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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.