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.
Monday, April 27, 2009
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)