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.