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.