Iranian Revolution

In a previous blog entry posted a few weeks ago, I spent a good deal of time musing about how Reza Shah's secularizing reforms eventually lead to the Islamic Republican government that hold power in Iran today. Up until class today, I knew very little about the Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979. The history of the revolution is seemingly extremely complex and was in the works for many years before actually coming to full fruition. It seems to me, although Iranians had issues with their government since Reza Shah first overthrew the Qajar Dynasty, that Mohammad Reza Shah's "White Revolution" was a major catalyst of social revolt.

From what I understand--through the Cleveland reading and the documentaries shown in class--the White Revolution was intended to change the socio-economic climate in Iran to one that would more greatly benefit the country's people. Many of the reforms varied from Reza Shah's reforms because they were not all geared toward catapulting Iran into secularization and modernity. In fact, the reforms set in place by the White Revolution seemed much more focused on how to better life for Iranian citizens living in the country. Programs were established for needy mothers, water sources were nationalized, and measures were taken in order to combat corruption in the bureaucratic government system.

It was right after the failure of the White Revolution when Ayatollah Khomeini first appeared as a legitimate political activist and leader. When considering the question posed in class today--"did the Iranian revolution result from the citizens' desires or from the encouragement of Ayatollah Khomeini"--it is really a tough question to tackle. Citizens' irritation with the government (because of failed land reforms) arouse right around the same time Khomeini began speaking out in favor of a religious republic. I think that the Iranian people were unhappy with Mohammad Reza Shah's government because it did not support how they wanted to live their everyday lives, and were therefore susceptible to accepting leadership from Khomeini (even though their agendas were not necessarily synonymous).

Smith's Lecture

I am glad that we are actually learning about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although it has inevitably come up in class discussions and videos (seemingly because it is currently the most popular conflict in the Middle East and is consequently one in which the majority of people are comfortable discussing), this is the first time that we have really learned about specifics. In previous classes in which the Arab-Israeli conflict has come up, the focus has mainly been on how the conflict affects those who currently live in Palestine and Israel, and how their perceptions of the fighting are similar/different.



Now that the history of the struggle is being thoroughly explored, it seems absurd to me that at several points throughout history, the Israelis have tried to completely illegitimize the Palestinians. I think this speaks loads to the cultural hegemony that surrounds the entire conflict. Israel (as a modern state) was a created just a few decades ago, and no one questions their claim to be there. The Palestinians, however, lived in the Palestine region for thousands of years and have just recently been displaced. I never realized until reading the Smith book and watching his lecture that so many Palestinian refugees were forced to relocate themselves to Syria, Jordan, and other countries. By moving out Palestinians and moving in Jews to live in Israel, the Israeli leaders have overwhelmingly inculcated the idea that Palestine no longer exists into the minds of most global citizens.



I honestly have trouble understanding how anyone with a thorough understanding of the conflict can recognize Israel as a legitimate world power. I also have trouble understanding how the Western powers involved in the Zionist movement and the nation building in the late nineteenth century allowed such vague, noncommittal resolutions to pass. Creating a new state is a difficult process that leaves little room for error and abstraction.

Reza Shah

In preparation for our upcoming essays on Touba and the Meaning of Night, the past few class lectures, discussions and assigned readings have centered on Iran and it's drastic reforms during the beginning of the twentieth century. Many changes occurred during this time period, all in the name of modernity. In order to keep up with the innovations going on in Europe, Iran hoped to conform to the European standard of modernity. In order to ensure that Iran could essentially "keep up" with the innovations and progress in the West, Reza Shah drastically reformed many of the country's major institutions. Many changes centered on women, and changing their roles in society from not only wives and mothers, but also to students and active members of the workforce. In order to kickstart these changes for women, Reza Shah opened state sponsored schools for girls and forced all Iranian women to unveil. These changes and the overall desire to broaden womens' roles was precipitated by what is commonly referred to as "the woman question." Western powers suggested that Iran had trouble establishing modernity because of the way in which it treated its women. This suggestion was really a testament to the strong governing power Islam held in the country, and men were affected by modernizing reforms as well.


It is very clear that almost all of Reza Shah's reforms had to do with secularization of government and government institutions. What confuses me, however, is that modern day Iran is a very religious state. I know that all children born in Iran are automatically considered Muslim, and the country's governing system is essentially a theocracy. Religious leaders hold gratuitous amounts of power and religious law sets the foundation for most political laws as well. I don't quite understand where the principles set by Reza Shah's secularizing reforms changed to strict religious doctrine.

Muhammad Ali Pasha

In preparation for the midterm examination, I read over a lot of course material from earlier in the curriculum. One of the more fascinating pieces was Roger Owen's article Muhammad Ali: A View from the New World. His work examined the life of Muhammad Ali Pasha and also analyzed the Egyptian population's opinion of him. I was pretty surprised about everything he had to say. I learned from class discussion and the Cleveland text book that Muhammad Ali was the one to essentially usher Egypt into the modern age. He was the first to successfully instate a modern military and to promote huge expenditures in order to keep up with European innovations. After reiterating all of this in his article, Owen continues on to explain that modern Egyptians still love him for all of this. I was surprised to hear him draw this conclusion because all of Muhammad Ali's reforms lead directly into Egypt falling into Bankruptcy, and consequently under British control. I understand that he was followed by a slew of significantly weaker leaders that were ultimately responsible for complete crash of the Egyptian economic system, but I find it hard to believe that modern Egyptians are pleased with the man that set the precedents that lead to the bankruptcy.


I was also surprised that Owen found it worthy to comment on how Muhammad Ali was not an Egyptian, but was still revered and respected. At that point in history, Egyptian nationalism was not a significant force. Napoleon had just attempted to convince the Egyptian population that the Ottomans were foreign, despotic leaders, and that it would be an insult to their "Egyptianness" not to rebel against them. Needless to say--his efforts went unheeded. Egyptians of the period considered themselves more Ottoman than Egyptian. Nationalism became a strong force later, after the Europeans had more time to infiltrate the Empire and introduce Western ideas.

The documentary shown in class concerning the Armenian genocide was both moving and very informative. Aside from discussing facts about the genocide (with which I was already familiar because of assigned readings and previous knowlege), the film spent a lot of time focusing on why the Turkish government is so adamant about denying it. One of the major possible reasons that I thought was very interesting, was that the Turks want to avoid the bad press. Initially, this seems like a fairly simple and petty explanation as to why an entire government would deny the systematic extermination of an entire people. After some careful consideration, however, that seems like a perfectly legitimate reason for denial. A close parallel can be drawn to the early European immigrants to America (who eventually became the early Americans) systematically murdering and relocating the Native Americans into special reservations. Because a good deal of time has passed and the United States has built itself into a major global power, Americans can openly discuss the Native American Genocide, because even though it may not look so good on a track record, what can anyone really do to America for it. Turkey is not yet established as a major world power, and is still working to modernize and work its way into the Western World. If they admit to the Genocide at this pivitol point, it could severely damage their image.

All this being said, however, the issue of Genocide is still a touchy subject in lands where it has been admitted. Although Americans have the ability to discuss the Native American's plight, they rarely do, prefering to leave the issue alone. Just the word "genocide" seems reserved for extremely successful cases of mass murder and There are many atrocities that are carried out on large groups of people by individuals and governments all the time that are not considered genocide. Take the American Eugenics movement, for example. The United States government may not have murdered people they found to be of inferior intelligence or mental capacity, but it systematically took away their right and ability to reproduce, hoping that they could evetually exterminate an entire population of "socially inferior" people. There are still places within the United States that will only provide sterilization services to certain racial groups seeking birth control methods, limiting that group's reproductive capacity. How similar is that to "systematic removal?"

The Bastard of Istanbul

Today in class we discussed Elif Shakak's novel, The Bastard of Istanbul. The class discussion was very insightful and went very well--as is proved by the fact that we have an entire week to complete our midterms. It is unfortunate, however, that because we have such a large class and everyone must be given a chance to speak in order to recieve credit, not all ideas can be explored thoroughly by every student.

Something that I thought was very interesting and important in the novel that wasn't mentioned in class was the importance of the city of Istanbul to the collective identity of both Turks and Armenians. Somone mentioned that because of the genocide, Armenians had a very scattered sense of identity. I thought that this was very significant and deserved to be explored further. Although there is a country called "Armenia" that is home to many Armenians, it was a Soviet Territory at the time of the genocide in Turkey. Because of this, most Armenians forced out of Turkey were also shut out of Armenia and were consequently forced to seek refuge in other countries.

Not once in the novel did the Turkish or Armenian families even mention Armenia. The Armenians do not identify with Armenia because it was never their home. Shafak is clearly making a statement that just because a country houses members of a certain race, it does not necessarily mean that all people of that race will feel at home in that country. Asya, for instance, is a Turk and feels so disenfranchised and nihilistic that she does not feel at home anywhere--certainly not in her home country of Turkey. Istanbul is very important to the novel because it doesn't only work as the setting for most of the novel's action (in both real time and flashback), but because it is the hometown of both families, thus making it central to their identities.

The Armenian-Americans displaced because of the genocide cling to this concept of victimhood because they can not feel at home in their new location. Because of their inability to reconcile with where they were forced to live, they cling to a romanticized notion of the past. Conversely, the Armenians living in Istanbul--Zehliah's boyfriend, for example--have made peace with the past because they have been able to grow and adapt with their home city of Istanbul.

Reading the Gulhane Proclamation has made me realize that the Ottoman Empire was a living, breathing entity, effecting and affected by many people. Because it was lead by a Sultan, I kind of assumed that he was the only one who had any real say in matters. This document proves, however, that the Sultan had to work to find ways to keep his people happy and supportive. We learned that it was in the Sultan's best interest to keep his soldiers content, because without their support he would have no way of enforcing laws or expanding the empire. The documents suggest that rule in the Ottoman Empire was based not on the despotic whims of a single leader, but instead upon public opinion and set laws.

I think it is probably important to note the dates in which the two proclamations were issued. It is interesting that they were not enacted at the same time; there was actually a gap of almost twenty years between the two. Both documents, although related, are very different. The first talks about reforms that the Empire plans to undertake in order to modernize their entire political system. The second is more narrow and concerns only citizens. It grants equal rights to all people living within the Empire. The dates come into play because they both indicate times in which the Ottoman Empire faced strong military pressure and had to make changes in order to maintain power. As the Ottomans slowly began losing territory to European powers, they were forced to first modernize their government, and then later ensure that everyone living in the Empire was given a fair chance to participate in that government.