LGBT Communities in Jerusalem

Hello everybody. :)

In the minds of most people, Jerusalem is unequivocally linked to religion, whether it be Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And while I admit to being quite ignorant to what the Torah and the Qur'an say about homosexuality, I'd be willing to bet some money on it not being very supportive.  From my experiences growing up in a very conservative part of the country, I know that intolerance runs deep. I witnessed some pretty nasty, hateful things happen to my gay friends. One of my friend's entire family was asked to leave the church because of their son being gay (there was also quite of lot of "he's going to burn in hell" statements being thrown around). One of my best friends in high school got written out of his grandparents and his father's will within the week of his coming out and one of his cousins spray painted "FAG" on his car. One of my friends is a Lesbian, and her parents (who have no idea about her sexuality) are running an anti-gay campaign in their church. While it's true that this sort of behavior is becoming less and less prevalent in the United States, it doesn't look like the end is in sight any time soon (or . . . ever).

That being said, I cannot even imagine how it is in Jerusalem. I suppose one of the most telling things was the ultra-orthodox man attacking gay-pride marchers with a knife in the documentary City of Borders. I was curious about Jerusalem Open House so I did a little more research on it (that's to say, I went to Wikipedia). It receives no funding from the local or federal government or commercial sponsorship. I didn't find this very surprising, but I thought that it might receive some aid especially seeing as they provide health services such as HIV/AIDS testing and prevention. While there is not a very significant number of people with AIDS in Israel, the number of infections is on the rise (according to the World Health Organization) so it has the potential to become a major health concern for Israel. 

(Holy off-topic Batman!)  

Anyway, I can honestly say that  'Jerusalem' and 'active gay community' never really mixed in my mind, but I'm very glad it exists. It has received a lot of flak, especially from the religious community.  Other than the stabbing incident I mentioned above, radical Israeli right-wing activists declared a "holy war" on the parade, and many people held signs that said things like "Jerusalem is not San Francisco." That being said, I can understand that these people felt like their sacred place was being trampled on. I'm actually surprised that that is the worst that has happened.

This is a major conflict between the concept of Jerusalem being a "sacred space" versus it being a city where real, living, breathing people live. It is inevitable that some of these people have values and lifestyles that are at odds with the conservativeness of the city.

Reading Response- March 19th

Hello Everybody. :)

For me, one of the most striking things about the chapters from Sharon and My Mother-in-Law was how the authoress' life in Ramallah was a mix of ridiculously silly and ridiculously degrading.  For instance, Amiry's dog receiving a Jerusalem ID at the drop of a hat, whereas Palestinians can wait for decades without receiving one of their own. Or, on the day where the citizens of Ramallah were waiting for over eight hours to pick up their gas masks, and then were forced to stand in a straight line (as though they were in elementary schoolers about to come in from recess), and then in the end, not even receive their gas masks. Israelis, however, did. The value that the government placed on Israeli lives over Palestinian lives is obvious. Despite all of the 'second-class citizen-ness' and the nonsense it entailed, the individuals still managed to look at things with humor and get on with their lives, curfews notwithstanding. I also thought the book wasn't written from a "us verses them" point of view. The Palestinian vet  Dr. Hisham was an unpleasant bigot, and the Israeli veteran was relatively lovely person. I think that this was an important thing for Amiry to write about, as it would have been easy to turn  the book into a work with black-and-white morality.

The Hasan-Rokem work was quite a bit more abstract. It looked at Jerusalem in a way that would never have even occurred to me. Sure, Jerusalem is usually referred to in the feminine, but then again so are most cities, as well as things like ships and cars. I never questioned it, but now it seems obvious. Because it's something you cherish and possess and defend and take care of. It is an archaic tradition and in this light, it makes perfect sense.

Music

Hey Everybody. :)


 

<--- Der Holle Rache, from the Opera Die Zauberflote by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. This piece of music is my pride and joy. It's been a few years, but I can still remember most of it. I sang it in it's entirety in the shower last night. Three times. ( My poor, poor roommates) If you ask me to sing it for you, I will. Dramatically. Don't enable me.







 I spent my entire high school career defining myself as a singer. Almost entirely classical. I sang Vivaldi, and Mozart, and Handel (ugh) and Haydn  and Morley and Grieg. I did musical theater (state champion. nbd), competitive ensemble, and honor choirs (the soprano section of a high school honor choir is a scary scary place). I played piano and guitar for awhile when I was younger, but I was never very good. I blame my super un-dexterous fingers.

I don't only listen to classical music of course. I enjoy it, but it probably only makes up about 5% of my iTunes library. I like indie, and anti-folk (not that I can define what it actually is, but Regina Spektor does it, so it's good enough for me) and Sigur Ros (Icelandic ambient/post-rock aka the best studying/mood music EVER) and whatever Florence + the Machine is. I'm always listening to music. When I'm studying, or walking to class or trying to drown out the metal bands that are constantly blasting from my friends' laptops while we're playing cards. If I don't have my headphones in for an extended period of time, I'll probably start singing out loud. I can't help myself (my friends call it OSD - Obsessive Singing Disorder).

What role does music play in conflict? My initial reaction, was to think "does it even have a role?"  But then I got to thinking about it. Did music play a role in WWII? One could argue that the composer Wagner had an impact on Nazi ideology, or that music kept morale of the troops up. Did it play a role in the conflict between Tamer Nafar and Subliminal? Absolutely. The things they were saying in their music is what ended their friendship. Music contains a lot of power. It can't fire a gun, but it can start riots. It can't break up a fight, but it can calm people down. (((  I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound? It can call for peace or war. It can be a form of protest  or support. It can encourage racist or sexist ideals or call for equality. It can offend people deeply, or be so beautiful it can bring them to tears. Music can influence or demonstrate public opinion. There's a lot of value to it.

Besides, everyone loves music. And they say it's the universal language. People from all corners of the earth can feel what emotions the music is trying to convey. Because of this, perhaps it's the best communication tool of all.

And lastly (and irrelevantly), for your listening pleasure: Feast your ears on Chanticleer's performance of Loch Lomond!

See you guys tomorrow!

Israeli/Palestinian Hip-Hop RR

Hey Everybody. :)

 Music is a mode of expression, and is therefore a microcosm of how people are feeling. It stands to reasons that it would change based on the major events that occur. Just look at how much more patriotic music became following 9/11. It's not surprising that music changed in Israel and Palestine after the second intifada. It's also not surprising that personal relationships were damaged during this time. A common phrase "If you want to keep your friends, don't talk about politics or religion" is brought to mine. But how can friends who are public figures who make their very living off of saying politically-charged things, not have it affect their relationship? It's as though their friendship was doomed from the start.

For me, one of the most interesting things  was how Israeli hip-hop artists adopted the thug-ish style of rappers in the United States, despite the fact that they come from completely different environments and generally have perspectives from the opposite ends of the spectrum. While rap in the United States is (typically) anti-authority and the rappers themselves are from marginalized populations, Israeli rap is quite pro-government and the rappers are usually middle class. I wonder why they adopted the style and look of African American rap on a superficial level. Is it because it's what the fans want? Does it just work with the style of music? Is it because there are no other role models? Perhaps, as stated in the Tablet article, this culture will start to change, because there is a previous generation of Israeli hop-hop artists to look too.

I guess Palestinian rap makes more sense to me. They too are part of a marginalized abused population, and, perhaps I'm being stereotypical, I can't help but think that rap is a response and reaction to oppression. I'm not saying that Israelis haven't been through more than their fair share of strife, but I can't help but think that it fits more with the Palestinian way of life. The men in DAM are  from one of the worst ghettos in Israel and they brought back the theme of protest to rap music. Maybe I'm biased (because I really like DAM's music), but the realities of Palestinian life matches up better with the themes of rap.

Then again, why should rap have a theme? Who decides what sort of content a type of music should cover? Is it a bastardization of rap or an innovation off of it? Your Mileage May Vary, I suppose.

"Separation Barrier" Reading Response

Hey everybody. :)

As per the usual, I began my research on Wikipedia.I didn't know enough about the separation barrier to start out with news or scholarly articles. And thus, armed with a broad (probably accurate) information, I set out on my search. Two of the articles I found were of particular interest to me.

"'Force to be Reckoned With:' Israel's Settlers Dig in Ahead of Obama's Visit" Posted on February 16, 2013 on NBC's World News Website.
            The article was mostly about how (as the title suggests) despite the continued dissent and condemnation from the United Nations and the threat of "Second-Term Obama" Israel keeps plowing (literally) ahead with it's settlements. Prime Minister Netanyahu consistently states that he is in support of a two-state solution, but his actions and policies generally imply the opposite. Interestingly, the article points out a shift in the political climate of Israel: January elections shifted power away from those who habitually support settlements towards the more moderate center. There was also an interesting quote from the current Deputy Prime Minister (who didn't get reelected) Dan Meridor, who stated

"I'm not saying we should stop construction in Jerusalem and in the settlement blocs, but we must not build beyond them, because by doing so we promote a very dangerous situation to Zionism, of one state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, which endangers us more than anything else," 

Perhaps the winds of change are blowing, but at the current moment, it looks like Israel is going to keep on keeping on. 

"New Outposts Occupy West Bank Land" Posted on February 6, 2013 on the Alternative News website.

            This article dealt with a specific West Bank Village: Jayyous. Since 2002 the people of Jayyous have non-violently protested the building of the Separation Barrier on their land. As of today, they are cut off from 75% of their agricultural land, which is now accessible only through two checkpoints. As a result, their crops often do not get the attention needed. In class on Tuesday, Sahar Vardi, told us of an old Ottoman-era law that dictates that if land goes uncultivated for 3 years, the state can seize it. This often comes into effect in these circumstances. The villagers continue with non-violent activism and legal measures (they've taken the fight to Israeli court) to get the wall removed to the "Green" Armistice Line. The court actually decided that the wall should be moved to return some (but not all) of the land in 2009, but it hasn't budged yet. 

This article was quite a bit more depressing. I can only imagine how frustrating and disheartening it would be to do everything peacefully, everything right, to go through the bureaucracy and even win in court, and still get nothing out of it. Still, it kind of warms my heart to see that, despite everything, people are still retaining their humanity and not resorting to violent means. 

See you guys tomorrow!

The Writing on the Wall - Response

Hello everybody. :)

Straight up, I've always just thought of graffiti as vandalism. I guess, at its shallowest level, that's what the people in this article were doing. And if it wasn't illegal it wouldn't have had the same impact. If there hadn't been any risk involved, it wouldn't have been as compelling, nor as admirable (to the Palestinians at least). And who knew something so simple could take on so many facets and meanings. They were political statements, dialogue, and guilt-trips, and they declared villains and martyrs.

When I thought about the Israeli soldiers (or beleaguered owners of whatever wall the graffiti was on) constant battle with the-night graffiti artists, I couldn't help but find it a little funny. It reminded me of a scene from a movie, and this seemed like the typical oppressor v. underdog struggle. It must have felt like a very Sisyphean task, painting over graffiti, knowing that a fresh batch would show up tomorrow. 

On another note, I was struck by the resilience of the Palestinians. I think it was sort of a nice look at humanity when it's under pressure. We can make something out of nothing. They took something as simple as a can of spray paint and turned it into so so much more. They subverted censorship and got everyone's attention. It was anonymous (assuming one didn't get caught of course) yet could still advertise the ideologies of a group.

See you guys!

Outline

My plan is to create and present a Prezi on the topic of territorial dispute.

I) Intro
       A) Give a brief overview
       B)Define a territorial dispute
II) Body
      A) Very briefly touch on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (I think we'll now plenty by the end of the class)
      B) Cover several other ongoing disputes (i.e India v.  Pakistan, Sudan v. South Sudan, North Korea v. South Korea etc. ) and past disputes (North Ireland, Sakhalin Island and maybe even the Ohio V. Michigan battle over Toledo).


And that's the tentative plan so far. I plan to use lots of pictures, and possibly video clips and I will try to make it as interesting as possible.


     

Parallels and Paradoxes - Reading Response

Hey Everybody. :)

I want to start out by saying that I found the format of the book very refreshing. In a traditional textbook or non-fiction book, I often feel as though I'm being lectured to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course, but I think I may have actually gotten more out of the interview/conversation between Barenboim and Said. I felt as though, I was the fly on the wall, listening to two brilliant, knowledgeable men speak their opinions, react and respond to each other.

I found their discussion of the effects of and reactions against globalization very interesting . Said stated that one of the impacts was the "reaction against global homogenization" was hanging on to traditional symbols as a way to stand against the wave of globalization. This rings very true to me. In class discussion several weeks ago, the issue of clinging to identity to set you apart was brought up, and after quite a bit of thinking about it I realized how obvious this was. Back home, where pretty much everyone's is Catholic and of northern European origin, people try to find ways to differentiate themselves. But once I left for more diverse pastures, I found myself claiming and clinging to that identity more than ever. I know that many of my friends have had similar experiences and it goes a long way in explaining the backlash against globalization and the 'American culture.' He also spoke of partition being the go-to method of dealing with post-colonialism and of forcing people into boxes and how this creates paranoia and distortion. This is the source of a lot of modern conflicts in the world, Israel-Palestine being the most visible.

Said and Barenboim also discussed ignorance of other people's opinions being the root of suffering. They don't think that everyone should agree, indeed different ideas make the world a better place, but understanding that the opposing side has a genuine sensible argument, is the first step to tolerance.

See you guys tomorrow!

Journal #3 - Identity

Hey Everyone. :)

Who am I? That's sort of a loaded question.

There are a lot of thing from my house back in ND that I could show you all to show my identity. But it's really far away, and I honestly don't think my parents are tech savvy enough (like, at all) to take, upload and send me pictures. So, I will attempt to find replications on google, and for everything else I will just describe.

My roots are important to me. There are things I will never forget: The Czechoslovakian lullaby my Grandma Wiletta used to sing to me and my cousins before we went to sleep. My Grandma Alice's strong strong German accent (which she firmly denies having) when she tells a story. My Grandpa Paul telling me how the Empress of Russia convinced a bunch of German farmers to immigrate to Russia and then didn't keep any of her promises (it was 200 years ago and he was still mad about it). Feeling the fabric of my Grandpa Albert's WWII uniform that my grandma keeps in an old chest.

It may not be very interesting or colorful, but it's where I came from.

Borscht Soup

Fleischkuekle

Kolace

My dad is a farmer. His dad was a farmer. We were probably peasant farmers in central Europe 900 years ago. This Superbowl commercials made me cry because it's so true. The weathered faces and the hard hard work and the scarred hands and being tough as nails. It's all true. 

I am not a farmer by any stretch of the word. Sometimes I think I wasn't meant to be born out there. Miles and miles with no one around. Up before dawn and chores, chores, chores, and dirty clothes. My legs are full of scars because I refused to wear jeans in the summer. I was not a good farm girl. I hated butchering chickens and sitting out in the blazing sun waiting for the tractor to finish another round and fixing fence all autumn and cutting wood when it was 15 degrees out. I did what I could to get out of it. But it's home. And as I sit here, in the middle of the city, with people everywhere, thinking about what I'm going to wear tomorrow, worrying about what sort of impression I'm making on people . . . I miss home. I miss being able to just go for a walk and just being alone, and I miss my dogs and my cats and sitting on fences made out of railroad ties and just thinking. (This kind of sounds like it's out of a Mark Twain book)

Who I am: I am a reader. (Please please tell me someone else has read A Song of Ice and Fire series). I like to be comfortable. I am a teetotaler. I am not a risk-taker. I like to talk. I wish I had a Pea-coat in every color of the Rainbow. If I won a billion dollars I would still go to school because I like to learn. I'm a self-hating soprano ( I really wish I was an alto). I love that Post-Performance High after a concert or play or musical. I hate Jane Austen novels. I'm overly-emotional. Fruit Juice makes me hyper. A week without a good cry is a week that was wasted.

Which is my identity? Is it my culture or my personality? I'd like to say that it's both.

(( I wish I had more pictures. ))

See everyone tomorrow!

Reading Response - Tamari

Hello Everybody. :)

Human beings have a tendency to place everything, including people, into boxes. Male, Female, Black, White, Asian, Tall, Short, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist, etc. etc. It  helps our brains process things and when things don't fit neatly into our imaginary boxes, it really bothers us. And thus, a lot of information is presented to us in a black and white matter. In Armstrong's book, and many other articles, there are 'the Jews' and 'the Arabs' etc. And thus we separate them into mutually exclusive groups. While I had never given it much thought, this "one or the other" presentation of information

Before the whole Zionism hullabaloo (no disprespect meant, I just really wanted to use the word hullabaloo), many Middle Eastern Jews absolutely considered themselves Arab. And why wouldn't they? Their families had lived there for hundreds of years, same as their neighbors. It was only over time that their perceptions of themselves changed to take on a more exclusively Jewish identity.

I had never given any thought to how some people may have felt torn during the conflict. You read and hear about everything from a very impersonal perspective, so often, these sorts of things don't even occur to me. When we were reading Armstrong's book, everyone seemed to be in a state of conflict pretty much all of the time. I think that this is due to a) Armstrong fitting a huge amount of information and history into a relatively small book and didn't have the space for details like this and b) the situation in Jerusalem being so much more polarized and intense than in other parts of the country. I shouldn't be surprised. Jerusalem always seems to be the place of extremes.

See everyone in class!

Reading Responce Ch. 14-18

Hello Everybody. :)


Throughout these chapters, Armstrong repeatedly mentioned how building was used as a type of warfare. To build a mosque/church/synagogue in a place was to claim it as the respective builders sacred territory. To build one religious building higher than another was extremely provocative. This was common in the Middle Ages, but it came up again in Chapter 18 (Zion?) when the Israeli government demolished  Arab houses and built new homes for Jewish people to create more of a Jewish presence as quickly as possible.

There was a brief interlude in Chapter 16 where philanthropy became a new type of fighting, each side tried to out-nice each other basically. Poor Jews converting to Christianity because Christians promised that they would be taken care of. I wish we could have stuck with this, even though it was mainly done in the quest for converts/keeping people from converting.

Something else that I found to be interesting was the First municipal council (baladiyya all-quds) consisting of six Muslims, two Christians and, eventually two Jews. They were able to work together cooperatively and creatively. Why can't something like this happen again? 

The chapter about the 6-Day-War and the Israeli takeover actually made me sympathize with the Israeli cause more. I don't know if it was Armstrong's  writing style that was influencing me, or Holocaust guilt (which influenced many Western powers) but I could really feel for them. In no way to I approve of or like what they did (like, at all) but I could understand it more.

On page 406, Armstrong states that "The new Jewish passion for the holiness of Jerusalem could not be gainsaid by mere United Nations directives nor by logically discursive arguments. It was powerful not because it was legal or reasonable but precisely because it was a myth." This statement really had an impact on me. It wasn't nice, and it wasn't very reasonable, but they were so deeply psychologically set on it that it became a necessity. In the past I've had a lot of trouble understanding why the Israelis did this, or how they got away with it, and why they just ignored the United Nations directives, but they felt that it was sacred and that it was right.

I really enjoyed these last few chapters because of their relevance to the modern day. But then again, I guess that the point of the book (at least in a way) was that the hundreds of pages of super condensed history is relevant because the history is so deeply ingrained in people's minds. All of the abuses and slights of years past really matter to people now. Thousands of years of history have led up to the current day position now. And I can't help but think that this is why the situation is such a difficult mess.

Four hundred and thirty pages later, despite having a much better grasp on the history of Jerusalem, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface of the city of Jerusalem. I look forward to learning more.

Final Project Idea

I (tentatively) plan on researching and presenting on other cases of disputed territory, both historical and current. The idea is in its infancy so I don't have much more of an  idea right now. I will try to make an interesting powerpoint/prezi with lots of pictures.

Reading Response Ch. 11-13

Hello everybody. :)

To start off, these chapters made me want to watch Kingdom of Heaven (as inaccurate as it may be).

One thing that I found interesting was mosques being a center for all sorts of things in the city, and not just religious life. Armstrong mentioned that some found this irreverent, but I think that it's pretty cool. From my observations, it seems that Muslims, more than Christians at least, live there religion. I've noticed that for many Christians, it's very easy to just leave there religion at church because it doesn't make a point of being part of everyday life (at least not to the same extent). I can't really speak to Judaism, because I'm pretty ignorant on it.

There is such a stereotype here in America that Islam is a violent religion, when in reality, their taking over of Jerusalem was by far the most peaceful transition. They were kind to their fellow Ahl al-kitaab and allowed then to continue their religious practices. 

And then came the Crusaders. That type of event that makes me feel embarrassed by association when I go into a museum. What a bloody mess. It's amazing how the things done in the name of a religion of peace and charity and love leads to violence and hate. And when Godfrey took Al-Aqsa Mosque as his headquarters? Oh my goodness. What an irreverent slap in the face. 

After a decades of relative success, when the Templars are fighting with the Hopitalers, and the newcomers are fighting with the people that were born there and things are starting to go sour, instead of facing the incoming threat of the united forces of Nur al-Did, they turn on their only ally in the region.  . . .What. Did no one say "hmmm, hey guys, maybe this is a bad idea." 

Saladin on the other hand . . . what a Champ. I really don't know what else to say on the matter. 

And lastly, I have a genuine question: is Jerusalem a hub for seismic activity? Because there seemed to be a lot of earthquakes in this part of the book.

See you guys Tuesday!

Reading Response - Ch. 8-10

Hi Everybody! :)

On this I found very interesting was how Jerusalem wasn't initially particularly important to Christians. In fact they called it the "Guilty City" for rejected and killing Jesus. It started to become important largely because of the ambitions of the Bishop of Aelia/Jerusalem (Cyril) - in addition to archaeological finds. This was quite a reversal for Christians who saw themselves as 'purely spiritual' and above the need of a physical site to feel close to God. On page 183, Armstrong says that this showed that the "myths of sacred geography are deeply rooted in the human psyche." This really adds to the discussion we were having last week about how our holy places still manage to have a profound effect on us.

Another quote that really jumped out at me was this: "Christianity may have been liberated from oppression but it was still embattled and defensive, poised in an attitude of resolute and destructive opposition to its rivals. " Woah. Does this remind you of anything? The modern state of Israel, perhaps. Of a people, long abused, finally achieving some power and thus being extremely defensive? Yeah. Personally I think that that is quite the parallel.

Throughout the book, we are seeing more and more Christian disdain for their parent religion, Judaism. For some reason, they seemed to think that Judaism needed to be destroyed in order for Christianity to be legitimized (or something like that). I found this very disturbing, but not surprising. Every time I come across a section about this antisemitism, I feel a little dread, because of the horror that it eventually brought.

Journal #2 The Problem with "No Solution"

Hello Everybody. :)

I gotta say, despite the fact that this is a class about Jerusalem, I was a little surprised about the prompt for this journal. I feel like I don't know nearly enough about the situation to put forth a good idea. But perhaps not knowing enough might not be so bad because it might help me think outside the box.

I think the best place to start would be at the micro-level, with individuals and communities. While sitting together over a plate of hummus and falafel might not be super productive, I think that it can't hurt. Small grass-roots organizations can be the catalyst for great change. Earlier in the class I brought up the idea of fostering peace in Israeli and Palestinian schools. There is so much hate outside in the world. School could be a place that promotes understanding. I understand that this would be easier said than done, but children are highly impressionable, so at the very least it might help curtail the belief that violence is the only answer and prevent future loss of life. Perhaps this education could be done by international or domestic volunteers who are part of peace organizations. While this may seem insignificant, it could be the seed for something in the future.

On to the level of policy: the first step would be granting Palestinians their rights and equal representation. As for how to go about doing this . . . I have no idea. While I don't know much about Israeli politics, I doubt that a lot of the politicians are amenable to that, for reasons of power, national security, staying in office etc. etc. If most of them were open to it, I'd like to think that progress would be made in this area by now. Without Palestinians having a say, I don't think there will be a solution.

I don't think anyone has any delusions that this is going to be easy. But I favor the slow and hopefully steady approach of changing the little things. I understand that this won't really help people's living conditions right now, and that sucks. But realistically, this is the route I would take

RR #4 - Chapters 5-8

Hello Everyone. :)

I'm going to be perfectly honest. I had a really hard time getting through Chapter 6: "Antioch in Judea." It just seemed to be a never ending sequence of this person conquered these people, and they were banished so they took it back, and then some other person came in and conquered them, but he let them keep their beliefs, so they were OK with it, but then that empire fell and a whole 'nother kerfluffle started.

Once it transitioned into the Common Era, I was able to focus a bit more, because I had more historical context. But still, the constant occupation and war and rebellion continued. My gosh, it must have been exhausting (yes, I'm being facetious). A lot of the things that happened really annoyed me and tweaked my sense of justice. Such as the various banishment(s) of people from Jerusalem. When the Jews ruled, no Gentiles were allowed to live in the city, and several times, the Jews were banished as well. The Gentiles being banned was a matter of religion, whereas the Jews being banished was a matter of security and fearing more rebellions. While both these things seem very primitive, I guess that it's a very human type of reaction- keeping people that are 'other' out.  I do wonder on the logistics of this though. How did they know that someone was a gentile or a Jew? Was it how they dressed? Did they have documentation? I'd like to know how this was accomplished.

Another point of interest for me, was how some of the main traditions of Judaism changed after the destruction of Herod's temple. I figured that they stopped doing sacrifices slowly as time went on and the cultures changed, as opposed to a school of Rabbis deciding that charity and mercy was enough of an offering. This seems like a much more modern concept, and a quick change from the primitiveness of human sacrifice.

Reading Response #3

Hello Everyone!

I adore history, especially history that I have some sort of connection to. No, my ancestors don't come from the Middle East (at least I'm pretty darn sure they don't - at least not for a long time) but I've been going to church and hearing stories from the Bible for as long as I can remembers. Stories of Abraham and David and Solomon. I had little picture books with beautiful drawings of the Ark of the Covenant and the City of David- the whole nine yards. Reading Karen Armstrong's more historically-supported account is really really cool.

I don't consider myself particularly religious anymore, but learning about the true (at least supposedly) stories of these places and people is really exciting. I dunno if it's the nerd in me or what, but I blazed through the first 3 chapters (maybe not the fourth one as much - I found that a little harder to get through). I watched every history channel documentary there was on Biblical people and events. (Not that they air those anymore. Thanks a lot Pawn Stars) So yes, I know that a lot of people might find it boring and they probably would like to get to more modern history soon, but I liked it.

I like Karen Armstrong's writing style. It's doesn't have a lot of description (though there's not a lot of details for this time frame, of course so that may change) and is straight and informative without being dreadfully boring. I also find it interesting that she was a nun the first time she came to Jerusalem. Even growing up as a Christian, I still think of Jerusalem as a Jewish v. Muslim issue. And I found it's a bit surprising that the person who wrote the book for the class is (or was at one point) a Catholic. Perhaps it will eliminate some of the typical bias one associates with writings on Jerusalem. I also looked at her Wikipedia page and saw that she is called one of the foremost religious historians and she also won the TED Prize in 2008. I think that we can probably trust her writing (to an extent of course).

Lastly, I like the maps she provides. It's cool to see how the village, then, town, then citadel, then capital, then city of Jerusalem morphs and shifts throughout time.

As sign off, I'm going to continue to be pretty informal with my writing. I enjoy blogging a lot more this way. I hope no one minds!

Journal #1 - Thoughts on the First Week

The Blogging initially made me a little nervous, because I'm not very into social media. I haven't updated my facebook status since June. June. So yes, I was a little hesitant.

While I had my reservations at first, I think that communicating through Blogging might be a good way to break the ice. It also may help us discuss opposing viewpoints. This is a subject with deep meaning for some people, and nerves are bound to be hit and passions are bound to come up. Being online, it is easier to state your true opinions, plus we have the benefit of enforced (kind of) politeness because we're not anonymous. We see each other in class twice a week whether we want to or not, so I'm not particularly worried about things staying civil. And also, not having the conversation in person gives us time to formulate our side of the discussion in a thoughtful articulate manner (I personally am able to get my point across much more clearly in writing). People can propose things on the main blog if they want to discuss something the next class, and people can get their thoughts together or research more information. Hopefully it will stimulate conversation without allowing things to get out of hand.

I would also like to take a moment to state how I feel about Jerusalem. I honestly don't have any connection to Jerusalem. I was raised Catholic, but other than Jerusalem being a place  that would be cool to visit. I really don't have any deep personal feelings for it. It's home for some people. Both spiritually and (as far as their families go) physically. So at some points, I think I'm going to feel like an intruder on conversations. I also don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the topic. I could more than hold my own against the average American, sure, but beyond that I feel pretty ignorant compared to many in the class.

I think that this class will be extremely enlightening and I hope that everyone will be able to see other perspectives, even if it doesn't change their opinion.

Reading Response 2

History has always been one of my favorite subjects, so I really enjoyed this week's articles. We spend so much time focusing on the (relatively) recent history of Jerusalem that it was a nice breather to get to see a bit into the ancient past. Jerusalem means so much to so many people, and so many passions are tied up into it, it's strange to think that, at one point Jerusalem was just a small village reliant upon springs for water in the middle of the dusty landscape. I find it kind of funny that, in all actuality, Jerusalem wasn't a very convenient location for the tug-of-war between the three great monotheistic faiths. Poor Jerusalem has known more sieges, invasions, take-overs, build-ups and tear-downs than pretty much any city in the world. Who among the Jebusites, or other first inhabitants could have foreseen the fate of their little village. Just think of how different things would be if King David hadn't chosen it as his capital, or if the founder of Christianity hadn't died there, or if Muhammad would not have traveled there on his Night Journey? All three of the articles spend pages going over the various groups conquering the city, and then being conquered themselves. It made me really really want to watch Kingdom of Heaven (the director's cut of course).


My favorite of the three was the article by Mick Dumper. I thought he did a good job of establishing that Jerusalem wasn't a cake walk for the Palestinians or the Jews. The visual timeline was also a nice edition (and, maybe it's the Kindergartner in me, but I liked the pictures too). I liked how the Rubin article was mainly historical, though I thought how he ended it was a little sunshine and rainbows-y what with "Jerusalem {becoming} a united city where Jews and Muslims {. . . } could like side by side. Hmmm. I don't know if he's portraying that in a very realistic light. The Khalidi begins by saying that even if all of the religious texts aren't historically accurate, enough people believe that they are historically accurate for the traditions formed from them to be very very relevant today. He also ends on a hopeful note, but I think his is much more realistic than Rubin's. He hopes that in the end, peace will be reached and all the faiths can live in Jerusalem in (relative) harmony.

Hello all. :)

         I guess a little introduction about myself is a good idea. My name is Brianna Baar and I was born and raised in Southwest North Dakota. Yes, North Dakota. I have three much older siblings and I lived on the farm that has been in my dad's family for generations. My community is very rural and very very German with some Norwegian sprinkled in for flavor. Needless to say, where I come from isn't very diverse. Everyone looks and talks pretty much the same (the accent is atrocious, so if I slip up and pronounce my 'ag's weird, you know why). The town where I went to school and worked was 90% Catholic and 10% Protestant Christian, which is about as diverse as it got). So I decided to go to Ohio State to get away from it all (don't get me wrong, I love my home) and get some experiences. I am currently in my Second Year here as a Middle Eastern Studies Major and an Arabic Minor. I am trying to graduate a year early so that I can began working on my Master's in Social Work. Ultimately I hope to do the bulk of my work helping immigrants and refugees in the United States.

Onward to the actual assignment!

Reading Responce:

As for the second Article, the interview of Amiry, the first thing that caught my interest was the responce to the question about the Postponement. She answered that it was a matter of not having enough money. Dr. Horowitz on the other hand, said that the real answer was a lot of highly political things that culminated in the project getting shut down.

I also thought it was an interesting thing that pheasant culture is idealized and Urban culture ignored. Is this due to some longing for simpler days or for a way of life lost too many? Is it idealizing the past in favor of the present? Another thing she said was "for many abroad, Jerusalem is simply the center of three religions, not a place where people engage in every day life." I honestly have never thought of it as a place where people actually live. A place where they get in trouble, and rescue cats and do the laundry and shop for groceries and do their homework and go to their jobs at the grocery store. As stupid and irreverent as it sounds I kind of unknowingly thought of Jerusalem as the ultimate tourist town, a place to visit, not a place to live. This was born out of ignorance on my part of course.

I found the Hasan-Rokem article a little too verbose and complex.Sentences like "Representation operates by metonymy, synecdoche and metaphor," had me staring. I consider myself to have a pretty big vocabulary but what? It had a lot of valuable information in it, but it was hard to keep from spacing out and from getting confused by all the terminology. For instance, the pages about the sukka really got me confused, and I wondered about their relevence. She later states that she did this for the purpose of demonstrating the difficulty of expressing this complex piece of ethnography into a visual and live festival, but I still found it a little excessive.

The poem that Dr. Horowitz quoted had just the effect on me that I think she intended: it kind of startled me, becuase I would totally be the tourist that ignored the living, breathing human to look at some really old rock. And isn't that a little messed up? The rest of the article was summarizing the headache-inducing task of figuring out the logistics of 'capturing Jerusalem' on the Washington Lawn. I really enjoyed Dr. Horowitz's writing style, as it is informative, simple and funny. 

All of the articles had one particular theme in common: he difficulty in finding compromise for all of the participating parties; The Smithosonian and the Municipal governments, the elitists and the folklorists, and of course, the Palestinians and the Israelis, they all had to be worked around a bit, and it was basically impossible to keep everybody happy. Everything from the physical set up, to the number of Jerusalemites brought from each 'side,' to whom to recieve funidng for, to the actual name of the exhibit was under contention. And if that's not a symbol, or a metaphor or what have you, for the greater conflict, I don't know what is.