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.