Wrap up blog

Sorry if I have mixed together some of the weeks, I am not sure if my last blog was supposed to be part of this one. Anyway, I found the class very helpful in understanding current issues in the Middle East, most of the novels were suitable works that addressed different issues. I really wish there could have been more class discussions and that they had been more in depth, but I guess that just depends on class size. My favorite novel was The Bastard Of Istanbul because it discussed the Armenian genocide while tying in the creation of the Turkish national identity, which I think helped us to understand the significance of Ataturk’s reforms. I enjoyed reading Smith’s book on the Arab Israeli crisis, but think it would have been better discussing it in sections in class because he covered so much history I am afraid I got lost in some of the details. The documentaries were helpful tools, but I have become increasingly suspicious of them as it seems every professor finds inaccuracies in them, I might lose my faith in the History Channel.
I think the organization of the course allowed us to understand the historical events that led to the current situation in the Middle East, now embarrassed that I didn’t learn more about the Ottoman Empire which was so important and expansive.

We reviewed the circumstances of the Iranian revolution’s particular success, the religious tradition filling the vacuum as other ideologies failed. Right after we watched the documentary on Khomeini the controversial Iranian president Ahmadinejad popped up in the news again. In a anti-racism conference the president attacked the state of Israel and the west saying that after World War II they "resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless, on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of Holocaust". Anti- Western feeling in Iran is still apparently prevalent and the president seems to keep making inflammatory remarks against Israel that simply make the situation worse, only supporting anti-Semitic stereotype of the Middle East.
We discussed the novel Gate of the Gold Sun which I personally detested reading, though it made some good points overall. I better understood the reason for the writing style after the tradition he was following was mentioned in class. The novel gave the perspective of young Palestinian men fighting for a country they had never lived in, dealing with the failure of their ‘revolution’ from outside. The author seems to embrace victimhood for Palestinians, a topic that seems to come up a lot, while writing a political piece about resistance (sorry to repeat my comment from class, but I though it was important/odd part of the book). It was definitely helpful in understanding Palestinian perspective, but I think perhaps one novel with some Israeli perspective would be helpful, even though we are bombarded by it in the media.

We discussed the involvement of other Arab nations over the Palestinian-Israeli issue, Nasser’s need to lead the Arabs in order to remain in a prominent position among the Arab nations.
The prominence of the U.S. in the in conflict is important to Israeli’s historical advantage, and that is why the Obama administration’s reaction to the new prime minister’s negative attitude to peace talks could possibly give a bit of hope to the situation. Though minister Netanyahu is not for a two state solution, saying a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israeli security, pressure from the United State could be an important factor for the future. Obama has made it clear that the current situation is not acceptable, and American support is important for Israel. This is discussed in this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7963503.stm. Foreign influence has proven to be an important part of the developments in this conflict, starting with the British at the beginning of the twentieth century and eventually transferring to the U.S., and now we seem to be changing our stance on the issue (from what I understand). I wish we could spend more time on this topic, though we have read so much about it, the conflict is so controversial and complicated it would be helpful as an American citizen for more information.
We watched and later finished the documentary on the rise of Khomeini and the Islamic revolution that put him in power, to the shock of the U.S. I was surprised to find that so many groups could support this figure, communists and religious clerics, mostly because he was against U.S. influence and the shah. It is difficult to discuss Khomeini objectively, since take over of the U.S. embassy and holding hostages has always been a hot topic in my family. Even now that I understand the angry response to American influence and the harboring of the hated shah it is hard to understand the violence towards ambassadors and diplomats.

We continued discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict this week, covering important events that led to the current situation, the leadership of Nasser in Arab nationalism. The documentary that showed Smith’s lecture was helpful, repeating what we have been talking about and what was in his book.
I looked at the DeirYassin.org site, remembering a massacre of the village of Deir Yassin by Jerusalem, part of the nakba. This site wants the Palestinians experience as victims to be acknowledged, a familiar topic in this class by now. The perspective is obviously slanted, but it is useful because it preserves memory of the people not the (Israeli) state history that typically dominates. The documentary uses space, the Deir Yassin cemetery that is no longer maintained, to show the oblivious feeling toward the village’s history and the deaths of civilians. The silenced group’s experience is important for the proper portrayal of history.
I have been paying attention to the BBC’s news website, and they have been discussing the denial of war crimes by the Israeli state in Gaza and the new prime minister’s conservative anti-negotiation attitude. After watching the documentary and reading Smith’s book it seems terrible that the violence continues, that Israelis fear attacks and Palestinians still live in camps not their homes. The building of Jewish settlements and the fear of Palestinians that the state will never truly dedicate itself to the two state solution, that will end the fragmentation of their communities, as addressed here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7919832.stm.
I personally did not enjoy reading Touba though it was an interesting attempt at showing societal change over 80 years in Iran and the situation of women.

The comparison of Ataturk and Reza Shah was helpful in understanding the difficulties facing emerging nations that were struggling to recover from the ‘failure’ of their societal structures. The creation of nation state and identity has been mentioned in other history class as a long process that is not necessarily successful since an all encompassing image may fail to meet the needs of traditionally marginalized groups. For Turkey the denial of the Armenian genocide was part of the new positive image. Ataturk and Reza Shah’s programs of modernization and secularization were based upon the idea that their countries had failed and that Western ‘civilization’ succeeded. The creation of nation state identity is not natural and in these two countries was part of the reforms of these individuals and then pushed by the state. The comparison helped to show the possible failure of such an attempt, as Ataturk’s program led to the fundamental ideals of modern Turkey but Reza Shah’s Iran experience political upheavals during the twentieth century.
I really enjoyed Smith’s book on the Arab Israeli conflict, even if I was the only one. I already mentioned in class that the strong leadership and resources of the Israelis greatly disadvantaged the Palestinians, eventually leading to their lack of free agency in the future of their own country. The systematic displacement of Palestinians through force and land sales coupled with the settlement of Jews resulted in the majority of the population losing their homes and rights. As for the issue that arose in class about the objectivity of historians I highly doubt that any writer is ever truly objective, but I believe he does present all issues involved while favoring the Palestinian experience with the support of important documents. The belief that text books or any historical source can be objective, seems, ridiculous because everyone has an agenda.

Beginnings of the Arab Israeli conflict (week 10)

I never learned about the history and formation of Zionism before, it was always presented to me as coming from a united group and so I was somewhat surprised to learn about the factionalized history of Zionists. The evolution of Zionism, the original objectives of Herzl are different from our understanding of Zionism today since he wanted practically any place where Jews could simply have security, not specifically based on heritage. The initial tolerant attitude of the Ottomans to Jewish immigrants (expect in Palestine) contrasts sharply with the Arabs’ later fear of the rise of Jewish influence. The sudden change in atmosphere in the 1920s and 1930s, as Arabs and the British begin to react to the high number of Jewish immigrants, marks the outward discomfort with their presence. The change in social and cultural understanding of the two groups is useful when watching the news on the conflict, as the issue came up in class that some people are given the impression by the media that this conflict is centuries old. The movement of Palestinians and Israelis was forced, as land in the Middle East was negotiated over by Europeans and Zionists pursued their objective of moving in Jewish settlers. The Palestinians first turned to the British for help, trying to get restrictions on immigration and land sales, but eventually turned to revolting. I thought it was interesting how foreign influence was important in the formation of Israel, since the support of the United States and Americans Jews was important to the success of Zionists while Palestinians did not equal support from another nation.

Divvying up the Ottoman Empire (week 9)

We discussed the shady secret treaties of the early twentieth century in which European countries followed imperialistic agenda in the Middle East, and Zionism in politics. A long list of treaties and promises were mentioned, but mostly involved Europeans maneuvering for more land and unfortunately leaving Arab leaders, such as Sherif Husayn, with vague promises that were never fulfilled. They used a language of prejudice and superiority, European nations promising to assist emerging Arab nations in the formation of their governments.
The documentary about the Armenian genocide helped me to further understand the issue, giving faces to the large number murdered and displaced. The circumstances of the deportation were brutal- people went on six day forced marches designed to exhaust and eventually kill them. The tactics used are chillingly familiar- are similar to what the Nazis would later use during the Holocaust, they even used box cars to transport some people.
I thought it was really interesting how politicians in the documentary were arguing over whether it was a genocide because there supposedly was no Ottoman intent to destroy the group and because Armenians were not ‘innocent’ victims, because they resisted. It is incredible that people can still argue over whether these civilians were deserving or undeserving of pity. The Turkish government’s official denial of the genocide is really interesting, though terrible, it is institutionalized and taught to children in school. They mentioned that the genocide was practically forgotten in Europe because it recognized ‘new’ Turkey, the formation of statehood involved rejecting Armenian experience and memory.

Week After Spring Break (8)

This week I was interested in the increased influence in the Middle East and the rejection of independence and sovereignty in their own nations. We learned about British influence in Egypt after Ali Pasha’s death, and how it became a protectorate not a ‘colony’, etc. I always find hypocrisy of ‘Western’ countries fascinating, when such nations are presented as ‘modern’ but because of their own political and economic agenda stop progress- the International Debt Commission (French and British control over Egyptian finances) stopped the Western style constitution of 1879 because it called for the country’s financial autonomy. They then pushed for a leader more easily manipulated then Khedie Ismail in Egypt. Ottoman laws restricting land sales to Europeans and the policy of welcoming Jews fleeing Europe in anywhere but Palestine were ignored.
I really enjoyed reading the Bastard of Istanbul since it addressed some pretty interesting issues, and led to some good comments during the class discussion. Not to repeat myself, but I found the portrayal of the two different communities (Turkish and American Armenian) was useful, Armenian victimhood vs. Turkey’s denial of a historic event. The creation of a new national identity by Ataturk, which changing the script, names and traditions of the people, was based on the rejection of negative aspects of the Ottoman past. The new state could not afford the Armenian genocide to be connected to it, a sort of beautification process was underway. Characters in the novel show this, since they present Ottoman history as unrelated to their experience and culture and have accepted propaganda undermining Armenian experience. The discussion of the labeling genocide and our lack of knowledge of this particular example revealed a lot about Americans’ understanding of history and politics, when compared against prominent representation of Holocaust survivors’ suffering in our textbooks and media.
Essay:
The Bastard Of Istanbul
In The Bastard Of Istanbul Elif Shafak addresses the issues of memory and identity for twenty-first century Turks and Armenians concerning to the 1915 Armenian genocide. Approaching this subject through a fictional novel, Shafak questions the two groups’ understanding of the genocide and each other. Shafak suggests that the Turks and Armenians’ relationships with history have been problematic and very different. Armenians choose to remember and associate themselves with the past while Turks live in the present and do not recognize their Ottoman heritage as relevant to their current lives. A silencing and ignorance of history is typical of Turks in The Bastard Of Istanbul on both a national and a personal level, for example Zelthia consciously forgets the trauma of being raped. Shafak explores two worlds in which her characters actively put themselves in the place of the victims or are the oblivious citizens of a country that has committed crimes against humanity unpunished. Shafak compares and contrasts Armenians and Turks using two young female characters, Armanoush and Asya, to display the ignorance between the two communities since their separation. She also questions the position of Turkey in the modern day world, as some Turks fear being seen as Middle Eastern by the ‘West’ and conservatives wish to cling to their Islamic roots. Shafak examines the importance of memory and the Armenian genocide in the formation of identity and nation for Armenians, and the impact Ottoman history and heritage in almost European Turkey, she complicates identity in order to bring the two groups closer together.
The Turks and Armenian Americans in The Bastard of Istanbul have to deal with the evolution of identity in Turkey since the genocide. Armanoush, an Armenian American college student, has been brought up with the collective memory that Ottoman oppression is ongoing in present day Turkey. Other characters she interacts with, Armenian, Greek and other former Ottoman minorities, fear for her safety among the Turks before she travels to present day Istanbul. They warn her, in the anti- Turk chat she joined, that the police will stop her because of her ethnic name and call her their “war reporter,” following the idea that she will be witnessing the conflict on the ground in Istanbul. Their experience and understanding is based on their memory as victims of the Ottoman Empire. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Ottoman Empire went through a complicated process that questioned its Ottomanist identity as all encompassing of its many minorities against the growing Arab or Islamic feeling. The Young Turks involved some minorities in deposing the sultan in 1909 with feelings of Ottomanism. Unfortunately this all encompassing identity did not survive as different communities wanted autonomy, and the state came to see Armenians as part of the World War I Russian threat within their population. The deportation and murder of Armenians ensued in 1915 and Armanoush’s family, the Tchakmakhchians, moved to the United States with bitter memories and pain that had not been given closure due to the denial of the Turkish government.
Though the majority of the novel takes place in the twentieth century, the Armenian experience seems to revolve around the genocide and ultimately looks toward the past not the future. At this point, Shakah examines the permanent image of Turks that the frightened victims have and disputes the claims of a continuation of the struggle. The heritage Armanoush seems to inherit is that of surviving victims. Her Armenian family in the United States keeps a collective memory of the massacre but still fears some aspects of life, such as standing out intellectually because the Ottomans went after “the brains” of their society. These are valid memories, but the Tchakmakhchian family cling to each other and make outsiders not as concerned with the struggle uncomfortable or unwelcome. In the United States the family makes Armanoush’s mother feel like an outside, “odar,” and the young girl talks about remembering the genocide when on a date with an American. Though they champion the “collective spirit” that allowed them to survive, as victims or not, Turks are aware that Armenian Americans trumpet the image of the oppressive Turk and this affects the identity of the Turks.
In the novel, characters in Turkey suffer from a variety of identity problems related to their position as an Islamic country on the edges of European ‘Western’ society. While the Armenians struggle to keep the memories of the early twentieth century alive, Shafak portrays Turks as having systematically forgotten their Ottoman history through laws and personal choice. In the 1920s the government pushed the new national identity and more reforms that were more like the ‘Western’ world. The reforms portrayed the Ottoman Empire as something that socially ended with the official change transition to the Turkish Republic. Asya is deeply involved in this problem as represents the youth of Turkey, the representation of Istanbul when Armanoush arrives, and the symbolic representation of forgetting. Asya and her young Turkish friends discuss the influence of former Ottoman minorities in the United States in damaging the image of Turkey as a modern secular state. Before the novel confronts the disputed subject with the interaction of Armanoush and Asya, this idea of Turkey on the edge of Europe is often emphasized. Whereas the Armenians have a strong identity supported by history, in Shafak’s novel Turks struggle for an identity while often forgetting or ignoring the past and only looking toward the future.
The two groups are personified in the characters of Armanoush and Asya, who deal with identity and forgetting or remembering directly. As Armanoush travels to Istanbul to better understand the conflict and stays with Asya’s unknowing family the Kazancis, she adjusts her preconceived notions of Turks and tries to understand the average Turkish experience. There is a literal fight when the Armenian genocide is mentioned to Asya’s friends, portraying part of the society that is nationalist and accepts the official story, personified by a character that is called “The Nonnationalist Scenarist of Ultra-nationalist Movies.” This character previously feigned disinterest in history and nationalism, but violently reacts and argues that the genocide was a product of ‘The premodern era and its premodern tragedies.” She addresses an attitude of Turks that ignores the experience of the Ottoman minorities, distancing themselves from the problem by saying it happened in a different time, or even country.
In an interview Shafak explained that her novel contrasts the collectivity of Armenian experience against the “collective amnesias” of the Turks. This is shown in most of the Turks’ lack of knowledge and interest in the masses, and symbolically through Asya’s experience and relationship to forgetting. Shafak gradually unfolds the mystery surrounding Asya’s heritage as the ‘bastard’ of the novel, and it appears that she is the product of the traumatic rape of Zelthia by her brother Mustafa. Zelthia censors herself and does not talk about Asya’s father while Mustafa flees Istanbul for the United States, one of the earlier conversations Armanoush has with him reveals that he is isolated from and is not curious about history. This is the epitome of forgetting in Turkish society, and Asya suffers from not knowing her personal history and heritage, her identity as an individual is weak like all Turks that are unaware of their heritage. Identity in the novel is further confused and tangled by Shafak as it is revealed that the Bazancis are descended from Armanoush’s Armenian grandmother who fled to America to embrace her identity as a survivor. The Bazancis have grown as people without any awareness of Armenians in their family or their society, results of the genocide and the official treatment of the event. Armanoush’s grandmother left her first husband, a Turk, who would not speak of the event to his family members afterward. The separation of the two groups from each other in the novel is complicated. Their relationship to history and each other is portrayed as much closer and more important than Turks believe.
The Bastard of Istanbul is a beautiful piece that addresses issues of identity in both the Armenian American and Turkish communities. Shafak tries to pick away at the relationships between the two groups, weaving their ‘separate’ stories into a complicated history that demands more understanding and direct confrontation. The characters’ are directly affected by the Armenian genocide in 1915 and the subsequent attempt to break away from Ottoman identity. Shafak addresses the Turkish stance towards history, which ignores Ottoman heritage as useless to the present. She questions this detachment symbolically through Asya who has tried to move on without knowing her heritage, which involves the Armenians and trauma, but cannot form her identity fully and suffers. Turks, in Shafak’s novel, have detached themselves from the Ottomans and tried to choose either European culture or Islamic traditional culture. Armanoush portrays Armenians who have developed a collective memory of the genocide, but cannot progress either as they live in the past and seem to live as victims ninety years later. Shafak seems to suggest a much more complicated situation for both groups that involves each other and is not a simplistic choice between remembering or forgetting the past and choosing between ‘Western’ and Islamic. Shafak develops the novel as a quest to understand identity and history, as the characters struggle with the separation of the Ottoman heritage and modern Turkey.

Extra Credit:

The discussion between the representatives of Israel and Palestine (Saeb Erakat, Chief Negotiator for Palestine, and Avi Gil, former Director-General of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Israel's Ministry of Regional Cooperation) was extremely interesting, I was a bit surprised that they so readily agreed on the need for a two state solution considering the often conflicting feelings of the two groups. Though it was certainly refreshing to hear such an open minded discussion, it seemed too nice and now a little idealistic considering the outcome of the Israeli election, which put in place (from what I understand) Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative administration that is not open to ‘land for peace’ deals and the two state solution.
Either way, the two men presented the conflict over land as something that both sides sought an ‘historic’ end to because of the violence experienced by both. Avi Gil emphasized Israeli vulnerability because of the continuation of attacks on Israel even after the withdrawal from the Gaza strip and the Iranian’s president’s negative comments towards the state. Saeb Erakat emphasized Palestinian vulnerability saying that he had ‘no army, no borders, no power’ while Israel had the options with the strongest army in the Middle East. He also appealed to us as Americans saying that we are everywhere but we ‘cannot defend ideas with marines,’ and tried to make it clear that bias against Arab perspective and the belief that they are not for peace but violence is racist. Erakat’ speech directly attacked racism of the ‘West’ and Israel, mentioning the settlements in Gaza.
Both men agreed to negotiation based on equality which does seem to be possible now with new Israeli prime minister. The U.S.’s involvement, which we learned the history of in Smith’s book, was mentioned and is clearly sour issue from the Arab point of view. Overall the talk was educational but was too diplomatic.

Week 7

The two documents we read Hatt-i Sharif of Gulhane and the Hatt-I Humayun were important to the reformation and future of the Ottoman Empire, as they tried to address various issues related to their diverse subjects and foreign powers that were trying to divvy up these regions. The “Bill of Rights” seems to flesh out and reiterate some of the ideas in the Gulhane Proclamation, generally focusing on the equality of all subjects regardless of their religions. The documents do mention some familiar ideas trying to regulate things that are related to private property and criminal trials. It does reflect the amount of foreign influence in the Ottoman Empire, which became a problem as those who studied French ideas were favored over those who were traditionally taught in religious schools. It does seem progressive for the Ottomans to be tying to incorporate new ideas and reform their society, but some Muslims saw this as a rejection of the values the Empire had been built on.
I think that the reactions to these proclamations in the Balkans would vary because although it encouraged religious freedom (which would be positively received) it encouraged a common Ottoman identity that might clash with their own nationalism. Also, the first document, the Gulhane Proclamation, was given in 1839 which was five years after the end of the institution of the Janissaries, who were conscripted mostly from the Balkans. The Gulhane document mentions the troops and regulation of their service, and I was just wondering if this would anger people in the Balkans because the Janissaries had been against the newly European trained soldiers and that possibly people still in this region would feel the same way.

The film “To Die In Jerusalem” was helpful, as it seemed to show the ignorance and lack of communication and understanding between Israelis and Palestinians. As I mentioned on Blackboard, Rachel’s mother annoyed me somewhat because she was not interested in compromise or learning about the reality of the occupation. Of course, both sides are “victims of the state of Israel” as Ayat’s mother said, it is such a complex situation in which both sides suffer tremendously. I have been noticing some stories on the BBC website concerning the current issues in Israel, and I was really surprised to see that they plan to build some thousand more settlements, after seeing “To Die In Jerusalem” this left me deeply concerned and pessimistic for future peace in the area. Yet, I was again surprised earlier today to see that Hilary Clinton in her visit to Israel mentioned that she thought the destruction of Palestinian homes was an issue though the U.S. still completely supported Israel. This seems like a positive development, though I honestly am a bit confused by the elections and the significance of the coalition government, I hope we eventually discuss this in class.

Week 6

The class discussion on Zayni Barakat seemed to focus on the use of spies mostly, and the use of historical fiction as a political tool. Though I do not completely understand the comparison, the historical points in the book are still important and the themes are apparent. As I mentioned in class, I thought the control of heralds and therefore information to manipulate the masses was important, still an issue today with the objectivity of our journalists. The use of fear to control the population and wariness of students (or any intellectuals) by the authorities seems to be a common theme in history, students usually seem to be targeted as dissenters and disappearances have continuously been used by authoritarian regimes to cause confusion and submission (like in the ‘dirty war’ in Argentina). The contradictory and complex character of Zayni Barakat seemed to reflect typical themes of strong figures in history, as his true motives are questionable, he was hired to be muhtasib because he was an honorable man but the position gave men great opportunity to profit, and he easily switched loyalties when the Ottomans took over. Al-Ghitani gave a clear description of Egyptian society throughout the book, mentioning such things as the increase of power with closer proximity to the sultan, the dislike of the foreign Mamluks by Egyptians and the diversity of students in Cairo among other things.

Week 5

I found the weaknesses and problems within the Ottoman government that were discussed in class this week interesting. It seemed somewhat strange that the Ottomans, who seem to have good administrators thus far, would not realize the importance of the navies, and allowing other nations to handle their trade in return for submission. It just seems like a strange oversight for a nation that has been able to control vast territories and manage those people would trust trade, or not see the Portuguese’s’ power over them as a threat. The change in social status and role of the Janissaries is also interesting (sorry for being repetitive), as they started to become elites and ignore the rules the empire has for them, like not being able to marry. This would definitely seem like a problem, as it threatens the social structure and requires change because they no longer suit the purposes they were intended for. The increase of power of any military institution certainly seems problematic and can affect the government’s control.
The growth of European power and advantage with the numerous losses and unequal treaties is unfortunate, it reminds me of any other regions’ treaties with Europe. Treaties between European countries, especially Britain, and China in the 19th century seem similar to the Turks’ situation. The formerly strong country also lost power and was forced to allow more European interference in China through set tariffs on imports into the country. Though we discussed how the Ottomans were not as weak at this time as some historians portray them, this does seem like a negative indication for the future of the Empire concerning its complete autonomy.

Week 4

This week we discussed Pierce’s book The Imperial Harem, which I overall enjoyed reading and I thought that the class’ comments were interesting. I think that she successfully challenged the typical ‘Western’ idea of what a harem really was in the Ottoman Empire, seems like the typical theme of ‘Western’ understanding of Middle Eastern culture and racism is again an issue. As the class discussed, our understanding of slavery is different from the kind described in the book, in which the slaves can rise to power and have some sort of life.
A typical idea that seems to be pop up every semester in history classes- are the ‘victims’ or ‘oppressed’ just that and submissive, or are they active players in their lives? Women in the harem certainly seemed to have some opportunity to work within the system- they were involved in politics once their sons were sent away and they acted as regents and accumulated wealth. We discussed this all in class, but am just saying that I support the idea that their role was more complex then ‘concubine of the sultan’ a.k.a slave would seem to imply. Though this is a limited portion of the population, its reflection on Ottoman culture is important and does seem to encourage discussion.

3rd week- sorry, I couldn't find the word document I saved this in until now!

I found it interesting earlier in this week’s class, when Dr. Metcalf briefly mentioned the gazi warriors being misunderstood, that they happen to be Muslims that were warriors, conquerors, seems to be a theme in history/media now, tying Islam to violence.

The whole idea of the Janissaries is fascinating, slaves from conquered areas being used as soldiers and rising up in societies. The somewhat elaborate system is pretty clever, they were slaves and had limitations like they couldn’t marry until retiring, but then these boys were given immense opportunity to rise up in the Ottoman hierarchy and cumulate wealth. It worked well for the Ottomans, because they took the strongest, most promising boys for their army, and the families of the children eventually understood the positive aspects of exchange. It was just generally interesting, sorry if I am summarizing a little bit.

The lecture on the Fall of Constantinople was interesting, and I really enjoyed the discussion of the different versions of the Fall of Constantinople. The ingenuity of Mehmet II was clear- he actually built a castle nearby to base his siege from, to be honest it peaked my interest as a tourist if nothing else! The siege and fall of the city was important however, since Constantinople was the “symbolic center of eastern Christendom” until it fell, and Istanbul proved to be strategically located for the Ottomans.[1]

Comparing the different accounts of the event and discussing which would be more influential to a historian was surprising, as I had a completely different view from the rest of the class. The issue of the use of subjective accounts in research has been coming up in other classes, and usually brings heated discussion. I still stick by my choice, the second article, as the most useful but I understand whole all the accounts are important to research in their own way, even the last account in which the Christian author used a historical event for his political agenda.

---

[1] Cleveland 39

Islamic culture and the Seljik Turks

In class last week we learned a little more about Islamic culture and the beginnings of the Ottoman Empire. I already knew some of basic information about the religion, but I was interested to read and learn about women in the culture and more similarities to Christianity. In one of the books, Esposito's I believe, they mention that Mary, mother of Jesus, is mentioned more times in the Quran than she is in the New Testament, and then in class we learned about Muhammad’s first wife who was a strong woman who ran her own business and proposed to Muhammad. This contrasts with the typical portrayal of the sexist nature of Islam, as we had learned about the choice involved in wearing a veil and its meaning in modern society. In previous classes I have tended to be more interested in gender issues, and will probably bring this up in the future, just to warn you all.

This is the first history class I have taken that really discusses the history of the Turks, and the rather large scale battle of Manziked between the Seljik Turks and the Byzantines was interesting. The outcome of the battle was particularly important as they moved into Anatolia and the area went from a Greek speaking Christian area to a Turkish speaking Muslim one (Cleveland 33). Later the Mongols come and are characteristically disruptive, and affect Turkish culture.

The film we watched in the first class was still on my mind earlier this week, and when I was looking through ‘Middle East’ section on http://news.bbc.co.uk/ I noticed the different portrayal of civilian causalities. There was a story about a little girl who was recovering from severe wounds from a fire started by Israeli soldiers who used white phosphorus, which causes terrible burns. I can’t find that particular story now, but here is another one about a family that was affected by the fires: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7848768.stm. Out of curiosity I looked at the international part of CNN’s site, which I have never liked, and could not find a similar story or one that was concerned over the use of white phosphorus against civilians. I did find another on the BBC site which further discussed the use of white phosphorus and concerns by human rights groups (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7850085.stm). This seems to follow the idea of the film we watched, that the U.S. media does not give a fair portrayal of the situation even when civilians are targeted with dangerous weapons.

response to "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land"

This film quite obviously reflects the Palestinian side of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, but this was refreshing because we rarely get that perspective in our regular news coverage, as the film stresses. In “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land” we are finally given the opposing view, which focuses on the errors on the part of the Israelis. Since this is my first class on the Middle East and I have been exposed to American media my entire life, I do not have much of a background on this side of the conflict except from some discussions with other students majoring in history at Mville who have studied this subject. Last semester I attended a lecture by Omer S. Bajwa of Yale University, which was organized by the Muslim Student Association and focused on the media’s influence on the public’s perception of Islam and Muslims. Though the lecture was on a broader topic, Bajwa discussed the slanted portrayal of Muslims in the media and the typical misunderstanding of Americans of Middle Eastern history, analyzing the typical language and images we have come to associate with Islam and terrorism. Bajwa gave various examples of Muslims being shown at fault and as violent aggressors, and I immediately called to mind his problems with the media when watching the film.

The different specialists and commentators in the film discussed the multi-faceted factors in America’s involvement and news coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. These different points were interesting, and mostly involved deconstructing the pro- Israeli themes in the media, asking “Does the news coverage reflect the situation on the ground?” in the beginning of the film. Particularly interesting was the use of language in the ‘P.R.’ campaign (for example, constantly stating that Israel is retaliating against Palestinian militants instead of discussing its role as the occupier), the pressure put on American journalists who question the occupation, and the fact that Israel has been accused of war crimes and is in violation of the Geneva Convention. Obviously this is not a cut and dry issue, since Palestinians have committed acts of violence, but the film’s attempt at questioning the objectivity of our journalists was certainly thought provoking and should lead to more well rounded discussions of the conflict (in our class, hopefully). I would be curious to find news websites that further present the Palestinian side of this issue; I sadly do not have much more to offer at the moment on the topic.