To testify on behalf of my geeky interior, I have banned myself from libraries because I always want to take home all the book I can carry. Today, I had to go because of a group project and walked out with seven more books on the Middle East, Islam, Jihad, Hamas, faith, and conflict. And low and behold, I found the Holy-Grail to my independent study: Political Handbook of the Middle East 2006. I have already started taking hand-notes. I wanted to ask if there is a way I can make a digital copy (pdf, or the sort) so I can write it out to help learn it, but archive it on my computer. I figured you'd know how, or where I can scan my notes. I'll show you my progress on Wednesday, if you can meet during fourth period. =)
Books I have borrowed:
(And what I plan to do with them)
Political Handbook of the Middle East 2006
----Notes
Power, Faith, and Fantasy
----Notes
The Idea of Pakistan
----Notes
Jihad: The Trial of Political Islam
----Notes
God Has Ninety-Nine Names
----Read & Summary
Inside Hamas
----Skim & Bullet Points
Islam: Opposing Viewpoints
----Skim, Opinions, Summary
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
CE: Decade Alyiah
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/09/20/2740980/we-did-it-marking-10-years-in-israel
Dr. D, I just really like this article and decided to post it for future reference =)
Dr. D, I just really like this article and decided to post it for future reference =)
What Defines a Nation?
What Makes a Nation? By: Michael E. Telzrow
http://www.questiaschool.com/read/5016654085
Max Weber, the celebrated German sociologist, wrote that on a basic level, "a nation is a community which produces a state of its own." Weber's definition is correct in that a nation is a self-defining political community. But what makes a nation? Is it merely a political community set within territorially defined borders, or is it something more? The history of [America] our nation, and that of most successful nations, tells us that it is something much more. Nationalism, or the idea of nationhood, is based upon clearly defined ideas and sentiments--feelings of distinction, a shared allegiance or a shared sense of belonging, a commitment to accepted moral and political principles, a common language, and a marriage between culture and politics that ensures the maintenance of political sovereignty.
A belief in the distinctive nature of a state's political and cultural community is a cornerstone of nationhood. Without such feelings of distinction, there is little impetus to establish a nation.
Eighteenth-century observers like David Ramsay seized upon the psychological shift in identity from colony to nation-state to push for a marriage of politics and culture. His contemporary account of the war for independence, The History of the American Revolution, published in 1789, called for strengthening America's cultural identity at a time when Americans still looked to England for much of their cultural cues.
cultural nationalists- pushed for the cohesion of cultural and political aspect of society.
A national culture is a characteristic of every nation-state, and the acknowledgment of past accomplishments is central to the unity of the nation.
A nation is much more than a line drawn on a map. It is an expression of shared principles, of a distinct culture, language, and institutions.
My Summay:
As claimed by Max Weber, the basic understanding of a nation is “a community which produces a state of its own.” However, Michael E. Telzrow adds in “What Makes a Nation,” that there is a bigger picture when it comes to a nation. Historian and President of the Contentantal Congress, David Ramsay observed a psychogical shift in the identity of the new-forming nation of America. He said that the centripetal factor for a nation, versus a colony, was the push for the combination of politics and culture. Past accomplishments, an expression of shared principles, and distinct culture and institutions help define a nation, in Telzrow’s words, help define a nation beyond the characterization of land.
http://www.questiaschool.com/read/5016654085
Max Weber, the celebrated German sociologist, wrote that on a basic level, "a nation is a community which produces a state of its own." Weber's definition is correct in that a nation is a self-defining political community. But what makes a nation? Is it merely a political community set within territorially defined borders, or is it something more? The history of [America] our nation, and that of most successful nations, tells us that it is something much more. Nationalism, or the idea of nationhood, is based upon clearly defined ideas and sentiments--feelings of distinction, a shared allegiance or a shared sense of belonging, a commitment to accepted moral and political principles, a common language, and a marriage between culture and politics that ensures the maintenance of political sovereignty.
A belief in the distinctive nature of a state's political and cultural community is a cornerstone of nationhood. Without such feelings of distinction, there is little impetus to establish a nation.
Eighteenth-century observers like David Ramsay seized upon the psychological shift in identity from colony to nation-state to push for a marriage of politics and culture. His contemporary account of the war for independence, The History of the American Revolution, published in 1789, called for strengthening America's cultural identity at a time when Americans still looked to England for much of their cultural cues.
cultural nationalists- pushed for the cohesion of cultural and political aspect of society.
A national culture is a characteristic of every nation-state, and the acknowledgment of past accomplishments is central to the unity of the nation.
A nation is much more than a line drawn on a map. It is an expression of shared principles, of a distinct culture, language, and institutions.
My Summay:
As claimed by Max Weber, the basic understanding of a nation is “a community which produces a state of its own.” However, Michael E. Telzrow adds in “What Makes a Nation,” that there is a bigger picture when it comes to a nation. Historian and President of the Contentantal Congress, David Ramsay observed a psychogical shift in the identity of the new-forming nation of America. He said that the centripetal factor for a nation, versus a colony, was the push for the combination of politics and culture. Past accomplishments, an expression of shared principles, and distinct culture and institutions help define a nation, in Telzrow’s words, help define a nation beyond the characterization of land.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
C.E. The Meaning of the Koran
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/the-meaning-of-the-koran/?ref=opinion
The article by Mr. Wright is a plea for interfaith piece based on solid principles of religious text and modern thinking. I appreciate his plea for peace, a goal we, liberals, strive for. However, I feel compelled by this article to read the Torah, Christian Bible, and Koran, and make my own judgements. Biased (as always), I know the foundation of the Abrahamic religions to be Judaism, my cultural identity and religion (if you must). The ideal end to Islam is heaven, but ultimately a Jihad in which all non-believers are massacred or converted. Even worse, the Christian ideal is of a second coming, where the apocalypse calls for the damned to be forever imprisoned in hell. This is, of course, proceeded by the non-believers being massacred. I don't believe converting is plan B for those who like their lives. Judaism, however, says the ideal end is when our spirits are brought from heaven to Earth. Where the nations aren't forced to convert or die, but instead see the Truth, and live harmoniously. Call me a hippie, but I'm all for the peace and love; Call me a Jew, because I think my religion has the better and more happy ending. [I'll get all the religious text-based quotes for you in a bit]. I like to look at the "end of it all, what is life worth" bit. The Koran is peaceful, at times, just like the Christian Bible and Torah. All the three texts, also, share bloodshed and dark passages, which, to say the least, are quite grim. But, again, I always liked a "happily ever after ending." Maybe this article shouldn't have focused so much on liberal-religious thought, and instead of been a more conservative piece, in which true understanding could derive.
The article by Mr. Wright is a plea for interfaith piece based on solid principles of religious text and modern thinking. I appreciate his plea for peace, a goal we, liberals, strive for. However, I feel compelled by this article to read the Torah, Christian Bible, and Koran, and make my own judgements. Biased (as always), I know the foundation of the Abrahamic religions to be Judaism, my cultural identity and religion (if you must). The ideal end to Islam is heaven, but ultimately a Jihad in which all non-believers are massacred or converted. Even worse, the Christian ideal is of a second coming, where the apocalypse calls for the damned to be forever imprisoned in hell. This is, of course, proceeded by the non-believers being massacred. I don't believe converting is plan B for those who like their lives. Judaism, however, says the ideal end is when our spirits are brought from heaven to Earth. Where the nations aren't forced to convert or die, but instead see the Truth, and live harmoniously. Call me a hippie, but I'm all for the peace and love; Call me a Jew, because I think my religion has the better and more happy ending. [I'll get all the religious text-based quotes for you in a bit]. I like to look at the "end of it all, what is life worth" bit. The Koran is peaceful, at times, just like the Christian Bible and Torah. All the three texts, also, share bloodshed and dark passages, which, to say the least, are quite grim. But, again, I always liked a "happily ever after ending." Maybe this article shouldn't have focused so much on liberal-religious thought, and instead of been a more conservative piece, in which true understanding could derive.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Palestinian People?
We discussed that one of the first tasks would be to determine if the Palestinians represent "a people", as distinct from Arabs or any other group. You will look at issues of what constitutes a people and discuss arguments for and against the Palestinians as a "nation". The idea is to imagine the centripetal and centrifugal forces of what may ultimately be a Palestinian state.
ANSWER:
“The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century bc occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv–Yafo and Gaza. The name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century ad in “Syria Palaestina,” designating the southern portion of the province of Syria, and made its way thence into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region at least since the early Islamic era. After Roman times the name had no official status until after World War I and the end of rule by the Ottoman Empire, when it was adopted for one of the regions mandated to Great Britain; in addition to an area roughly comprising present-day Israel and the West Bank, the mandate included the territory east of the Jordan River now constituting the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan, which Britain placed under an administration separate from that of Palestine immediately after receiving the mandate for the territory.”
“Henceforth the term Palestinian will be used when referring to the Arabs of the former mandated Palestine, excluding Israel. Although the Arabs of Palestine had been creating and developing a Palestinian identity for about 200 years, the idea that Palestinians form a distinct people is relatively recent. The Arabs living in Palestine had never had a separate state. Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. But after 1948—and even more so after 1967 --- for Palestinians themselves the term came to signify not only a place of origin but, more importantly, a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state.”
“The events of 1948 (also called by Palestinians al-nakbah, “the catastrophe”) and the experience of exile shaped Palestinian political and cultural activity for the next generation. The central task of reconstruction fell to Palestinians living outside Israel—both in the West Bank and Gaza communities and in the new Palestinian communities outside the former British mandate
“Palestinian refugee camps differed depending on the country in which they were located, but they shared one common development—the emergence of a “diaspora consciousness.” In time this consciousness grew into a renewed national identity and reinvigorated social institutions, leading to the establishment of more complex social and political structures by the the 1960s.”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/439645/Palestine
“The Palestinians are represented in the international arena by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964 by the Arab League (the regional organization which now includes 22 Arab states and the PLO).
Although the Arab League's intentions in establishing the PLO may have been to control and channel Palestinian political aspirations, the PLO gradually was transformed into a genuinely Palestinian organization.
By 1974, the Arab states recognized the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," and the PLO was granted observer status in the United Nations by its General Assembly.”
http://imeu.net/news/article0046.shtml
Modern PALESTINIANS:
Israeli
West Bank/ Jordanian
Gaza Strip
FORCES:
Centripital: Land, economy, Arab Brotherhood, Common enemy, PLO, Islam
Centrifugal: refugees/unwanted by neighboring arab states, used as political pons, poverty, internal fighting over power, scattered, massacred
ANSWER:
“The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century bc occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv–Yafo and Gaza. The name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century ad in “Syria Palaestina,” designating the southern portion of the province of Syria, and made its way thence into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region at least since the early Islamic era. After Roman times the name had no official status until after World War I and the end of rule by the Ottoman Empire, when it was adopted for one of the regions mandated to Great Britain; in addition to an area roughly comprising present-day Israel and the West Bank, the mandate included the territory east of the Jordan River now constituting the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan, which Britain placed under an administration separate from that of Palestine immediately after receiving the mandate for the territory.”
“Henceforth the term Palestinian will be used when referring to the Arabs of the former mandated Palestine, excluding Israel. Although the Arabs of Palestine had been creating and developing a Palestinian identity for about 200 years, the idea that Palestinians form a distinct people is relatively recent. The Arabs living in Palestine had never had a separate state. Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. But after 1948—and even more so after 1967 --- for Palestinians themselves the term came to signify not only a place of origin but, more importantly, a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state.”
“The events of 1948 (also called by Palestinians al-nakbah, “the catastrophe”) and the experience of exile shaped Palestinian political and cultural activity for the next generation. The central task of reconstruction fell to Palestinians living outside Israel—both in the West Bank and Gaza communities and in the new Palestinian communities outside the former British mandate
“Palestinian refugee camps differed depending on the country in which they were located, but they shared one common development—the emergence of a “diaspora consciousness.” In time this consciousness grew into a renewed national identity and reinvigorated social institutions, leading to the establishment of more complex social and political structures by the the 1960s.”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/439645/Palestine
“The Palestinians are represented in the international arena by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964 by the Arab League (the regional organization which now includes 22 Arab states and the PLO).
Although the Arab League's intentions in establishing the PLO may have been to control and channel Palestinian political aspirations, the PLO gradually was transformed into a genuinely Palestinian organization.
By 1974, the Arab states recognized the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," and the PLO was granted observer status in the United Nations by its General Assembly.”
http://imeu.net/news/article0046.shtml
Modern PALESTINIANS:
Israeli
West Bank/ Jordanian
Gaza Strip
FORCES:
Centripital: Land, economy, Arab Brotherhood, Common enemy, PLO, Islam
Centrifugal: refugees/unwanted by neighboring arab states, used as political pons, poverty, internal fighting over power, scattered, massacred
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)