i think that this video could not have done a better job in evoke emotion from the viewer. Honestly it got a little dusty in here. The video is a poignant example of the how the world is tearing itself apart. The Israel-Palistinian Conflict is represented by two seperate sides with radical prejudicial views of one another. It has bred a hatred that is tearing at the hearts of millions in the Middle East.
What is even scarier is that these are people that have lived alongside one another for centuries, yet the ones who are carrying out these suicide attacks are the young, ideolistic men and women. I can not comprehend, even after hearing her story what drove her to the point of attempted mass murder. I can understand how many have seen things that we will never comprehend and the Israel Raids represented that for many of those who chose Matrydom as their career path including our antagonist. One of the damning things are the people that are left behind by their actions are the ones in mournings and it just continues a circle of revenge that is preying on the psyches of an entire region. Damn the UN and the Allied Powers for carving out a region not their own and reordering the natural way of things. Sometimes when things are left be, they resolve themselves. In the modern age that we live in today, it is impossible not to be influenced by a documentary like this one and not feel the pain of the Levys. I am a true believer that when it comes to the Palistinian-Israeli conflict, one must have the facts and be working towards mutual understanding, rather than allowing raw emotion to dictate ones actions. Thats how senseless violence happens, protests, and political referendums happen which leads to just more frustration that nothing is getting done.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Ottomans and Their Lasting Effect
The Ottoman Empire was one of the most fascinating of all of the World Empires. At its peak, it covered southeast Europe (the Balkins), Eygpt, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. It frequently gets overshadowed by the extensive Imperialistic empires of Spain, England, and the French, but was nonetheless able to last more than 600 years. To be even more frank at the height of its power, everyone just avoided the trade routes by land and sought overseas routes to access Africa and Asia.
One might ask how this was able to be accomplished. I point to a reasonable order of sucession, power commerically, and the nationalism of the people in the region. Allow me to explain; the sucession was determined very simply during this time. If you were the oldest male son of the Sultan, you were the one who was entitled to the throne. From an early age you were bred to be a leader, learning the political fabric that encompassed the dead annals of the palace, and understanding the importance of delegation. Commerically, all land trade routes to Africa and Asia led through the Ottoman Empire. Often times you could travel more than 5,000 miles and still be in Ottoman territory. Have so many travellers in their lands, allowed for merchants to set up shop along the routes and conduct lucrative business dealings, which in turn always is great in terms of boosting the economic flow within the empire.
The other part i mention is the nationalism of the people in the region as a binding point in making the empire as strong as it was. This nationalism came from their religious beliefs, most notably their belief in Allah and Islam. There is always a mutual respect that is there from the beginning if one has the same religious beliefs and with many swearing their undying alligence to one particular God, it has all the makings for a Theocracy in which religious law is the basis for all operation and infrastructure. This would also end up being the downfall of many of their political ideologies, for as the world around them ushered in revolutionary ideas and looked towards the future, many Ottoman leaders chose to stand pat and allow for things to stay as is. Finally when the world was thrust into a global battle (World War I) the Ottomans were so far behind technologically that they were just completely wiped out.
One might ask how this was able to be accomplished. I point to a reasonable order of sucession, power commerically, and the nationalism of the people in the region. Allow me to explain; the sucession was determined very simply during this time. If you were the oldest male son of the Sultan, you were the one who was entitled to the throne. From an early age you were bred to be a leader, learning the political fabric that encompassed the dead annals of the palace, and understanding the importance of delegation. Commerically, all land trade routes to Africa and Asia led through the Ottoman Empire. Often times you could travel more than 5,000 miles and still be in Ottoman territory. Have so many travellers in their lands, allowed for merchants to set up shop along the routes and conduct lucrative business dealings, which in turn always is great in terms of boosting the economic flow within the empire.
The other part i mention is the nationalism of the people in the region as a binding point in making the empire as strong as it was. This nationalism came from their religious beliefs, most notably their belief in Allah and Islam. There is always a mutual respect that is there from the beginning if one has the same religious beliefs and with many swearing their undying alligence to one particular God, it has all the makings for a Theocracy in which religious law is the basis for all operation and infrastructure. This would also end up being the downfall of many of their political ideologies, for as the world around them ushered in revolutionary ideas and looked towards the future, many Ottoman leaders chose to stand pat and allow for things to stay as is. Finally when the world was thrust into a global battle (World War I) the Ottomans were so far behind technologically that they were just completely wiped out.
Saladin- A lost hero
Sorry guys but i slacked off on the blogs a bit (BIG UNDERSTATEMENT). I've been working on my senior thesis(The Evolution of the Professional Athlete) as well as having midterms, so i have not been as responsible as i could have been with these assignments. With that said, please forgive me for the following posts, as they are one-on-top of another. I also appreciate the comments. I hated the idea of blogs when they were first mentioned in the class as a requirement, but now as i have sat here reading your responses, they are starting to mean something as a way of positive reflection. As someone who plans on being a teacher, i find this idea to be kinda cool.
Anyways, one of the questions that I feel gets constantly lost when we are studying the places of the past is the the question "What was it like before?" Recently we have been studying Mamluk Egypt, but i think one of the times periods that left damaged relations between Middle Eastern and Western Culture was the Crusades. In simple terms, the crusades were a religiously based military conflict that saw Christian Europe trying to "recapture" the holy land from the Muslims who had assumed control following the Fall of Rome. This story unto itself would make a great research paper. More interesting perhaps is some of the things that occured during the Crusades and some of the lost Islamic Heros that have been denied a true place in Western History Books.
It could lead to a lengthy argument if you were trying to determine who was the dominant Christian figure during the Crusades. Maybe point to Pope Urban (who called for the first Crusade and granted indulgances for all who fought) or Richard the Lionhearted (who chose as King(!!) to lead a christian army to the Middle East to reclaim Jeruselem.) However, the chief commander of the Muslims during this time, Saladin (refered to as Salah al Din in class), constantly finds himself relegated to the back pages of history books.
Saladin is referred by all cultures when researched. Muslims remember him for his valor and bravery as he fought for Allah and all that the Koran stood for at this time. Militarily he was brilliant, staving off countless Christian offenses and expanding the borders of his Ayyubid Kingdom from as far north as modern-day Syria, into Egypt and Yemen. One of the few Muslim figures written of fondly by Western biographers, he was noted as someone who never took the pride away from his oppenents, not taking prisioners of war, and for not attacking those again who he had already vanquished. He captured and then held Jeruselem, fending off dozens of offensives against his army. His army was responsible for the victory at the Battle of Hadid (sp?) in which he annilated the Crusader Army and forced their retreat, effectively ending the greatest opprotunity for the Crusaders to stake their claim in the Middle East.
Now while this is a brief description of Saladin's accomplishments as head of the Muslim army, it is important to understand that they were operating with less man-power and with far inferior technologies than that what the Europeans were using. He effectively broke the moral of the Europeans that he thought against and this discontent fostered centuries of malcontent towards the region as a whole. Pretty impressive for one guy.
Anyways, one of the questions that I feel gets constantly lost when we are studying the places of the past is the the question "What was it like before?" Recently we have been studying Mamluk Egypt, but i think one of the times periods that left damaged relations between Middle Eastern and Western Culture was the Crusades. In simple terms, the crusades were a religiously based military conflict that saw Christian Europe trying to "recapture" the holy land from the Muslims who had assumed control following the Fall of Rome. This story unto itself would make a great research paper. More interesting perhaps is some of the things that occured during the Crusades and some of the lost Islamic Heros that have been denied a true place in Western History Books.
It could lead to a lengthy argument if you were trying to determine who was the dominant Christian figure during the Crusades. Maybe point to Pope Urban (who called for the first Crusade and granted indulgances for all who fought) or Richard the Lionhearted (who chose as King(!!) to lead a christian army to the Middle East to reclaim Jeruselem.) However, the chief commander of the Muslims during this time, Saladin (refered to as Salah al Din in class), constantly finds himself relegated to the back pages of history books.
Saladin is referred by all cultures when researched. Muslims remember him for his valor and bravery as he fought for Allah and all that the Koran stood for at this time. Militarily he was brilliant, staving off countless Christian offenses and expanding the borders of his Ayyubid Kingdom from as far north as modern-day Syria, into Egypt and Yemen. One of the few Muslim figures written of fondly by Western biographers, he was noted as someone who never took the pride away from his oppenents, not taking prisioners of war, and for not attacking those again who he had already vanquished. He captured and then held Jeruselem, fending off dozens of offensives against his army. His army was responsible for the victory at the Battle of Hadid (sp?) in which he annilated the Crusader Army and forced their retreat, effectively ending the greatest opprotunity for the Crusaders to stake their claim in the Middle East.
Now while this is a brief description of Saladin's accomplishments as head of the Muslim army, it is important to understand that they were operating with less man-power and with far inferior technologies than that what the Europeans were using. He effectively broke the moral of the Europeans that he thought against and this discontent fostered centuries of malcontent towards the region as a whole. Pretty impressive for one guy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)