The History Of Palestine

I've always been a little torn regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I've also always had a much clearer view of Israel's side of the conflict than of Palestine's. While I have tried to keep in mind how the Palestinians must feel, how I know I, too, would still harbor resentment for a deal that forced me from my home, it's difficult to see both sides when your knowledge begins in the middle. This video, "The History Of Palestine," definitely gave me more perspective.

(Follow this link to the video if it doesn't work for you here.)

I thought of the Palestinian perspective as that of anger for loss of home and land. But they lost much, much more. If I had ever bothered to really think about how the state of Israel came about, I'm sure I would've figured out all the bloodshed. Maybe I didn't want to think about that aspect of the "transition." But I don't think I would have imagined quite this story. People forced from their land and homes by what amounts to a brutal regime. The parallels drawn between the jews establishing Israel and what they were trying to forever escape from seem as if they were pulled from some fiction.

And how can we not sympathize with people who can look at their homes but are told "These are no longer yours"? With people who can see their country but are told "This is no longer yours"? How can we sympathize so much with those who take up residence in another's home when that other's clothes, dishes, and blood still freshly stain the heavy air of the place? We are made to feel as if we must choose one group to support, but how can we when the jews have been on both sides of this literal fence within the past 60 years? Our government takes sides, but that's easy to do when you view one side as the victim and the other as the villain. That's easy to do when you don't talk about how the fighting is coming from both sides. And it's easy to garner the public's support, too, when they are told so much about the Israeli half of the conflict and left to figure the Palestinian half out for themselves. It's easier to choose the side for which you've been conditioned to feel sympathy.

Even in light of "The History Of Palestine," we must remember that we have been shown the disheartening beginning of the conflict, but that blame and compassion fall to both sides for the decades that have intervened between then and now.

Orientalism

Edward Said's Orientalism was in some ways eye opening for me, but in some ways both expected and familiar.

In Orientalism, Said points out that throughout history the world east of Europe has been represented by Europeans. (What an exceptionally brief and simple explanation.) Europeans colonized much of Africa and what we (Westerners) now call the Middle East, and when they did so, began to speak for by writing about the people they colonized. The Europeans described the people: what they looked like, how they thought, what they felt, their physical, mental, emotional characteristics. And they did this for hundreds of years without ever asking "an Oriental" what s/he thought or felt. Indeed, some colonizers even claimed that the Orientals lacked the capacity to truly speak for and characterize themselves. So the canon of "knowledge" created by Europeans is how the Western world views Orientals. Said cites a 1967 study "by Morroe Berger, a professor of sociology and Near Eastern studies at Princeton" (287) and notes that Berger effectively indicates that "without his mediating, interpretative role the [Middle East] would not be understood, partly because what little there is to understand is fairly peculiar, and partly because only the Orientalist can interpret the Orient, the Orient being radically incapable of interpreting itself" (289) (emphasis mine).

What truly took me aback was that at the time of Orientalism's publishing (1978) universities (Princeton, et al.) were still teaching Middle Eastern Studies using these unauthentic texts that stereotyped and even villainized Orientals. Sometimes I think that I shouldn't be surprised to hear of this going on in 2009, but I would be. I would be surprised and just a touch disgusted.

Connections are important to me, I believe even small ones to be a cornerstone of critical thinking. So I'll outline a couple here.

First, this Orientalism business smacks of slavery to me. The way slavery was justified, that is, seems a derivative of Orientalism. Oriental colonization could be justified because of colonists' characterizations of Orientals. Slavery was, at first, justified because of whites' characterizations of blacks as stupid, godless, barely human things who could not speak for themselves and possessed no worth beyond their value on the auction block and in the fields. Even the earlist abolitionists were speaking out on behalf of the slave. Until, that is, the slaves began writing their own letters, articles, and novels. Even then, though, those who were pro-slavery would just refer back to what they "knew" about slaves (i.e., lie to themselves and others) in order to justify the institution.

Second, on pages 48 and 49 Said presents some ideas on the personae of Orientals. Conceptions had it, he states, that

"Arabs stress conformity . . . inhabit a shame culture whose 'prestige system' involves the ability to attract followers and clients . . . ('Arab society is . . . based on a system of client- patron relationships') . . . Arabs can function only in conflict situations; that prestige is based solely on the ability to dominate others . . . a shame culture . . . makes a virtue of revenge . . . 'while the Arab value system demands absolute solidarity within the group, it

. . . encourages a kind of rivalry that is destructive of that very solidarity' . . . 'success counts' and 'the end justifies the means' . . . Arabs live 'naturally' in a world 'characterized by anxiety expressed in generalized suspicion and distrust' . . . 'strife, not peace, was the normal state of affairs . . .'"

Said goes on, but that's already really long and perhaps I made it difficult to follow. But you're all smart people and get the gist. The point is that while it's all stereotype and characterization (or caricaturization), much of it also reminds me of how one may describe modern day Western culture, particularly the United States.

9/11

This post doesn't concern class so much as it is a personal note.

I've noticed on a handful of our blogs mention of 9/11. I was in my sophomore year of college when that event took place. As I read your blogs and notice that some of you were in middle school or high school in 2001, I am prompted to consider an issue relative to our studies and to my future: my future students don't really remember a time that is not post-9/11.

Students who are 16 now were only 8 in 2001. Eight. It's difficult for me to recognize that people who are only a few years younger than I am aren't really cognizant of the flux our culture went through, that they may not remember the kinds of propaganda (commercials, print ads) that immediately followed those attacks, that they probably won't remember the heated debates and in some instances outrage surrounding the Patriot Act (although that's likely to remain one of the most tangible aspects of a post-9/11 U.S. culture), that they may not have a clear memory of being blatantly lied to by their President and government repeatedly over a long period of time, that they won't recognize differences in airport security, that my context for middle Eastern stereotypes - having watched them burgeon - is different than theirs will be.

It seems almost surreal to me that I'll almost certainly find myself explaining my memories to my students to provide them with a context for current events and social outlook. I suppose I just hadn't realized how sizable a gap a few years can make. But I think it is important for all of us who are becoming teachers - elementary, secondary, post-secondary - to remember the importance of context.

Sometimes we view events with different eyes than our students do not because of how or where we were brought up, not because of our moral or political leanings, but because of our memories of recent events, our proximity to them, our ability to clearly recall the social and political atmospheres surrounding those events, and our ability to clearly recall how parts of our culture were affected - our ability to see the waves directly after events like 9/11 and the ripples today.

The Scramble For Africa

This video, "Colonialism in 10 Minutes: The Scramble For Africa," reminded me of Saturday Night Live. Not in a sick I thought it was so funny when the little children had no hands sort of way, but because I remember old SNL sketches about Idi Amin. 

NBC is releasing SNL on DVD, and I've been watching the early episodes (the first four seasons). In 1976, '77, and '79 Garrett Morris played Amin. Yes, it's a sketch comedy show, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that it's a wholly mindless one. Ah, we'll trick them into current events with laughter! 

If you have watched/are going to watch the video, you don't need to read the next paragraph.

Beyond that, I was struck by the appallingly familiar chain of events surrounding Amin's regime. Obote is voted in; Amin, Britain, and Israel work together to overthrow Obote. Amin wreaks havoc in Uganda. Museveni spends the 1970s building a resistance to help rid the Ugandans of the tyranny and massacre they have to endure for eight years. Success! Amin is ousted! Another election is held, and Museveni is not elected, Obote is reelected. Here's where it gets tricky, does Museveni really create the NRA solely because he believes Obote's people rigged the election (hello modern day United States, Iran, Afghanistan), or is he also pissed at the fact that, after all he has done to free the Ugandans, there's a possibility that he was passed over? Regardless, he stages a coup in 1986 and, for all his want to be a good and legitimate ruler, speaks to the Acholi people in a retributionary (it's a word now) way (instead of prosecuting those perceived as having committed crimes against humanity (though both sides were involved in a civil war)). Then, of course, Northern rebel groups form to overthrow Museveni. The groups - again, those who say that they have good intentions and are working for the people - ultimately resort to "coercion, abduction, and terror."

It's like listening to Guns N' Roses' "Civil War" and then listening to "One in a Million" (which I wish I could believe was ironic or satirical and which I can barely believe Slash played on).

It's easy to think that everything would be O.K. if a "civilized" and democratic election were held. But how do we expect any country that has been colonized, ruled by force, and conspired against (Britain and Israel and Amin) to trust in an election when the first one (which was as recent as 1962) ended poorly and the second one (in 1979) was rigged and brought about civil war and the NRA? It's difficult to trust in a system you don't know; it's even more difficult to trust again a system you've seen fail. Taking rule by force seems like "doing things the hard way," but it's the model that has been in place and "worked" since the colonization of Africa began. Death, fear, resistance; these things seem to have had more staying power and lasting influence than democracy.

Class One

How much can a person really tell from the first day of class? I place much weight in first impressions but never let them cloud an evolving opinion.

That said, I think I'm going to like this class as well as the people I'll be in class with. Lately, my immediate assumptions about professors have been spot on, and Dr. Webb seems knowledgeable, laid back, confident, and supportive. And I take the ratio of return students as an indication that I can place confidence in his skill as an instructor. Because there was less interaction between students, I didn't get too much of an impression, but people, for the most part, seemed confident in themselves, and Dr. Webb seemed confident in his returners. (I'm a little concerned about the number of commas in that last sentence...)

All of that really means nothing. Here's what I really want to say: I'm looking forward to working hard and learning a lot. I'm looking forward to having a conversation with my classmates and with the film and literature we'll get to share with each other. I won't lie, I hate group work in the traditional, secondary education sense of the term. But collaboration and real discussion that promote critical thinking can produce extraordinary results.