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.