Wrap Up Blog

This class was actually one of the tougher ones I have take in my years in college.  I am about 2 weeks away from graduation and it has amazed me throughout how little I knew about the Middle-East.  I am a History minor and most of my courses have been centered around US/European History with some Latin America sprinkled in.  The Middle East was totally left out of my curriculum until this year.  The history of the Middle East is a deep, rich one.  There are so many different places, events and people that make up the history of the Middle East.  I never realized how many different battles there were and how strong some of the empires were.  The Ottoman Empire for example was one of the strongest, fiercest empires of all time!  I never knew how well trained their militaries were and how they even used muskets and gun powder before most other nations.  The second major thing that I learned was about the Armenian Genocide.  I had never heard about it until this semester.  To know that this event preceded what went on in Nazi Germany truly boggles my mind.  This was just as heinous an act as anything in history!  You would think that people would've have risen up after the Armenian Genocide and not let something so bad happen in Nazi Germany.  You hear so much about the Holocaust, but not much about the Armenian Genocide.  I'm not saying people should hear about the Holocaust less, I am just saying that the Armenian Genocide deserves more attention then it gets.  Overall, there was a lot of reading and work in this class, but after finishing up everything it seems pretty satisfying to learn some new stuff I didn't know before.   

Iran/Iraq War Might Not Have Happened If....

I am just putting this out there, and people may not agree with me, but I think the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980's would not have happened if Reza Shah was able to get support for his western reforms in Iran before the Iranian Revolution.  If he would have been able to get the full support of the people and completely westernize Iran, there most likely would not have been a war.  At the time of the war, Iraq was not considered part of this Islamic Union that other countries were a part of.  Ayatollah Khomeini believed that Iraq's government was evil and needed to be defeated and replaced with a government centered around Islam.  Just think if Khomeini never won the people over and the Western reforms started by Reza Shah would have stuck.  Iran would've been a modern "western type" state and therefore most likely would not have had a conflict with Iraq.  I just thought that was an interesting thought and I wanted to share it with everyone.  

Gate of The Sun -"Seeing Through Palestinian Eyes"

The conflict between Jews and Arabs has been going on almost one hundred years now.  Millions of lives have already been lost and to this day there is still fighting, so those numbers are sure to increase.  A lot gets lost during these times of war between Israel and Palestine.  Westerners get caught up and tend to see the conflict from the eyes of the Israeli people.  They don’t truly understand that the Palestinians have eyes too.  Westerners throw out labels of “murderers” and “terrorists,” and I am not suggesting that some aren’t.  I’m suggesting that some people on the Israeli side can be considered “terrorists” and “murderers” also. 

            The fictional novel, Gate of the Sun written by Elias Khoury, does a great job of showing the conflict from the eyes of the Palestinian people.  In this novel, you can see that the Palestinian people are not cold-blooded killers and that they even have sympathy and compassion for their Israeli counterparts.  The author does a tremendous job of telling the story of the Palestinian people through the stories of a few fictional characters. 

            The Arab –Israeli conflict has roots in the fall of the Ottoman Empire.  During that time, there was a mad dash to determine what to do with the areas of the fallen Empire.  Countries such as Britain, France and Russia all had a stake in what to do with the land.  These countries totally disregarded the thoughts and feelings of the Arab people that were already living in these areas.  These people were shuffled around all over what is now known as the Middle East.  Also during this time, there was a rise in what is known as Zionism.  Zionism is essentially known as the policy to establish and develop a homeland for the Jewish people.  Through much debate with the occupying countries, most notably the British, the Zionists agreed that their homeland should be stationed within the borders of Palestine, which is an Arab state.  More and more Jewish people began to migrate to Palestine.  With the aid of Jewish Para-military units known as the Stern Gang and the Irgun, the nation of Israel was officially formed in 1948. 

            The new nation of Israel was officially recognized by the United States and Britain, and a new government was installed.  Approximately twenty years after the creation of Israel, the Six Day War occurred and forced more and more Palestinians from their homes.  Israel was able to conquer more and more territory including Golan Heights and the West Bank.  Once again, by doing so forced more and more people from their homes. 

Today, not much has changed within the confines of the conflict.  Palestinian forces have terrorized the Israeli people and the Israeli’s have fired back and organized their own attacks as well.  These are the events that are shown all over the news, but what is missing is a sense on how the people of Palestine really feel.  That is what Khoury has done in Gate of The Sun.  It gives Westerners a look into the feelings of the Palestinian people and gives the conflict a new perspective.

The book is based primarily around the two main Palestinian characters Dr. Khalil Ayyoub and a man named Yunes.  Yunes is in a hospital somewhere in Lebanon and is being cared for by Khalil.  Yunes has suffered a stroke and is now in a coma.  Yunes used to be a freedom fighter in the Palestinian military and has had many experiences before the formation of Israel and after into the 1990’s.  Khalil sees Yunes as a hero and even goes as far as to call him a father figure. 

Since Yunes is in a coma, Khalil stays at his bedside night after night and reminisces about stories from his own past and stories from Yunes’ past.  He hopes that the stories will eventually wake Yunes from the coma and bring him back.  This is where you, as the reader, get a real sense of how the Palestinian people were feeling during these terrible times of conflict. 

You hear of the story of Yunes as a freedom fighter and how the Israeli government wants to capture him.  He is forced to be on the run for the most of his life because he was a freedom fighter.  Khalil tells the stories of Yunes and his wife and how they have to always meet at the cave known as The Gate of The Sun.  This is the only time they were able to see each other because Yunes was always on the run.  They ate many meals and even conceived children at this spot. 

This story in particular gives readers a look into what life as a Palestinian can be.  Yunes stuck up for his people and his land as a freedom fighter and then had to pay the ultimate price of not being able to be with his family because he was wanted by the Israeli government.  His wife constantly has to live in fear and is even stopped by Israeli police because she is pregnant.  She eventually lies and tells them that the baby isn’t Yunes and that she is pregnant because she cheated on him.  The reason she does this is because Yunes was on the run and couldn’t risk exposing him.  It shows how the Arab Israeli conflict can ruin the lives of the people involved in it. 

Some of the other stories that Khalil speaks about are real life events that occurred.  He speaks on the Holocaust and sympathizes with the Jewish people.  He says that nobody should’ve sat around silently while this terrible act of genocide was occurring in Nazi Germany.  This is the first sign of sympathy towards the Jewish people.  This is significant in the story because it shows that Palestinian men are not just animals and cold blood murderers.  Westerners believe that the Arabs want to kill all Jews and their supporters, but it is simply not the case.  The next story that shows sympathy towards Jews is the story about the Munich Olympics where Jewish athletes were killed.  Khalil tells the readers how Yunes was against those kinds of acts and actually took a stand against it.  Once again, this shows that even a Palestinian soldier feels compassion towards the Jewish people and is not simply a terrorist or a murderer. 

The most important stories in the novel are the stories of the people who occupied Palestine.  Through these small vignettes, the reader gets a sense of who the Arab Palestinians are as people.  This can open a lot of eyes in Western culture and can show that these people were treated terribly and are not just barbarians. 

In conclusion, this work of fiction does a tremendous job of showing Westerners that the Palestinian people have such a deep, rich culture.  The stories in this book allow the Palestinian story to be told to the Western world.  The author shows that they are people as well and not just terrorists and murderers.  While reading this book, readers gets a sense of who the Palestinians are as people and why they are struggling just as much, if not more, than their Israeli counterparts.  The Arab-Israeli conflict has affected millions of innocent people and has negatively affected all who are involved.  This book finally shows the conflict through the eyes of the Palestinian and that seems to be a tremendous step in maybe finding peace.             

Recent Israel/Arab News

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/21/israel.iran.nazi/index.html#cnnSTCText

I read this article today on CNN.com speaking about some recent barbs fired by Ahmadinejad of Iran and Israel's vice Prime Minster Silvan Shalom.  Shalom was firing back at Iran after Iran leader Ahmadinejad came out and publicly called Israel a racists government who kicked out the Arab people of Palestine due to their race.  Shalom fired back by calling Iran "like Nazi Germany."  Those are fighting words if I ever heard them.  Both of these nations believe that the other is constantly in the wrong.  That has been the root of this conflict for many years.  But once again, I pose the question, who really is right in this situation?  I would say that both sides have a legitimate argument.  What does everyone else think? 

The Six Day War and it's effects

The Six Day War was one of the most crucial moments in the history of the Arab Israeli Conflict.  Nasser rallied arab nations and positioned them to remove the UNEF peacekeeping forces from the Sinai Peninsula.  Nasser's idea of pan arabism was at the center of the mobilization of these arab forces in the region.  You really can't blame Nasser for mobilizing these troops to reclaim land that he believed belonged to the Arabs.  There had been so many contradictory attempts to divide land and keep peace that it was inevitable that this would occur.  The mobilization of the troops got Israel's attention and in 6 days they inflicted a humiliating attack on the Arab forces.  They were able to acquire more and more land including the West Bank and Golan Heights.  I think it could be argued that if the Arabs were not ambushed by the Israeli's there might be a totally different picture in Israel.  Israel might not be an official Jewish state today if the Arab forces led by Nasser were successful in this war.    

Deir Yassin

I just visited the Deir Yassin Remembered web site and learned some facts that I did not know about.  I read through some of the material and learned that indeed the events at Deir Yassin is definitely a massacre of sorts.  Obviously it is not on the scale of some other massacres in history, but it is a massacre nonetheless.  I do agree with some of the statements on the site that Westerners are finally viewing Palestinians as Human Beings.  Personally, I was probably guilty of looking at Palestinian people as "terrorists" or as bad human beings, but my feelings have changed more recently.  I do believe that those who attack the United States are terrorists and that they should be held accountable for killing innocents.  But I also now have an understanding of what the Palestinian people are going through and it is truly terrible.  The fact that these people constantly live in fear is terrible, and I am more understanding now than before.  

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, more successful than Reza Shah

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was much more successful in reforming his country than Reza Shah for a few reasons.  The first, and what I feel is the major reason why he was successful, was that the reforms in Turkey during the Ottoman Empire were already underway before Ataturk began to reform.  Ataturk essentially expanded on these western reforms that were already in place, and it allowed for the people to adapt them easier.  In Iran, under Reza Shah, these reforms were totally new ideas and it was perceived as very radical by the people.  The second reason that Ataturk was more successful is because he was forced to create a state and government at the same time which allowed them to fuse together.  Reza Shah had to create a new government in a state that already existed, which made it much harder for the reforms to work.  One of the final reasons that Ataturk was successful was because he took power by popular revolution, whereas Reza Shah took power in Iran by a coup d'etat.  Obviously, the people are supporting Ataturk with the revolution and Reza Shah is forcing his ideas on the people of Iran.  These are all just a few reasons why Ataturk was successful and Reza Shah was not. 

Reza Shah and his Western Reforms

Reza Shah did what he believed was necessary to do in Iran.  He believed that he needed to "modernize" Iran and kick out the traditional way of life in order to compete in the changing world around him.  The traditional culture essentially failed in the face of Westernization.  There was tremendous pressure to rebuild and keep up with the Western powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and Reza Shah did what he felt was necessary to survive in these times.  He forced women to unveil and gave them more say in everyday life.  This was the first time that women truly had some power in the Middle East and that was a huge step in westernization.  He also created a state university even though he was illiterate himself.  The creation of the university was another example of the westernization that was happening in Iran under Reza Shah.  In the end though, these new reforms failed.  The people didn't truly adapt to the new policies and they still had ties to the traditional culture.  The traditional culture was eventually brought back and Reza Shah's reforms were a thing of the past.  You can't really blame Reza Shah for what he tried to do in Iran, and I believe it was completely necessary in order to survive at the time.   

Britain's promises in the Middle East

It's very interesting when other nations carve up a fallen empire/nation like a bunch of vultures.  They always have their own interests and don't ever care about the people who are actually living in these areas.  This was especially true after the Ottoman Empire fell.  Britain, France and Russia began to carve up the empire into zones of influence and began instilling their own beliefs on the people of these areas.  Britain was making all of these promises to various types of people, and these problems are still at the root of the problems facing the Middle East today, especially in Israel.  The British made vague and ambiguous promises of an Arab state after WWI.  This appeased the arabs for a little while, but then in 1917 the British made the Balfour Declaration which gave support to the Zionists for a Jewish Homeland.  You can see how both of these statements contradict each other and you can clearly see how they would be the base for a conflict in the region later on.  This seems to happen a lot in the world.  A country will move in and take control of an area, but they wont have the best interest of the people in mind when they do so. 

Touba and the Connection to the Past

Iran underwent many changes throughout the late 19^th and 20^th centuries.  The traditional culture that had been in place for hundreds of years, was deemed outdated by new leaders in the Iranian regime.  The leaders believed that the traditional culture was no match for westernization and that the culture needed to be completely reformed in order to survive all the changes that were occurring in the world around them. 

            The novel Touba and the Meaning of Night by Shahrnush Parsipur was written shortly after the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.  The author Parsipur does a decent job of weaving her fictional characters into the real life events that occurred before and after this Islamic Revolution in Iran.  The role of the fictional main character Touba and the real life role of women in Iran are paralleled in this book to give the reader a true sense of what was going on during this time.

            Iranian culture before the revolution practiced the segregation of women in the society.  Women held household domestic duties and were in charge of raising the children.  The men in society were in charge of finding work and supporting the family.  The men held the power in the household and were off working jobs most of the day.  Women were also required to wear a chador, or a veil, at all times when in public or in the house when males other than their husbands were present.  The basis for this traditional culture was written in the Quran, which is the religious book of Islam.  There was no separation of church and state in the traditional Iranian society, and the Quran was the law that the people obeyed at the time.  Because the Quran called for women to have less power, the people enforced that rule, and women therefore had less power. 

            In the early 20^th century, there were many political tensions felt in Iran between the weakening Qajar dynasty and the Pahlavi’s that were led by Reza Shah.  The Qajar dynasty, which believed in the traditional cultures, was very weak going into the 1920’s.  Reza Shah saw this weakness and capitalized on it and overthrew the Qajar dynasty.  He instituted his own dynasty, known as the Pahlavi dynasty, and implemented many western ideas.

            The traditional culture of Iran had been scrutinized and put under attack by Western powers such as Britain, France, Russian and later the United States.  In order to continue competing in this modern world, the culture of Iran needed to be changed.  Reza Shah believed in Westernization and soon after the political coup, he instituted many western ideas in Iran.  There were many different types of industrialization and railroad construction.  He also believed in public education and even created the first university in the country known as Tehran University.  Reza Shah was then overthrown in favor of his son Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.  He continued on the path of westernization and sought to implement more and more western policies. 

Also during this time, women had more rights in society.  They were no longer required to wear veils and were also encouraged to become educated and participate in the government and other public positions.  Women were finally given a voice in Iran and for the first time ever, had a sense of power that was never seen in the traditional Iranian culture.

In the 1970’s more and more people in Iran were growing tired of the Westernization that was present in Iran under the shah.  More and more people called for the reinstitution of traditional culture in Iran.  The people then rallied around Ayatollah Khomeini, who wanted to implement the traditional Islamic culture back into Iran. 

The Iranian Revolution began in 1978 and Khomeini led the revolt.  Khomeini and the people were successful in overthrowing the Shah and the western type government.  After completing the revolution, traditional rules were implemented once again.  Laws were once again enacted to restrict the role of women in society.  They were once again relegated to the home and were required to wear cover certain parts of their bodies if they were seen in public.  The efforts of Reza Shah to modernize and change Iran were forgotten and the traditional culture was back in Iran.

The characters in Touba reflect all that was going on during the period before and after the Iranian Revolution.  The main character is Touba, and her life directly parallels everything that was happening in Iran.  The author does a decent job of telling the history of Iran through the character of Touba. 

Touba begins her journey in search of God.  She is trying to find him and also find the true meaning of life.  This can be seen as a direct reference to the fact that Islam took a backseat during the reign of Reza Shah.  Westernization was implemented during the Shah, and many Islamic people lost touch to their religion.  Later on in the novel, you see Touba begin to participate more and more in the Iranian society.  She has a voice in the public sphere, much like women did during the westernization of Iran under the Shah. 

Touba then also has a relationship with a character named Ismael, who later becomes her son in law.  Ismael is very educated and he symbolizes the advances in education that were present during the time of westernization in Iran.  Later in the story though, he becomes very politically active.  He is then arrested and tortured.  It is believed that he later symbolizes the beginnings of the revolution in the 1970’s.  Khomeini is becoming a political force and trying to implement the traditional culture.  Education would be looked at as a western idea and it is no surprise that Ismael is punished because he is educated.  The book then ends with Touba continuing on her quest of finding God.  This may symbolize that Islam is back at the center of the Iranian culture at this time.

In conclusion, the novel Touba and the Meaning of Night, does a decent job of connecting fictional characters with events that were going on during the 20^th century.  You see direct references to Reza Shah, his son Mohammed, so the story definitely does have connections to the history of the country.  The westernization of Iran under Reza Shah and the revolutionary period in Iran is definitely paralleled by Touba and the other characters at certain points throughout the novel.     

                      

 

Bastard of Istanbul Essay

Denial of a Nation’s Haunted Past

People make mistakes and do something wrong almost every single day.  Someone may hurt someone by calling him or her a bad name or perhaps they might lie to a friend about something important.  The point is that people screw up and do things that may haunt their past.  Most people own up to their mistakes and acknowledge them and apologize. 

But what happens when a country makes the “mistake” of killing off mass amounts of people by way of genocide?  Should they own up to this horrible mistake that lingers in their past?  Most would argue that yes indeed, they should own up to these terrible events.  Unfortunately, that is not the case of nations such as Germany during World War II, when Hitler systematically wiped out a huge chunk of the Jewish people, and it did not happen in the case of Turkey, who carried out the Armenian Genocide during the time of World War I in the year 1915.  Author Elif Shafak uses the fictional characters in her novel to convey personal and national beliefs on how this terrible genocide is remembered and spoken about in Turkish and Armenian culture.

The novel titled The Bastard of Islam, written by Shafak, chronicles the life and times of two 19-year-old girls, one Armenian and one of Turkish descent.  Both girls are fictional characters and both have to deal with deep, dark, secrets that have haunted the families’ pasts for years and years.  Once again, Shafak uses these fictional families to convey her personal beliefs on how the Armenian Genocide is remembered and spoken about in Turkish and Armenian culture.

The Armenian Genocide began around 1915 and took place during World War I.  The term genocide is defined as “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group” (Dictionary) and that is exactly what was attempted by the Ottoman Empire during this time.  In 1915 the Ottomans arrested many of the top leaders of the Armenian communities and eventually decided to capture regular Armenian citizens in an attempt to wipe out the entire culture.  These people were forced to march hundred of miles in the desert with no food and water, eventually dying of dehydration and starvation along the way.  Many native Armenians were forced to escape the country and seek refuge elsewhere and many never returned. 

After thousands of deaths, the genocide was eventually staved off with the help of Allied forces, but the damage had already been done.  This attempted extinction of all Armenians has had a lasting impact on Armenians all around the globe.  The key situation here is that the Turkish government and most of the citizens refuse to acknowledge this terrible act as genocide.  They have essentially “buried” this haunted past, and never want it to be spoken of. 

To this day, leaders of the Turkish still have yet to recognize the genocide, and citizens are even prosecuted if they speak out about it happening.  There have been many writers, including Shafak herself, that have been put on trial for speaking out about the genocide, which is a violation of the Turkish law.  Clearly the historical past is still haunting Turkey today, and it is clear that this past and the past of the fictional characters of the book are haunting them as well. 

 In the novel, the characters from both sides of this family are haunted by a terrible family secret from the past.  We don’t find out this secret until the end of the book, but the fact there is a secret lingers on throughout the entire novel.  Mustafa, who is one of the brothers from the Turkish side of the family, travels to the United States to try and avoid one of the curses of the family.  It was believed that all the men of the Kazanci family all died early, so the family was trying to avoid this with Mustafa.  They believed if he went to the United States he would be able to escape this so called “destiny.”

While in the US he marries Rose, who has a daughter from a previous marriage to an Armenian.  Armanoush, Rose’s daughter, heads to Turkey to try and re-connect with her Armenian past.  She meets Asya, who is the daughter of Mustafa’s sister Zehlia.  Throughout the novel they learn a lot about each other and their backgrounds and different heritages. 

This is where things get interesting and start to connect to the real life events of the Armenian Massacre of 1915.  Throughout the book it is the Armenians who are against the writing of fiction novels.  Meanwhile, the Turks are all for different types of stories and folk songs and such.  The connection to real life here is that the Armenian people openly speak about the Armenian Massacre.  They are against fiction, therefore they believe in the truth and this is where they would have a problem with what is going on in modern day Turkey.

Once again it is a crime in Turkey if you were to speak of the Armenian Massacre.  The Turks have set this law to try and prevent their people from being harmed by the past.  It is not spoken about and written about anywhere in Turkey.  They do not teach it in schools and it is not a part of any Turkish history.  They instead choose to “soften” what happened.  They try and say that it wasn’t as bad, that it wasn’t genocide.  This is the connection that is made in the novel.  The Turks believe in these folk stories and are fond of fiction.  It is almost there way of hiding the past so to speak.  That is what the author is trying to convey, and she does a fine job in doing so. 

Lastly, at the end of the story, the secret that has been teased about throughout the entire novel finally comes out.  It is found out that Mustafa raped and impregnated his sister Zehlia.  That means that Asya was born of incest and she is the Bastard the novel is referring to.  This deep dark secret is the real reason why Mustafa was sent away.  In the beginning of the story it is Zehlia looking to get the pregnancy aborted, and we finally know why. 

This is the authors way of expressing the haunted past of the Turkish people.  She is showing that the Turks have been hiding behind all this fiction and all these lies when it comes to speaking about the massacre.  This secret has haunted the Turkish past in much the same way the family secret has haunted the Kazanci’s.  It is not until the secret is finally revealed and acknowledged that everyone seems to be able to move forward. 

This is what Shafak is implying needs to be done by the Turkish government.  By speaking freely about the massacre in the novel, it shows that the Turks need to acknowledge this grave mistake of their past and move forward.  The only way to be free of this haunted past is for it to get out in the open and be recognized.  That is the only way it will happen, and that is the message that is shown throughout this novel. 

In conclusion, Elif Shafak uses her fictional group of characters in her novel to send a message to the Turkish government.  She speaks freely of the Armenian Massacre throughout the novel and shows that a haunted past will continue to haunt unless it is put out in the open.  She is saying that the Turkish government needs to hold themselves accountable for the actions of their past in order to move on and maybe even be peaceful with the Armenian people.  The Germans have acknowledged their horrible past, and they have been reaccepted by the world and have been able to move on.  This is the message that is implied in this novel and it is shown through the fictional characters of the book. 

Zayni Barakat Essay

I forgot to post the essay to the blog....here it is...

The arab novel, Zayni Barakat was written by a famous arab author named Gamal al-Ghitani.  Although the novel Zayni Barakat is completely fictional, there are many instances in the book where it could be considered historical.  The depiction of Mamluk Egypt is fairly accurate in the novel.  Although many names and certain places are not real and made up, the book does a fairly good job paralleling everyday life as a Mamluk in Egypt.  The interesting part of the book is that it also historically parallels the time when Gamal Abdul Nasser was President of Egypt in the 1950’s and 60’s.  Both men rose up to power, implemented new policies and faced an invasion from an outside nation.  Both lost their power, but were still loved and respected by the people they served.   

Zayni Barakat was a modified character, who was essentially “fictionally” living through the Mamluk period in Egypt.  The author al-Ghitani, when he wrote this novel, was living through the period of Nasser in the 1950’s and 60’s.  Nasser led many political movements and also faced the invasion of Egypt by Israel during his time in power.  Even though the Mamluk period and the period of Nasser were in different centuries, the author was able to parallel both times into one book, which is fairly impressive.

The novel is set in the early sixteenth century, which is about the middle of the Mamluk reign in Egypt.  The Mamluk’s are about to face an invasion by the rival Ottoman Empire, and this is primarily when the book is taking place.  The word Mamluk is translated as “to be owned.”  Essentially, these Mamluk people are slaves.  They are trained in the military and were a very integral part of everyday life in Egypt back then.  They were even paid for what they did.  This is much different than slaves in say, America.  As we all know, slaves in America were not paid for their trouble and faced some of the harshest conditions ever.  Although the Mamluk’s were forced into slavery against their will, they had many benefits that would make life fairly comfortable for them. 

The creation and organization of Mamluk slaves can be traced back to around 1250-1300 in Egypt.  Once again, these people were trained in the military and were commanded by the generals of the Ayyubids.  The Ayyubids were the groups of people in charge in Egypt during this time.  They continued being the slave army of the Ayyubids until they revolted and took over the state.  During their time of rule, known as the “Great Age of Mamluks,” they created a system of historical writing, built new mosques and even put an emphasis on education by building new schools throughout the state.  They ruled until about the year 1516 and were eventually conquered by the Ottomans, who did let them rule as governors, but it wasn’t the same. 

Going back to the novel, it deals with Zayni Barakat, whose story is documented during a time of great hostility, as the Ottomans prepared to invade the Mamluks.  The story depicts Barakat’s rise to one of the most prestigious offices in Mamluk Egypt, which is as a market inspector.  He ends up being in charge during this time and there are many ups and downs and conspiracies that he faces during his time in this office.  This is where we can first see the parallel between Barakat and Abdel Nasser’s rule. 

Barakat was a leader of the people.  He was one of the first Egyptian bureaucrats that actually spoke to the people.  He had his own ideas, some ideas that many believed were too radical, and he tried his best to implement as many as possible.  He stated that he wanted to rule the entire state of Egypt and he speaks directly to the people, which allowed his messages to get across.  An example of one of the new policies he tried to institute was the creation of the agents, or spies.  He hired these agents to watch over the people and make sure they were doing the right thing.  This is an example of one of the earliest “police” type forces, which implemented a system where people would be held accountable for their actions.  That is just one example that shows that Barakat was an ambitious leader, who wanted to change Egypt for the greater good.      

Now back to Nasser.  Nasser was President of Egypt from 1956 to his death in 1970.  Nasser was considered a Nationalist and led an Egyptian revolution in the 1950’s.  He was able to overthrow the government at this time and during his stay in power, Egypt was able to advance politically, socially and industrially.  His policies were viewed as “radical” or “different,” much like Barakat.  This is one of the parallels seen in the book that was purposely done by the author. 

Nasser and Barakat were different than those who came before them.  They spoke directly to the people and tried new policies that many thought were too radical.  They didn’t care that people may not accept it; they believed that the policies would work and implemented them anyway.  That is a great similarity between the character of Barakat and that of Nasser.  

This is precisely what the author al-Ghitani was attempting to do in this book.  Zayni Barakat is much like Abdel Nasser in the story, in that he rose up to power and was a part of a great period in Egypt’s history.  It seems as though the author was able to intertwine his own beliefs of what was going on around him and connect them with Barakat and the time he was living in.

The next parallel that is seen is that during the time of Barakat and the time of Nasser, Egypt faced invasion by outside countries.  During the Mamluk time, which was also the time of Barakat, the Mamluk’s faced an invasion by the Ottoman Empire.  Between the years of 1516 and 1517, the Ottomans came charging in and kicked the Mamluk’s out of power, essentially stripping Barakat of some of his power.  Although Mamluk;s were able to remain in power as governors, it wasn’t the same. 

Nasser faced a similar struggle when he faced the Israeli invasion of Egypt.  After he lost, he lost his power.  Both Barakat and Nasser lost their power, but what is important, is that they never lost the respect of the people.  Even though they were essentially stripped of power, they both were still remembered and were respected by the people they served.

In summation, the story of Zayni Barakat is essentially a parallel of the times of Nasser’s rule in Egypt.  Both rose up to power, implemented new policies and were respected by the people they ruled over.  They also both were invaded and stripped of their power.  Even though they both essentially lost their power, they were still loved and respected by the people.  The author of this novel does a great job of telling the story of someone who lived in Mamluk Egypt, but essentially basing the character on a figure that was alive when he wrote it, which is Nasser.         

Follow up to our discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

This morning in class there were many different feelings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion and there wasn't one idea that i truly agreed with.  I believe that is the truly the center of the conflict.  There are two sides here that think they are being attacked and who think what they are doing is correct.  When I think back to To Die In Jerusalem, I am unsure of who I want to sympathize with.  I really sympathize with the Israeli side and the Palestinian side.  I feel sorry for both sides that they have to live in a world of fear and that there is such a deep hate for both sides.  Both sides are fighting with each other, blowing up their supermarkets and knocking down their houses and both think they are doing the right thing.  Obviously it is much easier said than done to think that both sides can just drop what they're fighting about and get along.  Both sides believe so deeply in what they are doing that right now there seems like there will be no end to this conflict.  There are teenagers now walking into markets and buildings and setting bombs off.  It is truly a sad day when young kids are now killing each other because they feel they are doing the right thing.  It has gotten to the point where the conflict now resonates so deeply with the young children that they feel they have to blow each other up.  It is truly sad to see and from where I sit, I truly don't see it stopping anytime soon and that is even sadder.    

The Harem

Many consider the imperial harem to have a great and easy life, but I would like to ask the question of whether the imperial harem was a glorified slave?  These women had no choice but to live in the palace of the Sultan and be prepared to serve him whenever he chose.  Many of these women were forced into this "slavery" to ensure that they would have sex and produce children, which in turn would ensure that the blood line from the Sultan would live on.  Once again, these women had no choice but to give into these conditions and demands and bear the children of the sultan.  Is this an easy life or is it slavery?  Yes these women lived in beautiful palaces and had many amenities available to them, but they were forced into this practice against their free will.  So, I would argue that the harem is then considered a slave.  When the harem would give birth, many, if not all, of their children would be handpicked and forced into the army.  This doesn't seem like such a great life to me, which is why I argue that this is basically slavery.  

Zayni Barakat & Gamal Abdul Nasser

When I wrote my paper about the arab novel Zayni Barakat, I decided to speak on the parallels that were present between the main character of Zayni Barakat and former Egyptian President Gamal Abdul-Nasser.  Even though both were leaders in much different times, separated by many centuries, they both have many similarities with each other and I believed the author al-Ghitani was trying to compare and parallel the lives of both in his novel.  Both Barakat and Nasser were leaders of the people.  They had a certain bond with the people, a certain trust that the people could rely on.  This was very different than previous leaders in Egypt.  Both men had radical ideas that they attempted to implement during their stays in power.  Both were also faced with invasions of different groups.  Barakat faced the invasions of the Ottomans, while Nasser faced invasion by the Israeli's.  Both were stripped of much of their power after being invaded, but were able to still retain the respect and admiration of the people they ruled over.  That is why I believe both characters are very similar.  

Gulhane Proclamation and Ottoman Bill of Rights

The following is from my post on the Gulhane Proclamation and Ottoman Bill of Rights.  Both of these documents promised many more freedoms in the Ottoman Empire and to the people of the Balkans.  I found it very interesting that during this time there was independence and the creation of the United States and the French Revolution.  The Ottomans seemed to go along with what was happening around them and they created these rules and rights to appease the Balkan people along the way.  My post from the blackboard discussion is as follows:

Both of these documents seem very appropriate for the time in which they were written.  Because of the French Revolution and the U.S independence right before it, there is a sense of democracy in freedom that is present throughout the world.  It seems as though both of these documents were based on the US Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen.  This line in the Gulhane Proclamation sums up a lot of what is going on in these documents.  It states, 

"These Imperial concessions shall extend to all our subjects, of whatever Religion or sect they may be; they shall enjoy them without exceptions. We therefore grant perfect security to the inhabitants of our Empire, in their lives, their honor, and their fortunes, as they are secured to them by the sacred text of our Law."

This line itself proclaims that all of these rights and privelages shall be given to everyone, no mater what religion, race or sect they belong to.  It states that all people shall be able to enjoy these rights freely.  Once again this is extremely similar to the US Bill of rights and the Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen.  

Lastly, I would argue that the Balkans probably would be okay with the Ottomans preaching freedom and equal rights and free religion.  Even though they were conquered by the Ottomans, they still will be able to keep their rights and freedoms and that is obviously something that they would probably be okay with.  

To Die In Jerusalem

The first part of this movie left me fairly shocked.  The fact that a young girl could walk into a supermarket and be a suicide bomber is truly shocking.  Everytime I think of suicide bombers I only think that men do it.   So that was definitely the first shocker for me.

What is very interesting about this conflict, when you truly look at it from an outside perspective you cannot see who is right and who is wrong.  Because we are Americans, we immediately sympathize with Rachel's family.  We immediately want to paint "Ayat" as a terrorist, but when you see it from the Palestinian side, you see that she is being honored as a martyr, or a hero.  Would we feel the same as the Palestinians if one of us, an American went into a supermarket and killed somebody who we felt was the "bad guy?"  I would have to say that maybe we would praise that person as well.  That seems to be the center of the conflict, both sides see each other as "evil" and there will be no stopping the conflict until that issue somehow can get solved.  

It was also amazing to see that both girls looked so similar to each other.  It seemed as almost a sign that it's the same people killing each other over and over, all because of this conflict that exists between two groups who think each other is "evil." 

This documentary film does a tremendous job of showing both sides of this conflict and does a great job showing the emotions that are present on both sides.  When both sides think that they are not wrong in what they are doing, how can there be a peace? 

I am really not sure what I would do if it was my daughter who did what they did.  If was on the Isreali side, I would be so angry and hurt, but I strongly feel there would be a part of me that would almost understand why it happened.  I would see that we are wrong for putting our troops in someone else's land.  I wouldn't condone the killing, but I feel there would be a part of me, even if it was a small part, that would understand what was going on here.

Just thought this was interesting...

In this article on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/08/iran.khatami/index.html)...it states that former Iranian President Khatami  will be running for President against incumbent President Ahmadinejad.  This is important because Khatami is a reformist who believes in democracy and certain rights much like Americans.  He was in office in the late 90's but never really got his plans off the ground because of a strong resistance to change by the Irainian government as a whole.  Khatami has also condemmed Terrorism.  This will be an uphill battle for him though as Ahmadinejad has the support of the military forces and many of the people in the government.  If Khatami does succeed though, it could mark a change in the policy of Iran, which is something to definitely keep an eye on.  

News To Me...

I entered this class late and this will be my first blog post.  So far in the early going, what I have gathered is that the recent violence between Palestinians and Israeli's is not brand new.  This fighting has been going on for tons of years!  It seems that there have always been competing factions in the middle east, constantly squaring off with each other to improve and expand their empires and take land from others.  The problems that are occurring in the middle east today have roots directly to the past.  Once again, this fighting has been going on for so many years, it now makes more sense to me why Palestinians and Israeli's can't agree with each other and reach a peace.