However had a bargain to hold up...or at least thats they way I interperted it. This was a very informational book on women and women's role within the Imperial Harrem which is not to be burried. I think the author wrote this book to remind everyone that Women did have a role and in actuality, women had alot to do with many of the things that went on in this system.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Expansion of The Ottoman Empire
This week in class we took alot of notes about the Turks and the Ottoman Empire. There's alot of new words and language that is unfamiliar to me which seems like alot. I think it's really interesting how The Ottoman Empire was so powerful in its day yet it wasn't a nasty power. People actually did not mind the Ottoman's since they did not really enforce a certain religion or way of like on anybody. I think that the way the empire conducted itself it really different compared to what I know as "powerful" empires or groups. When I think of powerful and expanding I think of forceful, unbearable, impearializing. I was really surprised that the Ottoman Empire was a threat to most but a comfortable threat, considering there would be no chnge in the ways of life for the people of whatever area they took over.
Today in class we talked about the fall of Constantinople which only 5,000 people occupired. The Sultan Mehmet brought 250,000 people to take over the Byzantine Empire but did not succeed right away. it actually took a month for the Ottoman's to actually take over the city and this marked the fall of the Byzantine Empire. I really liked analyzing the different types of sources and looking at how credible they might be. I thihk it's an important aspect of analyzing history because if we only relied on one source then we would never get the whole story, or any story at all for that matter.
Today in class we talked about the fall of Constantinople which only 5,000 people occupired. The Sultan Mehmet brought 250,000 people to take over the Byzantine Empire but did not succeed right away. it actually took a month for the Ottoman's to actually take over the city and this marked the fall of the Byzantine Empire. I really liked analyzing the different types of sources and looking at how credible they might be. I thihk it's an important aspect of analyzing history because if we only relied on one source then we would never get the whole story, or any story at all for that matter.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Fact or Fiction?
Monday, January 26th was the first lecture class. It was a introduction/review but I felt as though it was moving a little too fast for me. I have never taken any courses on the Middle East so there really is no review for me. I did think it was really interesting when Dr. Metcalf did the segment on myths of the Middle East. I for one found myself looking at the area a little differently after hearing how some of the things I thought were true of the people are not. It just goes to show how the United States media uses propaganda to make sure citizens think a certain way about other countries. I think that this class has opened my mind a bit and I do not feel as uncomfortable studying an area I do not know much about. I was particuarly surprised to find out the Muslims do believe in one God like Christianity and Judaism. Because they had a different name for it (Allah) I always thought they had different beliefs. Although I have more of an open mind about this course, I am still a bit hesistant and nervous because it seems like there is going to be so much to take in and learn. Since I do not have much of a background or foundation of Middle Eastern and African history, I will have to try and step outside of the America perspective and see things from a different view.
Friday, January 23, 2009
"Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
Thusday was the first day of class and I have admit that I was pretty nervous. I like history (I am a history major) but I am comfortable with American history. I have never taken any classes on the Middle East or Africa. I do not know much at all about either region and did not know what to expect. So, for the first day of class we watched a new movie that just became available to the public called, "Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." I was totally taken back when I was watching all of the violence that was going on and all of the violence that the United States has been supporting over there. I know that United States news anchors and journalists can be bias or use propoganda as a maniuplative tactic however, I never thought that a story could have 2 completely different sides of which neither have a solid purpose or objective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)