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.

To Die in Jerusalem

I found it very touching how often children were interviewed for the documentary. All the children spoken to (siblings, classmates, etc. ) were exceptionally well-versed and seemed to have (at least a minimal) understanding of the violent conflict that dictates their everyday lives. It seemed very sad to me that a young girl felt the need to defend to cameras that she and her fellow Palestinians were not necessarily terrorists. I grew up in the United States and feel that I was constantly sheltered from violence--movies and television that featured violent content were turned off when I entered a room, and I certainly never witnessed death. Not only did the children in the documentary understand death, but they were also capable of maturly discussing it's causes and implications.

On another note, I was fairly distrubed by the prison scene in which Rachel's mother visits the woman who attempted a suicide bombing. Consistent with what I have already written in the Blackboard Discussion Board, I feel that the citizens of both countries suffer for what should be a diplomatic conflict over land rights. It is appaling to me that the three women can discuss suicide bombing in such a way that they empathize with the pain it causes, but still feel that they are necessary and justified. The attempted suicide bomber even notes that "regardless of religion a mother is a mother." This comment alone ties into several, equally alarming themes. First of all, it indicates that both sides equate religous differences with what is strictly a political conflict. Secondly, it suggests that people are learning to hate other peope because of political differences.

I am not surprised that some historians believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be a "clash of civilizations." The documentary does not try to mask the fact that Israelis lead more modern, Western lives than Palestinians--Ayat's family does not speak English to the cameras and dress much more conservatively. Additionally, Rachel's family is clearly less educated and are consequently depicted as pushy and abrasive. Because of these factors, I can't help but think that the whole documentary (although touching) is little more than a ploy to tap into the pathos of Western audiences. Both sides are romanticized and oversimplified into what Westerners do not expect to see.

Earlier this week, I attended a lecture given by the Israeli ambassador. I was not surprised that many people attended the event, but I was very surprised at how the evening panned out.

I understand that people are very passionate about, and in some cases directly effected by, the situation in Gaza and other such conflicts in which Israel is involved. I was surprised, however, at most of the crowd's behavior. The majority of people who asked questions seemed like they were looking for a fight more than they were interested in hearing a response.

It is important to raise one's voice and to ask tough questions, but I can't help thinking it was naive and rather immature to throw stones at a lecture. The man is a diplomat. Of course he is not going to admit that Israel was overtly wrong about anything--he was chosen for that (what I am sure is a very competitive) position because he is qualified to answer incendiary questions in a diplomatic fashion. I obviously did not learn anything new at the lecture, since an ambassador is not meant to just introduce facts and ideas, but to do so in a way that makes his or her country look innocent and correct in all matters. If nothing else, the evening was useful in that it reinforced the notions (that have been made rather clear in this class) that there is no unbiased opinion in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Although he spoke for over an hour and a half without really saying much, he mentioned something that I thought was very interesting. He noted that the UN and the media focus so heavily on the conflict between Israel and Palestine that they act as though there are no other conflicts in the world. I disagree with his assertion that this justifies caring less about the problems in Gaza, but agree that there are problems of equal importance that are oftentimes ignored by a majority of the public.

The importance of public opinion and sentiment is reminiscent of major themes found in Zayni Barakat. This further supports the notion we discussed in class that the author meant the story to be an allegory for the present world

Imperial Harem--Post Colloquium

After the class discussion of Imperial Harem, I find that many of the topics I found most interesting and most of the questions I hoped to pose to the class did not really come up. The discussion was certainly thought-provoking and forced me to consider the connotations of Ottoman Slavery when contrasted with slavery in the United States and the other places in the world--a topic that I had taken for granted while reading.

There were many subjects and themes discussed in the text of which I had never before heard. For instance, I did not have any idea of what a “harem” was before the reading. Although I had heard the word, I did not know that it carried any political connotations or that it was a vital component of Royal Family life. I gathered from the text and class discussion, however, that the generalized Western perception of a Harem is reminiscent of a whorehouse (based strongly on the sexual fantasies of ill informed, European men). I know now that a Harem was really a structured environment under which the sexual activities of the ruling class could be carefully scrutinized and monitored.

Despite the fact that the idea of a "harem" is not recognized or put into practice in the West, I feel that comparisons in sexual activity can certainly be drawn--especially in regards to Western ruling dynasties. Very rarely was sexual activity kept within the bonds of marriage, but it was covered with secrecy and generally ignored by the public. A harem, on the other hand, served as an arena for the ruling class to play out sexual desires while still ensuring the well-being of the dynasty's future, and being kept in check by the public. It is very interesting to me that even though the Ottomans did not exercise a democratic government system, they allowed public opinion to matter so much (leading to the implementation of the Imperial Harem).

The Gaza War has been over for about three weeks, and is almost entirely gone from the U.S. media. After the tenuous ceasefire came into effect the Western World has seemingly forgot there was a conflict to begin with. According to an article in the Washington Post, however, (the article can be accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/07/ST2009020702246.html ) the problem is far from solved.

Something that seems strange to me is that the article did not mention there being any aid to Palestine coming from the Muslim world. From what I know understand about Islam from the Esposito reading, Muslims tend to feel a certain sense of solidarity with eachother (as evidenced from the Koran forbidding a Muslim from killing another born Muslim). This most recent bloody conflict between Israel and Palestine appeared to be the final incident that would get the Western World to intervene. Now the U.S. is sending relief money, the European Union is considering what to do next, but Palestine's neighboring countries are doing next to nothing--seems odd.

I want to note, however, that I was very impressed with the reaction of the Manhattanville Community after the Gaza War. A Seeds of Peace presentation by two students from Palestine drew a large audience, and served as an effective platform to inform students ignorant of the news about what occured on the West Bank. Throughout the week, I also noticed several students asking for donations to send to Gaza for relief work--those who could not donate money often took black arm bands to show their support for the cause. One can tell from these demonstrations that the War in Gaza affected and matters to many people on campus, as Manhattanville is not usually a stage for much open political activity.

I hope that grassroots efforts like the ones practiced by the Manhattanville Community this previous week can help to alleviate some of the suffering of displaced Palestinians, since large scale relief efforts (according to Witte at least) are doomed to failure.

After learning about the vastly underrated Battle of Manzikert, I felt it appropriate to find out more about the Suljuk Turks. It turns out that most historians agree on pinpointing the Battle of Manzikert as the moment the decline of the great Byzantine Empire began. Although the Byzantine army did not suffer many causalities and many units continued fighting within a few months, the loss proved the Byzantines were not indestructible and began the series of events that lead to the downfall.

Now the Seljuks, the army that defeated Romanus and his troops, were a very interesting people. The Cleveland and the Esposito books both make a point of discussing how the Western idea of savage Muslims slaying Christians in order to spread their religion is a raging inaccuracy; examining the contributions of the Seljuk Turks furthers to prove their arguments. Although the Seljuks ruled over a majority of Muslims, there were plenty of Christians and even some Jews tolerated under their rule. Math and scientific progresses flourished under the Seljuks, as did scholarly and artistic endeavors.

Interestingly, because of all of the patronage of arts and scientists, the Seljuks are responsible for having a strong influence over the modern architecture of mosques, hospitals, and seminaries. J.M Rogers describes in his article, "WAQF and Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia" that Seljuk architecture is both beautiful and distinctive. It is fascinating that the architecture is a product of so many different influences (Persian, Turkish, and Greek were all fairly common within the empire), as that principle is reminiscent of the beginnings of Islam itself.

Blog 1--"Peace, Propoganda, and the Promise Land"

Although "Peace, Propoganda, and the Promise Land" does a solid job of pointing out the oftentimes extreme bias in the American news media, it also clearly serves to persuade audiences to "side" with Palestine; by showing how unfairly the conflict is often depicted, the documentary causes an emotional response in (primarily American) viewers that makes them want to backlash against the injustices that have been pointed out to them. After watching the film, viewers ignorant of the details of the conflict run the risk of automatically responding with "anti-Israel" feelings. Since the struggles between Israelis and Palestinians is such a serious issue with so much at stake, it seems irresponsible of any press agents to treat the entire situation like a sporting match by reporting information in slanted ways so as to persuade viewers to "take a side." It is important for all people, especially those who have watched the film, to keep a critical eye on the news for pro-Israel bias, and to not just automatically "side" with Palestine.

Despite the severity of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Americans (as a whole) do not generally seem particularly involved with it. News of violence in the West Bank is not uncommon, but is hardly ever front page news. Even with the recent surge of violence due to the end of the ceasefire Since the United States provides Israel with an abundant amont of military aid (a solid fact, not a piece of propaganda), Americans are more involved in Middle East situation than they may think. Since so much of their tax dollars are going toward aiding Israel, it seems obvious that every American should have in-depth knowledge of what exactly their money is going toward, and should therefore be presented with completely unbiased news information.

What is so problematic, however, is that there is a real lack of unbiased information readily accessable to most people. Since most individuals and groups most concerned with the conflict are those directly involved with it, they are almost sure to have some sort of bias. If there were to be a plethora of unbiased reporting and information available to Americans, and they were to have stronger background knowledge and opinions of the problems, I am curious to know if it would have any effect at all on what is occuring. What exaclty could the United States citizenry do to bring change and/or stability if armed with more knowlege?

Another point that stood out in the film that has stuck in my mind is how almost every person interviewed discussed how they condemn Palestine for resorting to violence to try to prove points. I can't help but think that this may be just another tactic to make Palestine appear appealing to viewers of the film--producers chose testimonies that condemn violence in order to endear Palestine to viewers and consequently feed the pro-Palestine propaganda machine. Non-violent resistance is very appealing to most American audiences, as is proven by how young children are often taught the heroism of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.

Nelson Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, after having been imprisoned for "terrorist activity." It is common knowledge that Mandela had no qualms with resorting to violence when he knew that non-violent tactics would not end apartheid policies. Americans today are aware of Mandela's name and that he went to jail but are not aware of his entire story. This proves that Americans are willing to forget unpleasantness and replace it with idealized versions of the truth. It makes me wonder, if Palestine should ever "win" the conflict, if the United States (and the film's commentators) would commend Palestinians for doing whatever they could (violent or otherwise) to struggle for peace.

It is also very interesting that the film (which audiences originally had to purchase) is now available for free online. Although it is clearly because of the recent surge of violence, it seems that there should be some amendments or additions since the film was created so many years ago. This further proves that the makers and distributors of the film film intend to pander to American audiences' sense of pathos much more than their logic and concern over fact.

In sum, I believe that Americans are very susceptible to pro-Peace propaganda and will probably accept everything said in the film as the gospel truth instead of becoming inspired to look up hard facts for themselves. Thus, I am not entirely sure how effectively "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promise Land" truly informs Americans of the conflict in the West Bank.