Blog #14

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 They were never able to succesfully start a campaign which required them to be withdrawn by the fall.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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Blog #7

The Ottoman Bill of Rights (1856)

The Ottoman Bill of rights is a prime example of the growth of civilization. Though the Ottomans were always much more pro-active in giving various political and religious freedoms to a great majority of its people, the 1856 Ottoman Bill of Rights only expands on these principles. I definitely believe the the Ottomans took initiative and followed the way the United States set their Bill of rights.
The very first thing that the Ottoman Bill of Rights re-affirms is their tolerant stance on religion stating: "All the Privileges and Spiritual Immunities granted by my ancestors..., and at subsequent dates, to all Christian communities or other non-Muslim persuasion established in my Empire under my protection, shall be confirmed and maintained." This is not something new to the Ottoman Empire as we have seen very early on that the Ottomans were very committed to a freedom of religion. Even the Jizya tax was placed to help non-Muslim communities establish and maintain their own places of worship. The Bill also states that entire non-Muslim communities would not be barred from establishing places of worship, schools and cemeteries.
The most Important part of this Bill to me has to do with Education. "As all forms of Religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions, no subject of my Empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the Religion that he professes...No one shall be compelled to change their Religion...and...all the subjects of my Empire, without distinction of nationality, shall be admissible to public employments...All the subjects of my Empire, without distinction, shall be received into the Civil and Military Schools of the Government...Moreover, every community is authorized to establish Public Schools of Science, Art, and Industry. " Having this strong of an attitude for education is also not a new thing for the Ottoman empire, but the re-affirming of this in their new Bill of Rights was still very important.

Blog #6

The British Occupation of Egypt:

After reading this section of the Cleveland book, I found it very interesting that it was so hard to define Britain's Relationship with Egypt. The most important factor in British occupation of Egypt was, "In order to safeguard the Suez Canal, to restore Egypt's political and Financial Stability, and, in context of the imperial competition of the era, to prevent France from occupying it first." This quote was very startling to me. My reasoning for this reaction is because it paints the English as protectorates of Egypt, when in fact, it seems that the sole reason for their presence in the country is to make some profit off of the Suez Canal in order to prevent the French from doing the same. The British also claimed that they could not define their relationship with Egypt as a colony or a protectorate. However, they do state in the section that Evelyn Baring, and later Lord Cromer presided over the occupation with "absolute authority for its first quarter." These political figures were colonial administrators with many years of service in India. So if the absolute authority of a country is given to political figures who had been the "colonial administrators" of another country, how can you call Egypt something other than a colony of Britain itself at that point in time?

Blog #5 Zayni Barakat

I found the book, "Zayni Barakat" to be a very interesting read. A fictional account of the Mamluk Empire, I chose to focus on the fact that had Zayni Barakat been appointed a part of the Ottoman government once the Mamluk Empire had fallen, he would have excelled at this opportunity. Reading Zayni Barakat was a very interesting change for a History class because I had never studied a time period using a fictional book as a source. I found it to be a welcome change of pace and in the end after writing our class paper, I found that it helped to enhance my understanding of how people in this time period lived. It also helped me to understand what sorts of problems governments had to face in these particular regions. My favorite part of the book included the five excerpts from the Venetian Traveller Visconti Gianti. This person, according to the book, visted the Mamluk empire while Barakat was in different positions on five separate occasions. I am very eager to get further into the class because during our colloquium one person mentioned that the book was a parity of the way the Egyptian government was being ran on a separate occasion.

Blog #4 2/9/09

Conflict: Uncertain Boundaries of Power

I thought that the most interesting section of this weeks readings were in Leslie Pierce's book "The Imperial Harem." The section was entitled, "Conflict: Uncertain Boundaries of Power," and connected the powers of the valide sultan to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. The valide sultan was literally, the Sultans mother and her power was directly connected to the power of the sultan. Though obviously the valide sultans power did not touch the equivalence of the sultans, the valide sultan, "acquired public status and a claim to legitimate authority in government." I also found it extremely interesting that Pierce noted the tensions that were formally fused between father and son were transferred to mother and son. I thought that this was amazing because it showed that the Ottomans not only had great tolerance of religion but also were capable of allowing female prescence in important government positions. Even though Pierce noted that there was tension between the valide sultan and sultans relationship, I was slightly confused when Pierce commented, "The most difficult task of a sultan was surely to recognize which of his intimate advisers offered counsel that was most beneficial to the stability and the well-being of the Empire and thus to the security of his throne." This is because even though the valide sultan claimed some power and thus may have created tension between the sultan and herself; I beleive that there still should be a huge amount of trust and confidence between the two powers.

Blog #3 2/2/09

Janissaries are a very interesting part of the Ottoman Empire. Taken from farm towns all over the Ottoman Empire, these young men, preferably ages 15-18 were initially very important to the growth of the Ottoman empire. They viewed the Sultan as a father figure and were brought to the capital of the Empire to be housed, trained, and paid to perform a vast array of services to the kingdom.

The area that I would like to address about these Janissaries is the fact that they were only taken from farming, rural communities. I understand that the Ottomans believe that men of these areas were much stronger and this is why they ignored urban communities. However, wouldnt the Ottomans want to collect from the greatest number possible? As I understand it, Janissaries were not only trained as soldiers, but also men of government and trade. I would think that eduation systems are much better in the urban communities closer to the government establishments. Therefore, couldnt the Ottomans find men for more positions if they included urban areas?

Blog #2 on class notes from 1/26/09

The growth in power and swift expansion of the Ottoman empire was definitely the most interesting thing that we have discussed in class thus far. As we discussed in class, there were three preconditions that facilitated the development of this great kingdom; Migration, the Mongol invasions, and the crusades. We have yet to go into detail with these pre-conditions, so topic that I would personally like to address was the religious toleration of the Ottoman's. Osman I (1299-1326) gave his empire a great advantage by developing this sense of religious toleration. At the same time he made it clear through government and economic growth that Islam was the religion to be observed. He enforced the Jizya tax on other religions which paid for the development of their religious establishments. This is something that his citizens of Islam did not have to worry about due to the fact that the Ottomans were an Islamic empire. Citizens of other religions also had to wear certain clothes to mark what their faith was. While this allowed Osman I to make clear to his people that Islam was the favored religion, I believe that through further toleration he would have allowed even more growth to occur. Osman gathered a great army through the capture of territory. First this was through force, but eventually villages and towns bowed to Osman because of reputation. I believe that if Osman had an even greater toleration-perhaps unheard of back in this era, his empire could have seen endless expansion. Religion was a much bigger part of politics and everyday life than it is today. If he grew an even more multi-cultural empire I believe territory would have came to him through foreign diplomacy.

Movie Reflection

The following blog is a reflection on the documentary titled, "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promise Land."

I have very strong feelings and views regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However when it comes to a great majority of the arguments, I must admit that I have always been bias in favor of the Israeli side. I was born and raised in a very non-traditional Jewish household. Both of my parents are Jews, but in general my family is not very religious. I did not have a Bar-Mitzvah and my parents attempted to drag me kicking and screaming to Hebrew school.

I believe that most of my views regarding the Israeli-Palestinian crisis are self-formulated and based mostly on History. When laying out the facts, I believe that Israel as a state comes in two forms. The Israel that we know today, as the place where United Nations generously picked out a plot of land, took it from the current inhabitants, as if the UN said, "hey, sorry about the whole holocaust thing, now here is some land that we will help you defend so you Jews won't be bothered again." And there is the Israel that is mentioned in books of faith such as the Torah. Now, let me admit that his is my own perception of the situation, and that my views may not be historically correct, it is just how I personally took things in.

After watching this documentary my views have drastically changed. I now sympathize with both sides. However it is very hard for me to part completely with the Israeli side of the conflict because even though their treatment of the Palestinians has been completely miss-lead and unlawful, it is not their fault that the physical area of land is named "Israel." There were many surprising facts in the documentary that showed me a Palestinian point of view and has helped me to broaden my outlook of the conflict. There is a 65% unemployment rate amongst Palestinians, who are restricted to their poor neighborhoods in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Their unemployment is not helped by the great number of road blocks set up by the Israeli army in order to prevent chaos and terrorism. The road blocks are not only a great inconvenience to poor and working class Palestinians, but they also are deadly to Palestinians seeking immediate medical attention for deadly injuries and pregnancies. Finally, the road blocks also prevent equal opportunity for education.

The documentary is also heavily geared toward how the US portrays the situation in the media. While European outlets tend to show both sides of the conflict, the US heavily favors the Israeli side. They address various filters that news coming from Israel goes through starting with the Owners of the US media-firms, continuing through the political elite, than the Israeli government's PR representatives that are based in the US, and finally watchdog groups. All news goes through these outlets before reaching its intended audience, the American public. The US fails to pay attention to Palestinian deaths, demolitions of Palestinian homes, and fails to report on the building of Israeli neighborhoods in Palestinian land. These Israeli neighborhoods are also built in strategic locations for the Israeli army to defend. From September 2000 to August 2003 their were 500 Israeli deaths to the 2000 Palestinian. I can go on for a very long time with pure statistics from the documentary, but the bottom line is that being an American has greatly inhibited our views of the entire situation. In a perfect world, I would hope that the Israeli's and Palestinians would divide the land equally, sharing the holy city of Jerusalem and making it neutral.

But the World is not Perfect.