NPR - Ottoman Empire
This program focused on the troubled history of the middle east and the west. The narrator starts off by stating that for centuries after the crusades, the Europeans constantly referred in regard with the conflicts with the people of the middle east as, "the Turks" not, "the Arabs." He then gives a brief background of the Ottoman empire starting with their expansion out of central Asia during the fourteenth century. They next go into detail about the fortress Rumelli Hassari, and how it looks today in modern Turkey. A highway connects the European side to the Asian side, while oil tankers and water barges roam the waters below. After stating the modern uses of the Rumelli Hassari, which is now a museum, the narrator goes on to why the fortress was originally established. The Rumelli Hassari was originally built by the Ottoman Empire during its expansion into Europe in order to prepare for and execute an assault on the Byzantine capital of Constantinople. The next topic is about Sultan Mehmed II (the conqueror). In April 1453, Mehmed was able this heavily fortified city in 2 months. The narrator refers to this victory as so symbolic, and politically important that it was truly the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire's conversion to Islam occured centuries before the capture of Constantinople. However, as the Ottoman Empire expanded to Syria, Egypt and Throughout the Middle East and Europe, only then did the Ottoman Empire begin the control of Islams most holy cities. These were the cities of Mecca and Medina. The narrator explains how the leaders of the Ottoman Empire were pius, and looked at as throughout the Arab world as successors of the Caliphate. However, the narrators recognize the Ottoman Empire as a highly expansionist empire, and aimed to be the most powerful empire of the Meditteranean. The Ottomans biggest rival during their time of expansion was the Hapsburg Empire, ruled by Charles the V. This Empire linked Spain and the Netherlands with the Austrian territories. In 1529, Suleymans Empire attacked Vienna and were stalled, never to advance any further.. This was due to distance, weather and military capabilities at the time. The army could not reach their destinations and had poor timing. They were never able to succesfully start a campaign which required them to be withdrawn by the fall. In the mid 16th century, the narrator explains that military battle took the sea. In one major battle, hundreds of ships on both sides were involved along with thousands of sailors. This may have been the turning point in the Ottoman Empire, according to the narrators. The most interesting claim of the report has to do with the significance of religious leaders, whose goals had nothing to do with religion. From the European point of view, the Ottoman empire was seen as "just another Muslim onslaught." From the Ottoman perspective they saw value in spreading their religion, but considered their empire more European then Middle Eastern. In addition to this, most of their population was actually christian, not muslim.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Blog #13
The six principles of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a very successful ruler in Turkey post World War I for many reasons. In this blog, I would like to focus on his six principles; reformism, republicanism, secularism, nationalism, populism and etatism. that he made during his rule. Kemal was determined to mold the new Turkey in the image of the Western Societies. In order to do this, as discussed before, Kemal had to break from the Ottoman past. His first action was to move the nations capital from Istanbul to Ankara in 1923. "This move of the government from the cosmopolitan capital of the former empire to the heartland of Anatolia symbolized the Turkishness of the new state." (Cleveland, 179) This was a clear example of reform and nationalism. Next, Kemal was determined to pass a new constitution. He did so in the next year, passing his constitution which reaffirmed his principles of republicanism and popular soverignty. This new constitution gave all males, eighteen and over, the right to vote. It also gave women the right to vote. Kemal served as the head of the Republican People's Party (RPP) which enabled him to acquire a great amount of power. Secularism was also a very important part of Mustafa Kemal's platform. The policy of secularism was inaugurated in March of 1924 with the removal of Caliph Abdul Mejid. This allowed Kemal to, "in effect sweeping aside thirteen centuries of accumulated Islamic tradition." (Cleveland, 181) Populism established a combination of adult education centers, sports clubs, and political indoctrination units. This helped Kemal's effort to take the revolution to the masses. Etatism was a development of the 1930s. Etatism rose during the worldwide depression of the 1930s. It began with the announcement of a five year plan in 1933. This ordered the construction and establishment of industrial infrastructures.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a very successful ruler in Turkey post World War I for many reasons. In this blog, I would like to focus on his six principles; reformism, republicanism, secularism, nationalism, populism and etatism. that he made during his rule. Kemal was determined to mold the new Turkey in the image of the Western Societies. In order to do this, as discussed before, Kemal had to break from the Ottoman past. His first action was to move the nations capital from Istanbul to Ankara in 1923. "This move of the government from the cosmopolitan capital of the former empire to the heartland of Anatolia symbolized the Turkishness of the new state." (Cleveland, 179) This was a clear example of reform and nationalism. Next, Kemal was determined to pass a new constitution. He did so in the next year, passing his constitution which reaffirmed his principles of republicanism and popular soverignty. This new constitution gave all males, eighteen and over, the right to vote. It also gave women the right to vote. Kemal served as the head of the Republican People's Party (RPP) which enabled him to acquire a great amount of power. Secularism was also a very important part of Mustafa Kemal's platform. The policy of secularism was inaugurated in March of 1924 with the removal of Caliph Abdul Mejid. This allowed Kemal to, "in effect sweeping aside thirteen centuries of accumulated Islamic tradition." (Cleveland, 181) Populism established a combination of adult education centers, sports clubs, and political indoctrination units. This helped Kemal's effort to take the revolution to the masses. Etatism was a development of the 1930s. Etatism rose during the worldwide depression of the 1930s. It began with the announcement of a five year plan in 1933. This ordered the construction and establishment of industrial infrastructures.
Blog #12
Iran Documentary
In class the other day we watched a group of videos that showed Iranian history through the course of rule by Muhammad Reza Shah and Ayatollah Khomeini. While Muhammad Reza Shah took the throne after his fathers death, he was a very weak ruler, and acted as a puppet for the US government. Ayatollah Khomeini was a strong ruler who rose through the popularity of the people in favor of a much more stringent religious, Islamic government. On January 16th, 1979, Muhammad Reza Shah left Iran on what he claimed to be an "Extended Vacation." The population was on a tremendous uproar as Khomeini arrived out of exile on February 1st of that year. He was welcomed by an enormous crowd, as we saw in the documentary, Khomeini actually had to be evacuated by a helicopter as people from the crowd were jumping on and impeding the progress of his motorcade. While Muhammad Reza Shah died in Egypt one year later, Khomeini had to start from the beginning as the state, army, and international security forces had disintegrated. In addition to this, the economy had collapsed, and multiple parties ranging form the political Left ro the Far Right had begun campaigning for power. Through these tumultous years, one overpowering theme was constant...Cleveland states this thread as, "The common thread running through these early years of turmoil was the conflict over the furure orientation of Iranian society: Was it to come under the control of the religious establish ment and become an Islamic thocracy, or was it to emerge as a constitutional regime under moderate reformers of the Barzargan mold?" (Cleveland, 431)
In class the other day we watched a group of videos that showed Iranian history through the course of rule by Muhammad Reza Shah and Ayatollah Khomeini. While Muhammad Reza Shah took the throne after his fathers death, he was a very weak ruler, and acted as a puppet for the US government. Ayatollah Khomeini was a strong ruler who rose through the popularity of the people in favor of a much more stringent religious, Islamic government. On January 16th, 1979, Muhammad Reza Shah left Iran on what he claimed to be an "Extended Vacation." The population was on a tremendous uproar as Khomeini arrived out of exile on February 1st of that year. He was welcomed by an enormous crowd, as we saw in the documentary, Khomeini actually had to be evacuated by a helicopter as people from the crowd were jumping on and impeding the progress of his motorcade. While Muhammad Reza Shah died in Egypt one year later, Khomeini had to start from the beginning as the state, army, and international security forces had disintegrated. In addition to this, the economy had collapsed, and multiple parties ranging form the political Left ro the Far Right had begun campaigning for power. Through these tumultous years, one overpowering theme was constant...Cleveland states this thread as, "The common thread running through these early years of turmoil was the conflict over the furure orientation of Iranian society: Was it to come under the control of the religious establish ment and become an Islamic thocracy, or was it to emerge as a constitutional regime under moderate reformers of the Barzargan mold?" (Cleveland, 431)
Monday, April 27, 2009
Blog #11
Perception of Islam by United States Citizens
As a US citizen I am ashamed by the number of people who stereo type the religion of Islam. At the same time I am not surprised. Why has hate and prejudice always been so prevalent in our country. We are suppose to be the land of the free, but we have so many ignorant people living here that it amazes me. From racism, to sexism, homophobia, and everything in between, is it even possible to ever eliminate it? At least partially and on local levels? As we have seen in this years class, media plays a great role in the US perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think this is also true in terms of labeling Islam as a "violent" religion. However, I dont think it is okay to make this an excuse for Americans who let themselves get caught up in the misconceptions of Islam. I personally have had discussions with at least two friends who label Islam as "violent" and blame it for many of the worlds issues. I have been fortunate enough to take many world religion classes in my life. These classes are not only interesting but highly engaging because of the discussions that we have. I think that these classes are essential in the high school and elementary school level so that we can break through to our youth before the media is able to corrupt them. As a future educator I hope that the school where I teach at will include these classes in their curriculum. I also intend to be a History teacher and would love to discuss these topics in my class.
As a US citizen I am ashamed by the number of people who stereo type the religion of Islam. At the same time I am not surprised. Why has hate and prejudice always been so prevalent in our country. We are suppose to be the land of the free, but we have so many ignorant people living here that it amazes me. From racism, to sexism, homophobia, and everything in between, is it even possible to ever eliminate it? At least partially and on local levels? As we have seen in this years class, media plays a great role in the US perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think this is also true in terms of labeling Islam as a "violent" religion. However, I dont think it is okay to make this an excuse for Americans who let themselves get caught up in the misconceptions of Islam. I personally have had discussions with at least two friends who label Islam as "violent" and blame it for many of the worlds issues. I have been fortunate enough to take many world religion classes in my life. These classes are not only interesting but highly engaging because of the discussions that we have. I think that these classes are essential in the high school and elementary school level so that we can break through to our youth before the media is able to corrupt them. As a future educator I hope that the school where I teach at will include these classes in their curriculum. I also intend to be a History teacher and would love to discuss these topics in my class.
Blog #10
Why reforms of Kemal were more effective then Reza Shah
There are four main reasons why the reforms of Mustafa Kemal "Attaturk" were more effective then Reza Shah. First, Kemals reforms were already under way in the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, Mustafa Kemal was merely expanding on the ideas of Ottoman reforms, while in Iran Reza Shahs reforms were much more novel. Second, Kemal was able to creat a state and government Simultaneously while in Iran Reza Shah created a new government within an already existing state. Third, Kemal was successful in rising through the ranks by way of popular revolution while Reza shah took power in a military coup d'etat. Finally, Kemal "Attaturk" became independent of foreign power/influence, which also allowed Turkey (A loser in World War I) to negotiate on there own terms. By doing so, Turkey was able to get what they wanted post World War I. Reza shah struggled constantly with foreign powers and influence throughout his rule.
There are four main reasons why the reforms of Mustafa Kemal "Attaturk" were more effective then Reza Shah. First, Kemals reforms were already under way in the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, Mustafa Kemal was merely expanding on the ideas of Ottoman reforms, while in Iran Reza Shahs reforms were much more novel. Second, Kemal was able to creat a state and government Simultaneously while in Iran Reza Shah created a new government within an already existing state. Third, Kemal was successful in rising through the ranks by way of popular revolution while Reza shah took power in a military coup d'etat. Finally, Kemal "Attaturk" became independent of foreign power/influence, which also allowed Turkey (A loser in World War I) to negotiate on there own terms. By doing so, Turkey was able to get what they wanted post World War I. Reza shah struggled constantly with foreign powers and influence throughout his rule.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Blog #9
Compare and Contrast Reza Shah and Mustafa Kemal "Attaturk"
There are many similarities and differences to be made between these two famous Middle Eastern leaders. Both of these leaders wanted to Westernize their respective countries. This meant reform in not only the government but culture and life style as well. Both leaders forced their women to unveil. This would inevitably draw praise and negative criticism from different sections of the population. While popular with some people unveiling was vastly unpopular amongst the religious figures of the country, or Ulema. Both leaders decided to reform education. Secular education was the route that both leaders chose to take in this reform. Both leaders also mandated that the citizens of the country to take new last names.
Differences in the reforms are also clearly visible throughout their history. Reza Shah decided to implement a french civil code while Mustafa Kemal instituted a Swiss civil code. Reza shah mandated a new mens style of cloathing while Mustafa Kemal gave women the right to vote. Another major theme, in my opinion was the downplay of religion for different reasons within the two empires. While I believe that Reza Shahs main goal during the downplay of religion was in order to gain more power from the Ulema, Attaturk chose to down play religion more for the purpose of culture and in order to nationalize Turkey even further from their Ottoman roots.
There are many similarities and differences to be made between these two famous Middle Eastern leaders. Both of these leaders wanted to Westernize their respective countries. This meant reform in not only the government but culture and life style as well. Both leaders forced their women to unveil. This would inevitably draw praise and negative criticism from different sections of the population. While popular with some people unveiling was vastly unpopular amongst the religious figures of the country, or Ulema. Both leaders decided to reform education. Secular education was the route that both leaders chose to take in this reform. Both leaders also mandated that the citizens of the country to take new last names.
Differences in the reforms are also clearly visible throughout their history. Reza Shah decided to implement a french civil code while Mustafa Kemal instituted a Swiss civil code. Reza shah mandated a new mens style of cloathing while Mustafa Kemal gave women the right to vote. Another major theme, in my opinion was the downplay of religion for different reasons within the two empires. While I believe that Reza Shahs main goal during the downplay of religion was in order to gain more power from the Ulema, Attaturk chose to down play religion more for the purpose of culture and in order to nationalize Turkey even further from their Ottoman roots.
Blog #8
Ottoman Empire Post WWI
After the end of World War I the Middle East became a region of great complexity and controversy. The great criticism that I would like to address involves the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire into 6 entirely new states. These states would essentially emerge out of thin air in the interest of European powers without the consent and support of the local population. These states included Turkey, along with five Arab states that included; Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Jordan. In addition to these new nations, Saudi Arabia and Yemen also broke through as distinct countries. European powers manipulated and lied during numerous diplomatic correspondences during and after World War I in order to ascertain what they wanted from the Middle East. England and France both established spheres of interest in various regions so that they control such things as Oil and the Suez Canal. Later these “spheres of influence” turned into mandates that stated if any power took control of another country that the foreign controllers must prepare that land for independence. Two examples of political exploitations during World War I where either two European powers collaborated in taking advantage of Middle Eastern countries or one power abusing a single Middle Eastern country are the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Husayn-Mcmahon correspondences. In the Sykes-Picot agreement, France and England agreed to share both direct and indirect control of Arab territories without the intention of preparing the land for independence. In the Husayn-Mcmahon correspondence Sherif Husayn of Mecca was tricked into revolting against the Ottomans during WWI for the Allied powers. Husayn was promised territory after the war even though Mcmahon had no intentions of giving the land away.
After the end of World War I the Middle East became a region of great complexity and controversy. The great criticism that I would like to address involves the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire into 6 entirely new states. These states would essentially emerge out of thin air in the interest of European powers without the consent and support of the local population. These states included Turkey, along with five Arab states that included; Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Jordan. In addition to these new nations, Saudi Arabia and Yemen also broke through as distinct countries. European powers manipulated and lied during numerous diplomatic correspondences during and after World War I in order to ascertain what they wanted from the Middle East. England and France both established spheres of interest in various regions so that they control such things as Oil and the Suez Canal. Later these “spheres of influence” turned into mandates that stated if any power took control of another country that the foreign controllers must prepare that land for independence. Two examples of political exploitations during World War I where either two European powers collaborated in taking advantage of Middle Eastern countries or one power abusing a single Middle Eastern country are the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Husayn-Mcmahon correspondences. In the Sykes-Picot agreement, France and England agreed to share both direct and indirect control of Arab territories without the intention of preparing the land for independence. In the Husayn-Mcmahon correspondence Sherif Husayn of Mecca was tricked into revolting against the Ottomans during WWI for the Allied powers. Husayn was promised territory after the war even though Mcmahon had no intentions of giving the land away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)