Likes:
-Overall I really liked this class. My favorite part was the discussion aspect. I think it is really valuable to have students from all different backgrounds engage in respectful dialogue about meaningful topics. Learning from other people is incredibly worthwhile and often more effective than long lectures or just taking notes. I really enjoyed this part of the class because it allowed everyone to engage with the material on a more personal and relevant level.
-I also enjoyed the guest speakers because I thought that their perspectives were often balanced, and I really appreciated hearing from Jews, Christians, and Muslims equally. It made some of the topics come more alive when we got to hear from experts in certain fields, especially from Richard Herrmann in Political Science. I would definitely invite him, as well as all of the other professors, back again next year.
-The video conferences were another great aspect of the class. Despite some technical difficulties, it was a new and rewarding experience to be able to communicate with people on the other side of the world in such a personal way. It was also really cool to get the perspective of people currently living in Jerusalem that we would not have been able to get without the video conferencing technology.
-I also thought the blogs were great. I have never had a blog before, and it was a good learning experience. I liked how everyone was able to connect through the class blog website and how interaction with each others’ blogs was encouraged. Having the readings available online was certainly helpful, and I think that the idea for reading responses in the blogs was good as well.
Suggestions:
-While I really enjoyed the free form of the discussions for the most part, I do think that a little more structure would be beneficial to keep more on track. Some of our digressions were the most interesting parts, but some seemed superfluous and unnecessary. Perhaps having the students each come with a question to ask the whole class or something like that might help to give a more solid form to the discussion.
-It would also have been nice to have a video conference room. I loved that we were able to do a lot of different things with the class (and I know, Dr. H, that you want a conference room), but not having the room made things a little hectic, although we managed. I thought it was a great idea for everyone to have prepared a question before each video conference, but it also might have helped to have gotten those questions organized a little more (Jay did a great job putting things together, but maybe we could have worked together more on the questions so that the conferences were more focused).
-Also, with the blogs, I would suggest just a little more structure and/or guidelines. I liked that everyone was able to express their thoughts in their own style, but I thought that certain styles were not as conducive to interaction or commenting. I would have loved to have had more interaction over the blogs, and part of it was my own lack of commitment, but sometimes I would spend a while looking at peoples’ blogs and not feel like I could comment because of the length or sometimes because people summarized more than analyzed. It is kind of hard to respond to short or shallow posts, or posts that don’t express much interaction with the text. Perhaps every once in a while students could be required to answer specific analytical questions related to the readings that would elicit more discussion.
-I thought that most of the readings were incredibly relevant and helpful, but I honestly found it very difficult to trudge through Karen Armstrong’s book. Her perspective was great and her video conference was amazing, but I thought that there might be a more efficient way to get through the material in her book. Overall I felt like it was so much information that I was barely able to absorb any of it because I was so concerned with just getting it done, and while it opened my eyes to a lot about the history of Jerusalem, I felt drowned by it more so than immersed in it. Maybe the book could just be spread out over the quarter more, with one chapter assigned for each class period. Then the other readings could be due in addition to Armstrong (for example, one chapter from Armstrong and one reading from Tamari, or something like that).
Overall, I thought that this class was great. I really enjoyed being a part of it and am glad to have met everyone. Best of luck next year.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Klein Response
One of the most interesting parts of the Jerusalem Report was the recognition that both those who call for an undivided Jerusalem and those who support political division actually want the same things: "security and sanctity" (8). It's crazy how both sides want the same thing but they believe that it must be achieved in exactly opposite ways. To me that says that either there are other reasons why they want to divide the city or keep it unified, or it says that the prospect of an agreement should not be so unreasonable if the goals are exactly the same.
The author also says that Jerusalem was often depicted in the media as the poorest city in the country, but he does not confirm that statement. Is that true? Or is that just the media's portrayal?
One other aspect that I noted from the Jerusalem Report was the thematic emphasis on American politics. As we have discussed in class and as I've known, America is a major player in what goes on in Jerusalem. But until now I had not really seen that as much in the literature, whereas in this article, it is throughout. It's kind of sobering to think that one country so far away can impact another country so dramatically.
Overall I thought Klein's article was very interesting as well. I had never thought about the difference between frontiers and borders before, but the perspective he lays out was incredibly relevant: "A boundary marks the point up to which each collective reaches, while the frontier directs its gaze to the other side of the boundary, to encounter and confrontation with an opposing entity or culture. Each of the contending groups seeks to control or defend its territory against being physically taken over by the “other,” the “invader.”" This distinction, while subtle, makes a lot of sense in view of Jerusalem. If each side views its boundary as a frontier, either one that they want to cross to gain more land, or one that they must protect, conflict seems inevitable from this perspective.
I had also never really thought about the effects of the Intifada (specifically the Second Intifada) on the Palestinian people. Klein describes Israeli actions in response to the uprising, and then the paragraph immediately following states: "Poverty, desolation, and neglect have spread throughout East Jerusalem. Eastern residents report these phenomena not only in the Shua'fat refugee camp but also in Abu-Tor, Silwan, Wadi Qadum, and Wadi Joz. There has been an increase in open drug use and trafficking. Fraudulent land sales have become a widespread phenomenon, and because income has shrunk, more people have become dependent on communal or religious charitable organizations. The press has reported a rise in the number of minor girls marrying in order to ease the brides' families' financial distress. The Jerusalem Municipality estimates that in 2000, a majority of 57.7 percent of East Jerusalem's Palestinian residents lived beneath the poverty line, including 68 percent of Palestinian children." This paragraph struck me as a sad and striking reality. As a result of the Intifada, Israeli police and armed forced increased their restrictions, which in turn led to a decrease in services in East Jerusalem. It just kind of seems ironic that an attempt to make things better contributed to making some things worse. (Maybe that's a reflection on how groups should pursue making things better...).
The author also says that Jerusalem was often depicted in the media as the poorest city in the country, but he does not confirm that statement. Is that true? Or is that just the media's portrayal?
One other aspect that I noted from the Jerusalem Report was the thematic emphasis on American politics. As we have discussed in class and as I've known, America is a major player in what goes on in Jerusalem. But until now I had not really seen that as much in the literature, whereas in this article, it is throughout. It's kind of sobering to think that one country so far away can impact another country so dramatically.
Overall I thought Klein's article was very interesting as well. I had never thought about the difference between frontiers and borders before, but the perspective he lays out was incredibly relevant: "A boundary marks the point up to which each collective reaches, while the frontier directs its gaze to the other side of the boundary, to encounter and confrontation with an opposing entity or culture. Each of the contending groups seeks to control or defend its territory against being physically taken over by the “other,” the “invader.”" This distinction, while subtle, makes a lot of sense in view of Jerusalem. If each side views its boundary as a frontier, either one that they want to cross to gain more land, or one that they must protect, conflict seems inevitable from this perspective.
I had also never really thought about the effects of the Intifada (specifically the Second Intifada) on the Palestinian people. Klein describes Israeli actions in response to the uprising, and then the paragraph immediately following states: "Poverty, desolation, and neglect have spread throughout East Jerusalem. Eastern residents report these phenomena not only in the Shua'fat refugee camp but also in Abu-Tor, Silwan, Wadi Qadum, and Wadi Joz. There has been an increase in open drug use and trafficking. Fraudulent land sales have become a widespread phenomenon, and because income has shrunk, more people have become dependent on communal or religious charitable organizations. The press has reported a rise in the number of minor girls marrying in order to ease the brides' families' financial distress. The Jerusalem Municipality estimates that in 2000, a majority of 57.7 percent of East Jerusalem's Palestinian residents lived beneath the poverty line, including 68 percent of Palestinian children." This paragraph struck me as a sad and striking reality. As a result of the Intifada, Israeli police and armed forced increased their restrictions, which in turn led to a decrease in services in East Jerusalem. It just kind of seems ironic that an attempt to make things better contributed to making some things worse. (Maybe that's a reflection on how groups should pursue making things better...).
Monday, May 18, 2009
Week 8- Monday
Before reading Nitzan-Shiftan's article, I never realized how much architecture could be associated with national identity. I remember that Karen Armstrong touched on similar ideas several times, but it did not strike me to be as central to her writing as it was here. One of the most interesting parts to me was that post-1967 Israeli architecture attempted to assimilate the forms of "the conquered" in hopes of promoting peace (232). I wish this idea had been developed more though- how did the Palestinians view this attempt? Was it at all successful at bridging the two groups? Furthermore, I think it's also interesting that in the examples here, people were attempting to create and solidify national identity through architecture, whereas in the past, the architecture came first and the national identity came to be associated with. (For example, Greeks and Romans happened to make their columns differently, and so they became one of the markers of which power came to rule in a certain area. They did not specifically design their columns to be different than the others).
In the first section of Qleibo's work I was surprised that he said he found freedom in Jerusalem as a Palestinian. I understand that he then goes on to describe how it was where he grew up and how, even though he didn't necessarily know specific people, he knew their families and their culture. I wonder what sort of conditions he was living in to describe his life as free. Most other literature or perspectives I've heard/read describe the Palestinian plight, their oppression. But he seems to look past that and be grateful for what he can relate to. Even in the poem when he refers to all the other nations that were in power, his tone is still one of acceptance and he focuses on how his life is a poem that connects him back to his roots.
In the first section of Qleibo's work I was surprised that he said he found freedom in Jerusalem as a Palestinian. I understand that he then goes on to describe how it was where he grew up and how, even though he didn't necessarily know specific people, he knew their families and their culture. I wonder what sort of conditions he was living in to describe his life as free. Most other literature or perspectives I've heard/read describe the Palestinian plight, their oppression. But he seems to look past that and be grateful for what he can relate to. Even in the poem when he refers to all the other nations that were in power, his tone is still one of acceptance and he focuses on how his life is a poem that connects him back to his roots.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Response to Amiry and Hasan-Rokem
I really enjoyed reading Amiry's "Sharon and my Mother-in-law." In addition to the easy to read and fast paced style, I thought the concept was interesting. While anecdotal and somewhat journalistic (as in personal journal), it gave a unique perspective on Jerusalem through the eyes of a Palestinian. It was real and a fascinating look at the everyday life of normal people. I appreciate this perspective after the long and tedious historical one, and for me it brought to life some of the realities that Palestinians face- especially in the part about the Jerusalem ID and Passport (for Nura). It was also encouraging to read about Palestinians being able to make jokes and not take everything too seriously- it's just good to know that life isn't always terrible.
I also liked Hasan-Rokem's piece as well. Her acceptance of other views is admirable. She says, "Nothing in me wishes my kind of relationship to the city to be the only emotional option. There is room here for many loves. There is no room here for coveting, dispossessing and hatred" (54-55). I think that if everyone, or even most people, could take a similar view, the situation in Jerusalem and Israel would be very different. I also think that her focus on practical issues is good as well: "Maybe most important is recognition that the population of Jerusalem has real, concrete needs to be taken care of: schools, parking lots, respectful neighbors, freedom to live with all one's family members, the right to express one's cultural, religious, ethnic or national identity" (55). It is easy to forget that Jerusalem is a city where people live their every day lives, and to focus on the aspects that pertain to that makes a lot of sense.
I also liked Hasan-Rokem's piece as well. Her acceptance of other views is admirable. She says, "Nothing in me wishes my kind of relationship to the city to be the only emotional option. There is room here for many loves. There is no room here for coveting, dispossessing and hatred" (54-55). I think that if everyone, or even most people, could take a similar view, the situation in Jerusalem and Israel would be very different. I also think that her focus on practical issues is good as well: "Maybe most important is recognition that the population of Jerusalem has real, concrete needs to be taken care of: schools, parking lots, respectful neighbors, freedom to live with all one's family members, the right to express one's cultural, religious, ethnic or national identity" (55). It is easy to forget that Jerusalem is a city where people live their every day lives, and to focus on the aspects that pertain to that makes a lot of sense.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Final Outline
Final Project Outline
The order is to be determined, but we will ask one religious leader from each of the three major faiths represented in Jerusalem the following questions (probably in this order)
1. Why is Jerusalem important to you? To your faith?
2. Have you ever been to Jerusalem?
How did different faith or ethnic groups interact?
3. How would you describe the root of the conflict in Jerusalem?
4. How important is social justice to you and your faith?
What is its role in the conflict?
5. In a perfect world, what would Jerusalem be like?
6. Do you believe peace is possible?
7. What would need to be done for peace to be achieved (at least to some extent)?
The project will basically be a video compiling the responses to these questions.
The order is to be determined, but we will ask one religious leader from each of the three major faiths represented in Jerusalem the following questions (probably in this order)
1. Why is Jerusalem important to you? To your faith?
2. Have you ever been to Jerusalem?
How did different faith or ethnic groups interact?
3. How would you describe the root of the conflict in Jerusalem?
4. How important is social justice to you and your faith?
What is its role in the conflict?
5. In a perfect world, what would Jerusalem be like?
6. Do you believe peace is possible?
7. What would need to be done for peace to be achieved (at least to some extent)?
The project will basically be a video compiling the responses to these questions.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Response to Tamari / Questions / Final Project Idea
READING RESPONSE
The first article on Popular Music and Modernity was a fascinating look at Jerusalem because it essentially came from a firsthand account. I think the methodology of this paper is really interesting because the author intends to reform the perception of the Jerusalem that existed 80 or more years ago based on the anecdotes of a poet/musician from that time. It’s just interesting that his journals had been available, and I would assume other complementary information as well, and yet the perspective has always been that the city was “grim, conservative, and joyless” (46). As I was reading Jawhariyyeh’s story, however, I couldn’t help but wonder how objectively and broadly a reader should take this perspective. Jawhariyyeh’s experience doesn’t seem to be the norm for an average citizen in Jerusalem- he was rather privileged. How similar were other people’s experiences?
From the second article, one aspect that stuck out to me was the Palestinian emphasis on the pastoral. In general, I find it interesting that in almost every culture I’ve ever studied, people tend to idealize and romanticize the past. It makes sense that if you want to go “back to your roots” then the past would be the place to find them, but I think there’s so much to be said for the present as well. Several hundred years from now, the present will be the past for the past for future generations, and will they look back and idealize our times? I also thought the section that refuted Canaanism was really interesting too, because it says that “Canaanism cancels the assumption that Zionism is a European movement, propelled by modern European contingencies” (7), even though we have discussed how Zionism has existed for a long time. Finally, it was just a minor detail, but I also found it interesting that the author used the term “post-Nakba” (6) without really describing what it meant, also betraying his bias.
QUESTIONS (sorry, I didn't get home from work and see the syllabus until after 11 last night)
In the article about Popular Music you mention that the city was not always divided based on relgious confession but simply by neighborhoods (hara). What would need to happen in Jerusalem for that system to work agian?
How do you think that Jawhariyyeh's social status affected the portrait of Jerusalem as described in his journals?
FINAL PROJECT
For our final project, Kara and I are going to visit places of worship of the three major faiths associated with Jerusalem (a Christian church, Jewish temple, Muslim mosque). We are going to video tape whatever is appropriate to tape and also ask people (hopefully including some of the leaders) at these places various questions about Jerusalem. Then we will compile it all into a video to show the class.
The first article on Popular Music and Modernity was a fascinating look at Jerusalem because it essentially came from a firsthand account. I think the methodology of this paper is really interesting because the author intends to reform the perception of the Jerusalem that existed 80 or more years ago based on the anecdotes of a poet/musician from that time. It’s just interesting that his journals had been available, and I would assume other complementary information as well, and yet the perspective has always been that the city was “grim, conservative, and joyless” (46). As I was reading Jawhariyyeh’s story, however, I couldn’t help but wonder how objectively and broadly a reader should take this perspective. Jawhariyyeh’s experience doesn’t seem to be the norm for an average citizen in Jerusalem- he was rather privileged. How similar were other people’s experiences?
From the second article, one aspect that stuck out to me was the Palestinian emphasis on the pastoral. In general, I find it interesting that in almost every culture I’ve ever studied, people tend to idealize and romanticize the past. It makes sense that if you want to go “back to your roots” then the past would be the place to find them, but I think there’s so much to be said for the present as well. Several hundred years from now, the present will be the past for the past for future generations, and will they look back and idealize our times? I also thought the section that refuted Canaanism was really interesting too, because it says that “Canaanism cancels the assumption that Zionism is a European movement, propelled by modern European contingencies” (7), even though we have discussed how Zionism has existed for a long time. Finally, it was just a minor detail, but I also found it interesting that the author used the term “post-Nakba” (6) without really describing what it meant, also betraying his bias.
QUESTIONS (sorry, I didn't get home from work and see the syllabus until after 11 last night)
In the article about Popular Music you mention that the city was not always divided based on relgious confession but simply by neighborhoods (hara). What would need to happen in Jerusalem for that system to work agian?
How do you think that Jawhariyyeh's social status affected the portrait of Jerusalem as described in his journals?
FINAL PROJECT
For our final project, Kara and I are going to visit places of worship of the three major faiths associated with Jerusalem (a Christian church, Jewish temple, Muslim mosque). We are going to video tape whatever is appropriate to tape and also ask people (hopefully including some of the leaders) at these places various questions about Jerusalem. Then we will compile it all into a video to show the class.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Channels of Rage Response
I really enjoyed watching this movie. I thought the concept of peace through rap/hip-hop was really interesting, but it clearly wasn't executed very well. As the movie went along, I started to think that even though TN was saying that he wanted peace, the lyrics in his songs were not just pro-Palestinian but subtly anti-Israeli. I do think that both of the men focused too much on the past and on the negatives rather than on the future, but TN seemed more extreme to me. At one point he was performing at a camp for children and was rapping about a kid getting shot in the face. At least from what the movie showed, TN's lyrics played on the emotions more so than Subliminal's and didn't focus as much on equality or peace.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Jerusalem Music
I found an organization called the "International Center for Creative Music, Jerusalem." Here's a link to the website: http://members.tripod.com/ICFCJ/
I think the coolest thing is their emphasis on diversity and unity. One of their goals is to "Provide an opportunity for musicians of all levels, of all different ages and diverse ethic, religious and cultural beliefs, principles and background to study and play together, and through the experience of making truly creative music together, develop and internalize a mutual trust and respect for each other. " It sounds like a really cool organization that brings different types of musicians together from all different walks of life.
I think the coolest thing is their emphasis on diversity and unity. One of their goals is to "Provide an opportunity for musicians of all levels, of all different ages and diverse ethic, religious and cultural beliefs, principles and background to study and play together, and through the experience of making truly creative music together, develop and internalize a mutual trust and respect for each other. " It sounds like a really cool organization that brings different types of musicians together from all different walks of life.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Armstrong 16-18
It's the end!
In chapter 16 I was a little confused about the conflict over Barclay's Gate and Robinson's Arch (pg 355). Armstrong says that "archaeology could fuel its own holy wars" and talks about how the Catholics (specifically Felicien de Saulcy) tried to discredit Robinson's findings and therefore the Protestant faith. But she mentions that de Saulcy didn't have any "training in antiquities" or "and proof for these assertions," so did people really believe him? I just thought it was interesting that the two groups are so willing to fight over something that, in my opinion, is comparatively trivial. I recognize that I'm probably ignorant to some unmentioned belief, but why would it really matter where David's tomb is/was? How does that really impact faith or the practice thereof?
Kind of as a side note (the apologist/theologian in me is thinking again), it is pretty remarkable from a historical perspective that Israel actually became a nation again after having been dispersed for nearly 2000 years. At least to my knowledge, this is a truly unique happening in the history of the world. As a point of interest as well, both the dispersion and regathering of Israel are predicted in the Old Testament Jewish scriptures (in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel 37). Ezekiel 37 is especially interesting to me because it is dated to the 6th century during the time of the exile in Babylon, and the story goes that God gives Ezekiel a vision of bones rising from the ground and flesh appearing on them, and then life breathed into them. He then explains the vision: "these bones are the whole house of Israel... Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel..." (Ez. 37:11-12). God then tells Ezekiel "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms" (verses 21 and 22). Besides the fascinating imagery described at the beginning of the chapter, it's really interesting to ponder the significance of these writings and how they should be viewed today.
I really liked Armstrong's conclusion. Out of all the information and everything that she presented, I liked the way that she summed it up. In spite of the difficulty to be optimistic about the future, she concludes: "It still remains true, when we look back on the long history of Jerusalem, that the societies that have lasted the longest there have, generally, been the ones that were prepared for some kind of tolerance and coexistence in the holy city. That, rather than a sterile and deadly struggle for sovereignty and total victory, must be the way to celebrate Jerusalem's sanctity today" (430). I think that all of that historical detail is worth it to glean this truth, and I hope that it can be applied to the city sometime in the near future.
In chapter 16 I was a little confused about the conflict over Barclay's Gate and Robinson's Arch (pg 355). Armstrong says that "archaeology could fuel its own holy wars" and talks about how the Catholics (specifically Felicien de Saulcy) tried to discredit Robinson's findings and therefore the Protestant faith. But she mentions that de Saulcy didn't have any "training in antiquities" or "and proof for these assertions," so did people really believe him? I just thought it was interesting that the two groups are so willing to fight over something that, in my opinion, is comparatively trivial. I recognize that I'm probably ignorant to some unmentioned belief, but why would it really matter where David's tomb is/was? How does that really impact faith or the practice thereof?
Kind of as a side note (the apologist/theologian in me is thinking again), it is pretty remarkable from a historical perspective that Israel actually became a nation again after having been dispersed for nearly 2000 years. At least to my knowledge, this is a truly unique happening in the history of the world. As a point of interest as well, both the dispersion and regathering of Israel are predicted in the Old Testament Jewish scriptures (in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel 37). Ezekiel 37 is especially interesting to me because it is dated to the 6th century during the time of the exile in Babylon, and the story goes that God gives Ezekiel a vision of bones rising from the ground and flesh appearing on them, and then life breathed into them. He then explains the vision: "these bones are the whole house of Israel... Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel..." (Ez. 37:11-12). God then tells Ezekiel "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms" (verses 21 and 22). Besides the fascinating imagery described at the beginning of the chapter, it's really interesting to ponder the significance of these writings and how they should be viewed today.
I really liked Armstrong's conclusion. Out of all the information and everything that she presented, I liked the way that she summed it up. In spite of the difficulty to be optimistic about the future, she concludes: "It still remains true, when we look back on the long history of Jerusalem, that the societies that have lasted the longest there have, generally, been the ones that were prepared for some kind of tolerance and coexistence in the holy city. That, rather than a sterile and deadly struggle for sovereignty and total victory, must be the way to celebrate Jerusalem's sanctity today" (430). I think that all of that historical detail is worth it to glean this truth, and I hope that it can be applied to the city sometime in the near future.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Armstrong 14-15
This is such a minor detail, but the linguist in me has been really interested in Armstrong's transliteration of Arabic terms. Just for example, she describes the waqf and the awqaf, which, from the very little I know of Arabic (and from the context), I would guess that these are the singular and plural forms. (Banan, help me out!). Armstrong also uses symbols that I wouldn't even know how to find on my computer to indicate certain sounds in Arabic that we don't have in English. I don't know if I just didn't notice this when she was writing about Hebrew words, but I thought it was interesting. I also don't remember ever seeing such commitment to transliteration in other texts, and I think it is a cool way to try and keep the integrity of the original language. Just in general, Armstrong's consistent use of non-English terms has been an effective way to immerse readers in the cultures she is describing.
I was also fascinated by the idea of the waqf. I don't remember ever learning about this before. I've always heard and learned and read about Islam's emphasis on charity, but I did not know about this specific institution for carrying it out. I know that charity can often just be an ideal that never really gets carried out, and I think it's an awesome idea to have a consistent and established way to give to others.
Another question I have is about the perspective of Jerusalem from the rest of the Muslim world. In these chapters, Armstrong kind of makes it sound to me like nearly everyone viewed Jerusalem as the center of Islam. When she talks about the crusaders trying to dislodge the Muslims from Egypt, she says "The mere presence of Crusaders in the Near East was enough to inspire dread throughout the region... Al-Muazzam was convinced that the Crusaders would take back Jerusalem, slaughter the population, and dominate the whole Islamic world" (301). Was that just a paranoid ruler's perspective, or if Jerusalem had been captured would the Crusaders really have been likely to dominate the whole Islamic world? And I have been thinking too that we have been reading about Jerusalem from the perspective of people in Jerusalem, and it makes me wonder what people outside of Jerusalem and without any specific ties thought of the city...
I was also fascinated by the idea of the waqf. I don't remember ever learning about this before. I've always heard and learned and read about Islam's emphasis on charity, but I did not know about this specific institution for carrying it out. I know that charity can often just be an ideal that never really gets carried out, and I think it's an awesome idea to have a consistent and established way to give to others.
Another question I have is about the perspective of Jerusalem from the rest of the Muslim world. In these chapters, Armstrong kind of makes it sound to me like nearly everyone viewed Jerusalem as the center of Islam. When she talks about the crusaders trying to dislodge the Muslims from Egypt, she says "The mere presence of Crusaders in the Near East was enough to inspire dread throughout the region... Al-Muazzam was convinced that the Crusaders would take back Jerusalem, slaughter the population, and dominate the whole Islamic world" (301). Was that just a paranoid ruler's perspective, or if Jerusalem had been captured would the Crusaders really have been likely to dominate the whole Islamic world? And I have been thinking too that we have been reading about Jerusalem from the perspective of people in Jerusalem, and it makes me wonder what people outside of Jerusalem and without any specific ties thought of the city...
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Armstrong 10-13
One of the first things I thought about writing about was something that I already mentioned in class and in one of my blogs, but it came up again in chapter 10. I appreciated this time how Armstrong made a clear distinction between the teachings of religion and its practice. On page 196 she describes Jerome and how he said that the Jews were not worthy of compassion, noting that he did so "with a callousness that showed scant redard for the teaching of Jesus and Paul, who had both declared charity to be the highest religious duty." This obviously doesn't make it right, but I appreciate how she began to make that distinction. I've been thinking about how this could be relevant to today, and I think it is important because if one can understand the teachings of a particular religion, then one can interpret peoples' actions in light of their theology. I would never say that just because someone acts in line with their theology that they are automatically correct, but if someone acts in a way contrary to the teachings of the religion they profess to follow, then it provides legitimacy to critique those actions from a religious standpoint. Hopefully understanding Judaism, Christianity, and Islam better will help me (or us) evaluate the actions of representatives from those groups in the present.
I was also just generally interested in Armstrong's account of the beginning of Islam. I had never thought before about the impact of language on religion, but she mentions that "At last God had spoken to the Arabs in their own language and had brought them into the community of true believers" (217). I thought this point was really interesting because if that's really how Arabs viewed Islam at the time then it is easy to see how it spread so quickly. It would be hard to say if people really took that perspective or not, but it's an interesting angle. I was curious though why she called Muhammad a "spiritual genius" (218). It seems like an oxymoron to me: spiritual implies divine influenve while genius implies innate capability. It seems like it would have to be one or the other... but maybe I'm thinking about this too much....
(Apparently I lost my internet connection and when I went to publish I lost the last half of this post because the autosaving wasn't taking... sorry, I just don't have the energy to rewrite everything... Perhaps I'll be able to finish up in the morning)
I was also just generally interested in Armstrong's account of the beginning of Islam. I had never thought before about the impact of language on religion, but she mentions that "At last God had spoken to the Arabs in their own language and had brought them into the community of true believers" (217). I thought this point was really interesting because if that's really how Arabs viewed Islam at the time then it is easy to see how it spread so quickly. It would be hard to say if people really took that perspective or not, but it's an interesting angle. I was curious though why she called Muhammad a "spiritual genius" (218). It seems like an oxymoron to me: spiritual implies divine influenve while genius implies innate capability. It seems like it would have to be one or the other... but maybe I'm thinking about this too much....
(Apparently I lost my internet connection and when I went to publish I lost the last half of this post because the autosaving wasn't taking... sorry, I just don't have the energy to rewrite everything... Perhaps I'll be able to finish up in the morning)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Armstrong 8-9
Perhaps this is where the baggage comes in...
I'm not sure if I just didn't notice it before when Armstrong is describing stories and happenings from the Old Testament writings, but I was really struck while reading Chapter 8 how she treats the New Testament, especially the gospels. I can certainly sympathize with people who do not believe that any of the Bible is inspired or comes from God (most people don't), but Armstrong's diction caught me off guard. To me, Armstrong's bias showed through undeniably. She writes, "Matthew makes Jesus describe the catastrophe..." (160), "[John] makes Jesus go to Jerusalem" (160), and "Luke makes his hero Paul very respectful" (159), among other examples. Even when reading about fiction novels, I have never seen anyone describe an author as making one of their characters do anything. Perhaps I'm reading too far into it, but Armstrong's word choice communicates to me that she views these stories as completely contrived with no basis in history. Again, I understand that she is attempting to write without a religious bias, but she doesn't even seem to treat the gospels like they could have any historical merit.
I have the same problem with how she describes Matthew, Luke, and John's perspectives. She ascribes to each of them a certain like or dislike of the Jews and Jerusalem based on what's presented in their accounts of Jesus' life. I believe, however, that she is attributing way too much opinion to authors who attempted to record what they actually saw. Of course everyone has a bias and the authors certainly had to choose which events to include in their narratives, but to say that "Matthew and John, however, were far less positive about either Jerusalem or the Jewish people [in comparison to Luke]" (160) is simply unfair. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to describe how each of the gospels differs and the perspectives that they give, rather than attribute such opinions to the men who wrote them (especially because so little is known about these me).
I just think that Armstrong has a shallow view of the perspective on Jews and Judaism presented in the Bible. Again, I can understand that the perspective would certainly be different depending on whether one views the Bible as only a collection of works from different people or a body of work all inspired by the same God. But if one takes the Bible as a whole, it is not difficult to see its perspective on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Armstrong does mention that Christianity is essentially the fulfillment of Judaism, which is true. But she leaves out verses like Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Also, I came across this verse the other day and thought it really applied to this class, and especially the theme of this response. Paul is describing the relationship between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians and says, "For He Himself [Jesus] is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity" (Ephesians 2:14-16). These verses (along with Galatians from above) illustrate that Christianity is able to look beyond all former religious persuasions, class, culture, race, and gender, and unite people in Christ. As I read these verses in Ephesians I was blown away by how radical this is- thinking about the nature of the conflict between Jews and Gentiles at the time it was written. I admit it... I'm somewhat of an idealist... but I couldn't help but think about the conflict in Jerusalem and how, if these ideas from Paul are really true, what an impact they could have.
Anyways.... I've gone on long enough. Food for thought though...
I'm not sure if I just didn't notice it before when Armstrong is describing stories and happenings from the Old Testament writings, but I was really struck while reading Chapter 8 how she treats the New Testament, especially the gospels. I can certainly sympathize with people who do not believe that any of the Bible is inspired or comes from God (most people don't), but Armstrong's diction caught me off guard. To me, Armstrong's bias showed through undeniably. She writes, "Matthew makes Jesus describe the catastrophe..." (160), "[John] makes Jesus go to Jerusalem" (160), and "Luke makes his hero Paul very respectful" (159), among other examples. Even when reading about fiction novels, I have never seen anyone describe an author as making one of their characters do anything. Perhaps I'm reading too far into it, but Armstrong's word choice communicates to me that she views these stories as completely contrived with no basis in history. Again, I understand that she is attempting to write without a religious bias, but she doesn't even seem to treat the gospels like they could have any historical merit.
I have the same problem with how she describes Matthew, Luke, and John's perspectives. She ascribes to each of them a certain like or dislike of the Jews and Jerusalem based on what's presented in their accounts of Jesus' life. I believe, however, that she is attributing way too much opinion to authors who attempted to record what they actually saw. Of course everyone has a bias and the authors certainly had to choose which events to include in their narratives, but to say that "Matthew and John, however, were far less positive about either Jerusalem or the Jewish people [in comparison to Luke]" (160) is simply unfair. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to describe how each of the gospels differs and the perspectives that they give, rather than attribute such opinions to the men who wrote them (especially because so little is known about these me).
I just think that Armstrong has a shallow view of the perspective on Jews and Judaism presented in the Bible. Again, I can understand that the perspective would certainly be different depending on whether one views the Bible as only a collection of works from different people or a body of work all inspired by the same God. But if one takes the Bible as a whole, it is not difficult to see its perspective on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Armstrong does mention that Christianity is essentially the fulfillment of Judaism, which is true. But she leaves out verses like Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Also, I came across this verse the other day and thought it really applied to this class, and especially the theme of this response. Paul is describing the relationship between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians and says, "For He Himself [Jesus] is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity" (Ephesians 2:14-16). These verses (along with Galatians from above) illustrate that Christianity is able to look beyond all former religious persuasions, class, culture, race, and gender, and unite people in Christ. As I read these verses in Ephesians I was blown away by how radical this is- thinking about the nature of the conflict between Jews and Gentiles at the time it was written. I admit it... I'm somewhat of an idealist... but I couldn't help but think about the conflict in Jerusalem and how, if these ideas from Paul are really true, what an impact they could have.
Anyways.... I've gone on long enough. Food for thought though...
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Armstrong 5-7
In these chapters I have been reminded about the sequence of conquering and rule change in Jerusalem. From Babylon to Persia to Greece to Rome, the foreign rule of the city caused a huge amount of conflict and strife. This reminder has helped me gain a greater perspective on the current situation in Jerusalem. While I don't necessarily see a direct connection between these ancient empires and the conflict of today, the overwhelming amount of information presented in these chapters contributes to the complexity of the city today.
Armstrong picks up on another theme with which I sort of agree and sort of disagree. Throughout the chapters she keeps coming back to how Judaism changes as a result of the empire in control of the city. On the one hand, Judaism did historically go through some changes as she describes, with the rabbis and priests adopting new traditions and adapting old ones to the cultures of their conquerors. For example, describing the "unclean" and "clean" customs, she writes, "This was an innovation that had no basis in the Torah but reflected the hostility of the more conservative Jews of Jerusalem toward the gentile world" (108). She also describes the transformation from a city of refuge for the poor to a city that viewed that poor as morally unclean. While I agree that some of the traditions of Judaism changed, (some in direct contradiction to the Torah and others not), I don't agree with her perspective that the teachings of true Judaism really changed. Perhaps it's a semantic argument, but I believe that the true nature of Judaism was preserved in its scriptures even if its people practiced it differently. I'm not sure how exactly to communicate what I'm thinking, but I believe there's a distinction between traditions and customs on the one hand and theology on the other. It seems to me that Armstrong does not make this distinction although I believe it's an important one. In theory and theology, pre-exilic and post-exilic Judaism was, at it's core, the same- even if it was practiced differently. (One might argue which is more important... but that's a different question altogether).
Armstrong picks up on another theme with which I sort of agree and sort of disagree. Throughout the chapters she keeps coming back to how Judaism changes as a result of the empire in control of the city. On the one hand, Judaism did historically go through some changes as she describes, with the rabbis and priests adopting new traditions and adapting old ones to the cultures of their conquerors. For example, describing the "unclean" and "clean" customs, she writes, "This was an innovation that had no basis in the Torah but reflected the hostility of the more conservative Jews of Jerusalem toward the gentile world" (108). She also describes the transformation from a city of refuge for the poor to a city that viewed that poor as morally unclean. While I agree that some of the traditions of Judaism changed, (some in direct contradiction to the Torah and others not), I don't agree with her perspective that the teachings of true Judaism really changed. Perhaps it's a semantic argument, but I believe that the true nature of Judaism was preserved in its scriptures even if its people practiced it differently. I'm not sure how exactly to communicate what I'm thinking, but I believe there's a distinction between traditions and customs on the one hand and theology on the other. It seems to me that Armstrong does not make this distinction although I believe it's an important one. In theory and theology, pre-exilic and post-exilic Judaism was, at it's core, the same- even if it was practiced differently. (One might argue which is more important... but that's a different question altogether).
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Reading Response to Armstrong 1-4
In this response I'd like to focus on Chapter 3, the City of David. One of the major themes from this chapter that caught my attention was the importance of leadership and how that affected the relationships between the different people groups of the region. Although the Israelites basically moved in on Jebusite territory, Armstrong describes a relatively peaceful coexistence that seems to be led by David. He incorporated some of the existing Jebusite officials into his administration, "[indicating] that the Israelites did not yet consider it a sacred duty to hold aloof from the people of the country" (39). She then mentions how there might be Jebusite blood in the royal family, and she also describes a rather complicated story of conflicting lineages in the priesthood. She writes, "Nevertheless, the sight of an Israelite and a Jebusite priest serving side by side was emblematic of the coexistence that David wanted to establish in Jerusalem" (40). It seems that during this time, over 3000 years ago, peace was promoted from the top down. I would guess that there's not a lot of information about everyday life and conflict between the Israelites and the Jebusites, but what has been recorded indicates coexistence that's favored by a strong leader. It makes me wonder about the situation today and how effective a a strong and peace-promoting leader(s) would be. How well would the common people respond to a leader who radically supported a peace process? Would he make much of a difference? It just makes me wonder... because I know that the conflict between the Jebusites and Israelites was not nearly as deeply ingrained in history and the past as the conflict is today, but (at least from these readings), it seems that a strong leader was able to effectively establish peaceful coexistence. I don't know who that could be, or how they would even come to power in the "democracy" of Israel, but I have to suspect that the peace process must at least start with Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are in support of it. That may seem obvious or trite, but this chapter really got me thinking about that.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Reading Response 2
One of Dumper’s first points emphasizes the nature of the importance of Jerusalem. I had never really thought about it before, but geographically and economically the city doesn’t have much of an appeal. That just highlights how the struggle and conflict truly are focused on religious ideals (which I say at the risk of oversimplifying). But it’s pretty clear that very few people are concerned about Jerusalem because of abundant natural resources or a strategic geographical location. Whereas in many other places, conflicts arise due to a struggle for the control of or access to resources, the struggle in Jerusalem has little to nothing to do with these issues. To me, that perspective highlights how the situation in Jerusalem is unique. Dumper also mentions how the city used to be full of harat, or different areas that could range in size from an alley on up that were home to different groups. I know it’s naïve, but this nostalgic recollection seems to be the ideal picture for the future: for people to live in peace as neighbors.
Khalidi’s article was really interesting. He makes the point that not every belief about Jerusalem is based on verifiable historical fact, but that people also cannot discount these beliefs because they have often been proven to be true. Furthermore, he seems to say that because people hold these beliefs so strongly and act upon them that they have historical relevance. While I agree with his sentiment, I also think that fact is more important than opinion (and I think Khalidi believes so as well, he just doesn’t say it explicitly). I’m not sure what relevance this would necessarily have in Jerusalem, but I am of the opinion that if someone’s beliefs were proven to be false, it would only be logical to relinquish them. If, for example, it somehow were proven that Jesus never really existed (although the historical evidence strongly suggests otherwise), it would only be appropriate for this group to give up their claims on certain locations. While I think that tradition and belief have their place, if they can be proven unfounded in history, then I think they lose their meaning.
Besides a deeper understanding of the history of claims in Jerusalem, Rubin’s article didn’t raise many questions or thoughts for me. It did seem like the article favored the Jewish claim in Jerusalem as the most ancient (and perhaps by implication also the most legitimate), but in class we mentioned that the chronology and legitimacy of claims to the city are highly disputed. Throughout the article she didn’t really touch on the initial claim to the land, so I was curious about that.
Khalidi’s article was really interesting. He makes the point that not every belief about Jerusalem is based on verifiable historical fact, but that people also cannot discount these beliefs because they have often been proven to be true. Furthermore, he seems to say that because people hold these beliefs so strongly and act upon them that they have historical relevance. While I agree with his sentiment, I also think that fact is more important than opinion (and I think Khalidi believes so as well, he just doesn’t say it explicitly). I’m not sure what relevance this would necessarily have in Jerusalem, but I am of the opinion that if someone’s beliefs were proven to be false, it would only be logical to relinquish them. If, for example, it somehow were proven that Jesus never really existed (although the historical evidence strongly suggests otherwise), it would only be appropriate for this group to give up their claims on certain locations. While I think that tradition and belief have their place, if they can be proven unfounded in history, then I think they lose their meaning.
Besides a deeper understanding of the history of claims in Jerusalem, Rubin’s article didn’t raise many questions or thoughts for me. It did seem like the article favored the Jewish claim in Jerusalem as the most ancient (and perhaps by implication also the most legitimate), but in class we mentioned that the chronology and legitimacy of claims to the city are highly disputed. Throughout the article she didn’t really touch on the initial claim to the land, so I was curious about that.
Assignment 2: Identity Symbols
As I mentioned in a previous blog, I am a Christian. I realize that this is a loaded term with a lot of negative connotations, and so I’d ask that you take a moment to understand what it means to me. First off, let me say that my definition of the word is not synonymous with the conservative Christian right, with bigotry and intolerance, or with strict adherence to culturally irrelevant rules and expectations. To me (influenced by the Bible’s emphasis), being a Christian means that I recognize my abundant moral shortcomings and therefore my guilt before God, and that I have chosen to receive the free gift of God’s forgiveness through faith in Christ. It is not about following rules, about ascribing to a certain political ideology, or judging other people. It’s about loving God, loving other people, and being wrong and messing up a lot along the way. So please feel free to challenge my beliefs and contradict my sentiments- I promise I won’t freak out. This is part of the reason I’m so excited about this class: I love having respectful discussions centered on faith. And being a Christian is such a huge part of who I am, I couldn’t write an identity description without it. (My symbol for this one is my old Bible, with the binding all duct taped and the pages marked up... no picture, but you can imagine...)
Below is the view of Kampala from the hotel where we stayed in Uganda.
I’m also a big fan of food in general, and I enjoy making it almost as much as I love eating it. I could probably live on bagels and cream cheese, and I have an irrational aversion to vegetables in general and a significant portion of fruits.
Now… for the other things. I love traveling and learning about other cultures. Around me right now I can see the beautifully crafted drum I got in Jordan, a painting I purchased from an art student in Uganda, and a wall hanging I bought in a market in Cambodia. I hope one day to live and contribute to development work abroad, and these artifacts reflect that to me.
To the left is a picture of me and friends with an Iraqi woman and her 3 beautiful children who are refugees in Jordan. We took gift boxes to several families during our time there.
To the right is a picture from Angkor Wat, one of the largest temples we visited in Cambodia.
In addition, I think I’ve got some of the greatest friends in the world, and I live with ten of them (it’s kind of intense, but awesome).
I’m also a big fan of food in general, and I enjoy making it almost as much as I love eating it. I could probably live on bagels and cream cheese, and I have an irrational aversion to vegetables in general and a significant portion of fruits.
I like most music, and while I know that most of the R&B/Hip-hop I listen to isn't necessarily quality, I just can't help listening to and enjoying it for some reason. Some of my favorite (and actually good) bands/artists include Guster, Ben Folds, Andrew Bird (who I'm seeing in Pittsburgh on Tuesday!), and Dispatch, among others.
Blog Title...
Just an interesting tidbit for those who are wondering... I had a lot of trouble thinking of a title for my blog, so I just picked a line from a song by Matisyahu called "Jerusalem." I thought it was appropriate, but it doesn't intentionally reflect any bias or anything. The chorus of the song is:
Jerusalem, if I forget you,
fire not gonna come from me tongue.
Jerusalem, if I forget you,
let my right hand forget what it's supposed to do
Here's the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ5FvaASrs0
Check it out. He's a pretty cool musician.
Jerusalem, if I forget you,
fire not gonna come from me tongue.
Jerusalem, if I forget you,
let my right hand forget what it's supposed to do
Here's the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ5FvaASrs0
Check it out. He's a pretty cool musician.
Assignment 1 (sorry it's so late)...
Well after some miscommunication, missed emails, and technical difficulties, I've got my blog up and running and I have been able to access the readings. Now the fun begins...
Class expectations:
I am definitely looking forward to this class. I really like small classes where I get to know my classmates and professor, and I think that the size enables people to engage with the material and one another on a deeper level. I'm new to this blogging thing too, and I think it's an interesting way to engage in respectful discussion and to communicate outside of the classroom. I think that's going to be cool. I don't really know much about Jerusalem at this point, and I'm honestly pretty terrible at following current events. One of my goals for this year is to improve in that. So I expect to learn a lot, to be challenged, and probably to offend people (albeit unintentionally). I expect to be misunderstood, to sound (or to be) ignorant, and to have an awesome time. I hope to get to know everyone throughout the quarter and to come to a deeper understanding of the past, present and future of Jerusalem.
Reading Response:
One of the aspects of the reading that stuck out most to me was the complexity of Jerusalem. Intellectually I know that three of the World's major faiths are all significantly represented in one city, but the readings gave me more of a perspective on the complex nature of this issue. Suad Amiry writes, "which Jerusalem and whose Jerusalem do we represent on the Washington
Mall? Arab Jerusalem? Moslem or Christian Jerusalem? Divided, occupied Jerusalem?Jerusalem is none of these and all of these." This last sentence really struck me because it emphasizes just some of the major facets that make Jerusalem the city that it is. While it may be generalized, Jerusalem cannot be fully explained. And while the distinctions and divisions are a source of conflict, they are also the factors without which Jerusalem would be just like any other city.
Another theme that I enjoyed from the readings was questioning how to represent everyday life. In the second article, Amiry writes "For many abroad, Jerusalem is simply the center of three religions, not a place where people engage in everyday life." I find it easy to take this perspective myself, so this sentiment is a good reminder that Jerusalem is a place where people live and work, go to school, play outside, and do the things that people do. The first part of Dr. H's article also touches on this with the poem from Yehuda Amichai who describes tourists who look past a man to a Roman arch. Instead, to truly learn about Jerusalem, they should acknowledge the man and his everyday affairs. Jerusalem is a city made up of individuals and families with real lives, real problems, and real joys. It would be impossible to understand the city without trying to understand its people.
Baggage:
I don't consider myself to have much baggage concerning Jerusalem itself. I am a Christian (which I will explain more in my next post), but that has not produced in my any hostilities or anything of the sort. My dad's dad was Jewish (hence the last name...), and I grew up with many more Jewish classmates than Palestinians or Muslims. Recently, however, I have taken an interest in Arabic and the Middle East, and I went to Jordan this past summer where I met and befriended several Palestinians. I'd like to consider myself objective or neutral, but I don't really believe that's possible with people, so I guess we'll see how my biases play out...
Class expectations:
I am definitely looking forward to this class. I really like small classes where I get to know my classmates and professor, and I think that the size enables people to engage with the material and one another on a deeper level. I'm new to this blogging thing too, and I think it's an interesting way to engage in respectful discussion and to communicate outside of the classroom. I think that's going to be cool. I don't really know much about Jerusalem at this point, and I'm honestly pretty terrible at following current events. One of my goals for this year is to improve in that. So I expect to learn a lot, to be challenged, and probably to offend people (albeit unintentionally). I expect to be misunderstood, to sound (or to be) ignorant, and to have an awesome time. I hope to get to know everyone throughout the quarter and to come to a deeper understanding of the past, present and future of Jerusalem.
Reading Response:
One of the aspects of the reading that stuck out most to me was the complexity of Jerusalem. Intellectually I know that three of the World's major faiths are all significantly represented in one city, but the readings gave me more of a perspective on the complex nature of this issue. Suad Amiry writes, "which Jerusalem and whose Jerusalem do we represent on the Washington
Mall? Arab Jerusalem? Moslem or Christian Jerusalem? Divided, occupied Jerusalem?Jerusalem is none of these and all of these." This last sentence really struck me because it emphasizes just some of the major facets that make Jerusalem the city that it is. While it may be generalized, Jerusalem cannot be fully explained. And while the distinctions and divisions are a source of conflict, they are also the factors without which Jerusalem would be just like any other city.
Another theme that I enjoyed from the readings was questioning how to represent everyday life. In the second article, Amiry writes "For many abroad, Jerusalem is simply the center of three religions, not a place where people engage in everyday life." I find it easy to take this perspective myself, so this sentiment is a good reminder that Jerusalem is a place where people live and work, go to school, play outside, and do the things that people do. The first part of Dr. H's article also touches on this with the poem from Yehuda Amichai who describes tourists who look past a man to a Roman arch. Instead, to truly learn about Jerusalem, they should acknowledge the man and his everyday affairs. Jerusalem is a city made up of individuals and families with real lives, real problems, and real joys. It would be impossible to understand the city without trying to understand its people.
Baggage:
I don't consider myself to have much baggage concerning Jerusalem itself. I am a Christian (which I will explain more in my next post), but that has not produced in my any hostilities or anything of the sort. My dad's dad was Jewish (hence the last name...), and I grew up with many more Jewish classmates than Palestinians or Muslims. Recently, however, I have taken an interest in Arabic and the Middle East, and I went to Jordan this past summer where I met and befriended several Palestinians. I'd like to consider myself objective or neutral, but I don't really believe that's possible with people, so I guess we'll see how my biases play out...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
