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.