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.