Swine Flu Hits The Middle East

It's happened... The swine flu hysteria has hit the Middle East. 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.boars/index.html

This is an article from CNN.com that discusses the recent swine flu scare in the Middle East. Three wild boars in a zoo in Baghdad were put down today, in fear that they may could present a danger to the population. Swine flu scares have been happening all over the world, and the Iraqi government put these animals down as a precaution. They claim its to prevent the fear of the public. They were tested, found clean, and put to sleep anyway. This just goes to show you that no matter the culture, or the people, everyone seems to be nervous and afraid of the swine flu virus. Swine flu has more than 900 confirmed cases around the world at this point, and it only seems to be getting worse. 

"The government has allocated $30 million to respond to possible outbreaks, according to the Iraqi ministry of health"

 .Travel plans have been slowed as many airlines are canceling flights all over the world.

The Man Who Changed The World

Its very interesting to watch this clip on youtube and see how much involvement the United States really had on so many years of Iranian history. The video describes how the United States CIA sets secret plans to alter the structure of the government with the Prime Minister and the Shah. There are two arguments for this action, 1) that the governmental structure of Iran should have nothing to do with the United States, and 2) the United States felt threatened by the situation and the Soviet influence that could greatly effect the States. Personally I'm not sure which argument I follow more. It just seems that the United States tries to run the world. But on the other hand you can't say that just because one nation does something that it doesn't affect the entire world. Sometimes it does, and sometimes we only think it will, but there is a big risk in waiting to find out how it will affect everything. Another interesting part of the video was when the Iranian students took over the US Embassy. Its amazing to see that they actually had support from government figures in Iran. You would never see that here in the United States, that our government would support such actions. Not to say it makes our government any better because it doesn't, but they are just completely different. It just seems like there is so much bad blood between these two nations that I don't know if it will ever be resolved. Certainly not anytime soon with our stance on war and the Middle East. Its like every government just does whatever they want, and if they don't get caught doing it then its not a problem, but when they do they always have an exit strategy. Politics seems to just be about corruption and coercion. Especially international politics.  

Bastard of Istanbul

The Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Shafak is a story that pins two families of different cultures and ethnicities against each other. Both families have their own identities and each family member in each family seems to have a separate identity at that. Their family history and the future will help each person find their true identity. Each person may think they know who they are now, but things can always change. Shafak attempts to display the true meaning and importance of a person’s own identity and how the main characters identities all tie in with each other by the end of the novel. 

            There seems to be a huge difference between generations and their perception on today’s society. There is the Turkish family from Istanbul, and the Armenian family that lives in the United States. In Istanbul there are a set of rules called the “Rules of Prudence for an Istanbulite Woman.” These are rules that were set into society many years ago. The elders seem to follow these rules, but a young Zeliha, a part of the Turkish family in Istanbul, seems to disregard all of these standards. She creates her own identity, whether it conforms to society or not she is who she is. She seems to break every one of the three golden rules of prudence and is unlike most women in Istanbul. Zeliha, when harassed on the streets responds back and swears at her harasser. She also looses her cool and breaks the second rule of prudence but reacting excessively to her harasser. The last thing she does to break the rules of an Istanbulite woman is not forgetting about her harasser and letting it affect the rest of her day. Possibly the biggest difference in her identity as a Turkish woman was her lack of faith in Allah. She resented Allah from a young age. Zeliha stands out in a crowd with her frizzy hair and shiny nose rings, but that is her identity, no matter who likes, or dislikes it, or who is watching. 

Touba

Shahruush Parsipur’s novel Touba and the Meaning of Life follows the story of a women’s life living in Iran through numerous major historical events. Through Touba’s life we see the struggles she encounters as a women, and the historical struggles Iran faces at the same time. The difficulties of the main character are a reflection of the difficulties of the nation. In the character of Touba, Parsipur explores the changing fortunes of Iran through 80 years of turbulent history.

Touba’s personal life is dramatically effected by events that happen in Iranian history. Every aspect of her life is changed in some way according to things that happen within the Iranian boarders. The 1909 coup against Mohammed Ali Shah dramatically affects Touba’s home life. In July of 1908, after months of political conflict, Mohammed Ali Shah authorized the Russian brigade to attack the parliament, then dissolve it and the constitution. Pro-constitutionalists in 1909 recruited a large armed force to march on Tehran. Mohammad Ali Shah then sought refuge in the Russian legation and departed from Iran. With Mohammad Ali Shah finding refuge away from Iran and the Qajar dynasty doing much of the same, including her husband the Qajar Prince, Touba is left to raise her four children alone. The fleeing and breakdown of the Qajar dynasty also represents the breakdown of Touba’s personal life and family. This is another example of how Touba’s life and the Iranian nation reflect each other.

Good News vs Bad News.

It seems today that everyone is more interested in the bad news vs the good news. It is like people like to hear bad news as its entertainment instead of realizing that it is really happening to people. After looking at CNN.com in the "Middle East" section there pops up about ten links for news stories, All of them being negative news. Maybe it is our perception as Americans on the situation or the region itself, but there has to be something good going on over there. I believe there is, its just we are so focused on the war and the conflict that we either miss, or completely ignore the good things that are happening over there. This actually doesn't mean the people of the United States are missing it, but the censorship and the corporate sponsors who say what type of news gets shown are either profiting from, or pushing certain news for their own benefit. Again the same happens when I go on nytimes.com. All bad news stories appear. This may alter the peoples perception of the Middle East because they never get to hear about whatever good things may be happening over there. Because we are at war all we want to know about is us and how we are doing over there, not how the people that live over there are doing. It seems like an obvious statement that only bad news gets air time, but many people do not really realize when they watch the news that it is mostly bad or negative stories.

Armenian Genocide

Its very interesting to learn about the Armenian genocide, and its importance. Its strange to learn of it so late in my educational career, yet see what kind of importance it has. How can something so important be skipped over for so many years. I guess it depends on who says its an important event in history. Americans don't seem to see it as such an important event. Wether its because of publicity or politics the information does not become as prevelant here in the states than in places closer to the event. That, however, does not make it any less important as a historical event. The relocation and destruction of thousands of people is a very important event. Maybe it wasn't at the same scale as the Holocaust, but none the less, it can be classified in the same category. Its extremely interesting to see how the Turkish government denies the event to this day. Understandibly they want their legacy to be remembered in a positive manner. But to denie such a horrific event such as the genocide is amazing. They will call it anythning and everything, except a genocide. I do think its fair to coin a phrase after the fact like the word "genocide". The word has a definition, and if the action or event fits the definition than so be it. I think it would be more beneifical for the Turks to admit their wrong doings and move on. I guess by denying it for so long that they are stuck and if they admit it now they will admit they have been lieing for so many years. Another important thing to think about is the interpretation of definition. Sure a word can have a definition but not everyone will read the same things the same ways. This may be where the problem comes in...

Religious Police

http://news.aol.com/article/saudi-woman-sentenced-to-lashes/375581

This is an article I found on AOL news. It describes how a 75 year old woman in Saudi Arabia was sentenced to four months in jail and forty lashes for asking two men to deliver her five loaves of bread. 

Granted I understand Islamic beliefs are much different than Catholic and other beliefs but this seems extremely harsh. She is a recent widow and only asked for a loaf of bread. According to the article women are not allowed to mingle with men that are not immediate family. The "religious police" as they call it convicted her and she is not currently carrying out her sentence because of appeals.

I believe the "religious police" are an outrageous idea. Even Saudi's are complaining that they have been overstepping their boundaries more and more. 

This is just another example of the differences between Middle Eastern culture and American culture, even so I don't see how you can defend such action and punishment, even if you are from that region.

The Proclamation

Reading the Proclamation it resembles the American Bill of Rights in many ways. I always think its interesting to see how others have adapted to history, as people say we must learn from history, or become history. Numerous laws that the Gulhane Proclamation lay out were first made in the Bill of Rights of American society. 

Security for Life, Honor, and Fortune or from the Bill of Rights - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.

Each one shall be publicly judged - or from the Bill of Rights - due process and trial by jury.

The list goes on and on. This document seems to lay out the laws and guidelines to being a successful territory. The United States Bill of Rights does exactly that and it seems these two documents could go hand in hand, except they were written more than a hundred years apart. 

Zayni Barakat

I found aspects of this book interesting, and aspects very hard to follow. Being a historical fiction I did find its hard to really know what is total truth and what is story telling. The names also confused me as I found myself having to look back and figure out who was who. I liked how the book described the structure of power and how every official seemed to be spying on another. That made the book very interesting and gave it sort of a dramatic twist. 

Barakat himself was a very interesting man and I believe he was the first of his kind. His radical ways may not have been suitable for the time period and his time as Muhastib but he definitely turned a few heads with his approach. Speaking with people directly was a new idea that the people loved, but the officials hated. It seemed like anything that was good for the people the other officials did not like. Even the Sultan says that anytime someone wants justice you come and shoot him down, which really describes how officials seem threatened by other power. But how different is that really from todays society. Its all about power and people in positions of power become fearful that they will do something or someone else will do something that will affect their status and position. 

To Die in Jerusalem

The movie was both very informative but also very frustrating for me. I still fail to understand each sides stance on the conflict. To me the Palestinian's seem very defensive and the Israeli's seem very aggressive, wether right or wrong on either side thats how it appears to me. Both on a large scale and a smaller scale. The movie deals with two families who have fallen victim to a suicide bombing. The Palestinian families daughter was the bomber and the Israeli families daughter was the victim. I think it describes very well the differences in thought that each side has. By describing in detail from such a small scale it shows the magnitude of the larger scale. I think the Palestinian family seems to defend her daughter, especially when the father says dying like that is an honorable way to go because everyone is going to die sometime anyway. 

 

I sympathize more with the Israeli mother, but more with the Palestinian people. I try to understand how the Palestinians feel because they are being occupied by force and it seems they do not live free in their own land. However, the violence they use in retaliation effects this one Israeli mother in such a way that I must sympathize with her. She was only going to the supermarket and that is no place to die. I understand that Israelis are using force in Palestine and that the Palestinians seem to have no choice but to use force back. It just seems that suicide bombing is a cowardly thing to do. Granted the occupation is nothing to be proud of either. I guess I don't really sympathize with either of them now. 

 

I appreciate what Rachael's mother is trying to do, she sincerely wants to meet Ayat's parents to see how they really feel about the situation. If she can see how they speak to her she can understand if they truly knew what Ayat was planning. It seems to me that Rachael's mother has good intentions with speaking to the other mother but they turn it into an argument. The whole discussion was supposed to be about the bombing and they just want to talk about the occupation, like Rachael's mother planned the whole occupation. But Ayat actually did plan the bombing and thats all Rachael's mother wanted to know. 

 

While watching the film I tend to feel like they use God as a scapegoat and that everything is God's fault. I am Catholic and I don't feel that God truly makes you do anything, free will is a real concept. Rachael's mother was an individual effected by a bombing and Ayat's mother is an individual effected by the occupation. Neither one of them win in this situation. 

Slavery

Yesterday was our big discussion on The Imperial Harem. One of the most controversial issues we discussed was slavery. Its interesting to compare slavery of the Americas and Slavery in the Ottoman Empire. I tend to feel that the only reason we compare the two is because of the term "slavery." The slavery in the Americas was different than the slavery in the Ottoman Empire. Yes both were technically against the will of the two parties, but the situations of the two were completely different. The slavery in the Ottoman Empire was a life of luxury and opportunity. Even though it was required for these women to live in the Harem and do their duties there it allowed for success and opportunity. If these women were capable of receiving education and wealth then it doesn't seem so bad to me. Looking at the slavery in the Americas there was no opportunity for luxury or advancement in society. Everything in American slavery was forced labor and much harsher conditions than those of the Ottoman Empire. I don't believe they are comparable, yes they were both called slavery but I find it hard to believe that these women were very upset about being in the Harem. These women did it for their children as well. I think slavery is the wrong term for the women of the Harem, maybe another term would be more accurate for their situation.

Success

When we talk about the Ottoman Empire we usually talk about all the things they did differently than other empires in history. I think some of these things really contributed to its extended success. Something that I find very interesting was their idea of tolerance. At this time period who would think that an empire would come in and take over rule, but not force people to change their ways of life. Not changing their religion may have kept the successful times for the Ottoman Empire. Of course Islam was the first and most powerful religion in this society but they did not force it on Christians and Jews. I also think it is interesting how the Millets worked in society. Each religion had their own courts and depending on who had conflicts a certain religious court was chosen to deal with them. This is extremely groundbreaking, not having the Muslim courts rule over every conflict really helped allow the other religions of the empire to feel they could have an impact on their own lives even though they have been over ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Its really interesting to see the successful things the Ottoman Empire accomplished, and to see other empires make mistakes that they could have learned from other empires before their time. 

The Start of the Ottoman Empire

In class we talked about the three conditions to the uprising of the Ottoman Empire. Those conditions being the migration westward to where the empire would be set up, the Mongol Invasion, and the Crusades. Whenever we talk about history and the events of the past I always tend to think how things would be now if something were different in history. Take the three conditions for example. How would the empire and the Middle East look now if any one of these three conditions happened differently, or not at all. It could have changed the entire complexion of the geographic region, and even the people who live there now.  Think about The Battle of Nanzikert (the Seljuqs vs. the Bizentyne Empire). Lets just say that the Bizentyne Empire prevailed and stood for "x" amount of years more. Who knows what that empire could have accomplished for good, or destroyed for the worst. The whole Middle East, and even the world would be so much different then it is today. This would mean that the Ottoman Empire would not begin in 1299. I guess it may be pointless to think about these things seeing as it has already happened and the world is how it is. But just keep in mind how the smallest detail could alter history. 

U.S. Media on the Conflict

After watching the movie Peace, Propaganda and The Promised Land I find it hard to really believe anything you see on the American news stations. It seems that all the news outlets from within the United States are influenced by Israel, even the largest stations like ABC, NBC, etc. These stories are being spun by Israeli influence and change how we perceive the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. This influence ensures that American journalists are sympathetic with Israel and their actions. It almost seems pointless to watch American news because its not really truth when its so out of context. It’s like your not watching the news, but a sitcom with a written story, the Israeli story. How is it journalism when it’s not the full truth? For instance whenever there is a conflict its always a Palestinian attack and an Israeli retaliation. Its almost funny how it can be considered retaliation even when Israel is occupying these territories. So how is that retaliation? Another instance is when Palestinians attack in Israeli territory it’s a terrorist attack but when Israelis occupy Gaza and the West Bank its not. Only because Israeli troops are doing the attacking its not terrorism? It seems it could be classified as governmental terrorism. It’s the censorship in the United States that hinders how these stories are being told. I think the journalists in the film are correct when the voices are not being heard and the harsh pictures are not being shown. Maybe then will people who are not involved really feel the severity of this conflict? Unfortunately I don’t see the American press changing its ways because of all of the companies and politicians that have control over the distribution and content in the media.