"THE PROOF THAT SADDAM WORKED WITH BIN LADEN"
"OSAMA-SADDAM LINKS 9/11 COMMISSION MISSED"
Sunnis vs. Shi'ites: An Outline Of The Differences Between The Sunnis and The Shi'ite in Matters of Faith And Doctrine
If anyone has ever heard of uncyclopedia, it's a spoof of wikipedia for entertainment purposes. If you care to look at it sometime, here's a link to a selection called "Things the government doesn't want you to know"
You tube Video showing an IED hitting a humvee : http://youtube.com/watch?v=_7yKgqtEZ_M
Explosions: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pZmkYDvNiqk
YOU GOTTA SEE THIS ROAD BLOW UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTH-nVYdVXo
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Book I'm reading
The Blog of War: Front-Line Dispatches from Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan I have only gotten about half-way through it, but it's definitely heart-wrenching. Hearing what the soldiers have to say about different topics such as living conditions in their FOB's (forward operating bases), their feelings on the Iraq War and Bush, their reactions to and interactions with the Iraqis, and how they feel about what they are doing in the Middle East. It incorporates several different blogs that are out there that military personnel have created to keep in touch with family and friends as well as get their thoughts out.
If you have any time, I would recommend this book. There are several blogs that are eye opening, shocking, and sobering. One of the most memorable to me would be one that talked about the first democratic elections that took place in Iraq. The viewpoint of this particular soldier was inspiring, and his experience with the Iraqis really makes you think about what we are doing and why we are there. Anyway, if it sounds interesting, definitely check out this book. It will give you a whole different perspective on what's going on in the Middle East.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Influence of the Israel Lobby
I don't think I've ever been this riled up about a conflict before, and with that said, I am having a hard time staying neutral on this issue. My fiance and I had a long debate over it last night (to his displeasure I might add) and the issues between the Israeli's and the Palestinians make me want to pull my hair out. I did a little bit of research on the Israel Lobby after watching Mersheimer and Foxman's debate, and here's what I came up with:
The Israel Lobby, or AIPAC, has been most influential on American foreign policy concerning Israel. I found an article called "Can American Jews unplug the Israel Lobby?" that shone some light on just how persuasive they are. Michael Massing, who has done reporting on AIPAC for the New York Review of Books, said "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here." And later he quotes a congressional staffer, "We can count on well over half the House -- 250 to 300 members -- to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants." How scary is that?
And what's worse is, t
he policies that the American Jewish people are trying to lobby for are detrimental to US security, or so Mearshiemer argues. John Mearsheimer, the author of the "Israel Lobby," believes that Israeli supporters in the US have too much influence on policy concerning Israel, which ultimately distorts foreign policy to take a shape that is favorable to the Jewish people in the Middle East. He states his tribulations as being accused of being an anti-Semitist and having his politics called "shotty" but I really cannot ignore his argument. We are doing things that are pissing the terrorists off, and that is going to stir the pot.
In the article, Mearsheimer makes some major points that quite honestly scare me. The US cannot really give good reason for it's showering of three billion (that is with a B) of aid to Israel other than the strong Israel Lobby "pulling the strings of the institution". Although I don't really understand all of why we support them, I do see the points Mearsheimer makes of why we should not.
One of the big points Andy and I argued last night was the military support that Israel provided and still provides to the US military during the Iraq War. In the article there is a paragraph that sums up why Israel has become a strategic burden rather than ally:
"The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again."
So we are giving them $3billion a year, 25% for which is unaccounted for, and they didn't even help us during the recent Iraq War. What's worse is that America cannot just "cut-off" their funding without major opposition from the powerful Jewish Lobby. And that $750 million they recieve without having to tell us what they do with it could be going anywhere, including building settlements in the West Bank.
What upsets me the most about all of this is the plight of the Palestinians. I do NOT in any way shape or form condone the terrorists' actions, because they are wrong and the people who commit them should be persecuted. But I can understand why they are making this desperate attempts to be heard. The Israelis are like a big brother picking ruthlessly on their little brother, and the US (mom) isn't paying attention. And taking away their 'allowance' may cause more damage than the US turning its cheek.
Something Abraham Foxman said about how the "deadliest lies" Mearsheimer is telling like "the Jews control the government to support their own interests" caught my attention. How is this a lie? The Israel Lobby, according to the article I found above, is the second most influential group behind the AARP, and they are even ahead of the NRA. They are pushing their goals and their views for Israel as its own nation and twisting it so our government caters to them. Meanwhile back in the Middle East, the Jewish people are doing the same thing-using their aid money to build settlements against the wishes of the entire Arab region for their own benefit.
I'm sorry if I'm getting "tunnel vision" as Andy calls it, but doesn't this all sound like the Jewish people are trying to control the Middle East? It's a reverse of the Holocaust....and it makes no sense to me that they would do the same thing to their enemies that Hitler and his Nazis did to them. I understand why the terrorists have done the things they have in the Middle East, and why they would be angry at us for aiding the people who are trying to control them by force. Again, the terrorists are wrong in the way they have chosen to react, but what how are they supposed to be heard under such oppression and with so few resources? How can they compete with the all powerful, American-backed Israelis? The reciprocations that are going to ensue from this conflict are not something I'm looking forward to seeing.
The Israel Lobby, or AIPAC, has been most influential on American foreign policy concerning Israel. I found an article called "Can American Jews unplug the Israel Lobby?" that shone some light on just how persuasive they are. Michael Massing, who has done reporting on AIPAC for the New York Review of Books, said "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here." And later he quotes a congressional staffer, "We can count on well over half the House -- 250 to 300 members -- to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants." How scary is that?
And what's worse is, t
he policies that the American Jewish people are trying to lobby for are detrimental to US security, or so Mearshiemer argues. John Mearsheimer, the author of the "Israel Lobby," believes that Israeli supporters in the US have too much influence on policy concerning Israel, which ultimately distorts foreign policy to take a shape that is favorable to the Jewish people in the Middle East. He states his tribulations as being accused of being an anti-Semitist and having his politics called "shotty" but I really cannot ignore his argument. We are doing things that are pissing the terrorists off, and that is going to stir the pot.In the article, Mearsheimer makes some major points that quite honestly scare me. The US cannot really give good reason for it's showering of three billion (that is with a B) of aid to Israel other than the strong Israel Lobby "pulling the strings of the institution". Although I don't really understand all of why we support them, I do see the points Mearsheimer makes of why we should not.
One of the big points Andy and I argued last night was the military support that Israel provided and still provides to the US military during the Iraq War. In the article there is a paragraph that sums up why Israel has become a strategic burden rather than ally:
"The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again."
So we are giving them $3billion a year, 25% for which is unaccounted for, and they didn't even help us during the recent Iraq War. What's worse is that America cannot just "cut-off" their funding without major opposition from the powerful Jewish Lobby. And that $750 million they recieve without having to tell us what they do with it could be going anywhere, including building settlements in the West Bank.
What upsets me the most about all of this is the plight of the Palestinians. I do NOT in any way shape or form condone the terrorists' actions, because they are wrong and the people who commit them should be persecuted. But I can understand why they are making this desperate attempts to be heard. The Israelis are like a big brother picking ruthlessly on their little brother, and the US (mom) isn't paying attention. And taking away their 'allowance' may cause more damage than the US turning its cheek.
Something Abraham Foxman said about how the "deadliest lies" Mearsheimer is telling like "the Jews control the government to support their own interests" caught my attention. How is this a lie? The Israel Lobby, according to the article I found above, is the second most influential group behind the AARP, and they are even ahead of the NRA. They are pushing their goals and their views for Israel as its own nation and twisting it so our government caters to them. Meanwhile back in the Middle East, the Jewish people are doing the same thing-using their aid money to build settlements against the wishes of the entire Arab region for their own benefit.
I'm sorry if I'm getting "tunnel vision" as Andy calls it, but doesn't this all sound like the Jewish people are trying to control the Middle East? It's a reverse of the Holocaust....and it makes no sense to me that they would do the same thing to their enemies that Hitler and his Nazis did to them. I understand why the terrorists have done the things they have in the Middle East, and why they would be angry at us for aiding the people who are trying to control them by force. Again, the terrorists are wrong in the way they have chosen to react, but what how are they supposed to be heard under such oppression and with so few resources? How can they compete with the all powerful, American-backed Israelis? The reciprocations that are going to ensue from this conflict are not something I'm looking forward to seeing.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Carter's Book
I confess that I did not read all of Carter's book, but I did make some headway into the first few chapters.
First off, I was pleased with the historical chronology at the beginning of the book. It gave some good insight on what the Israelis and Palestinians have gone through already and up to this point. I thought it was cool to see Saladin's name in there, and a few other references to things we have already seen in class. It's mind boggling to think of how deep the divide is between these two, and how it has fueled such violence for so long.
Jimmy Carter wanted to help this situation in the Middle East, and he cared deeply for the region to establish lasting peace. In Chapter 4, he describes how he invited Menachem Begin, the elected leader of the PLO, and Sadat, the Egyptian leader, to come together at Camp David to discuss various possibilities of peace. Carter quickly found that the two were completely incompatible, and went back and forth between the representatives of each trying to establish a genera
l peace agreement. After twelve days, the resulting agreement was called the Camp David Accords. This outlined the agreement to establish peace within the Middle East, what to do with Gaza and the West Bank, and granted full autonomy for the Palestinians. If you want to see the actual document, I found a website with the exact document in the Jimmy Carter Library.
The picture on the right was taken after the Camp David Accords and features Begin, Sadat, and Carter shaking hands, a sign of cooperation and peace.
It is really amazing how history has played out with the Jews and Palestinians. There have been so many attempts made to create peace and please people on both sides of the conflict. Each side, however, seems somewhat unwilling to compromise. It kinda sounds like they both want "all or nothing," which is completely impossible if lasting peace is to be achieved. One thing is for sure: this conflict has taken it's toll on a tired Middle East, and a sucessful peace agreement seems far away to me.
First off, I was pleased with the historical chronology at the beginning of the book. It gave some good insight on what the Israelis and Palestinians have gone through already and up to this point. I thought it was cool to see Saladin's name in there, and a few other references to things we have already seen in class. It's mind boggling to think of how deep the divide is between these two, and how it has fueled such violence for so long.
Jimmy Carter wanted to help this situation in the Middle East, and he cared deeply for the region to establish lasting peace. In Chapter 4, he describes how he invited Menachem Begin, the elected leader of the PLO, and Sadat, the Egyptian leader, to come together at Camp David to discuss various possibilities of peace. Carter quickly found that the two were completely incompatible, and went back and forth between the representatives of each trying to establish a genera
l peace agreement. After twelve days, the resulting agreement was called the Camp David Accords. This outlined the agreement to establish peace within the Middle East, what to do with Gaza and the West Bank, and granted full autonomy for the Palestinians. If you want to see the actual document, I found a website with the exact document in the Jimmy Carter Library.The picture on the right was taken after the Camp David Accords and features Begin, Sadat, and Carter shaking hands, a sign of cooperation and peace.
It is really amazing how history has played out with the Jews and Palestinians. There have been so many attempts made to create peace and please people on both sides of the conflict. Each side, however, seems somewhat unwilling to compromise. It kinda sounds like they both want "all or nothing," which is completely impossible if lasting peace is to be achieved. One thing is for sure: this conflict has taken it's toll on a tired Middle East, and a sucessful peace agreement seems far away to me.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Oranges and Horses
The title “Land of Sad Oranges” made me giggle when I first read it- the childish image of oranges with Sharpie frowns running through my mind- but there is nothing funny about the plot of this story. It is about a family who is leaving Jaffa for a place called Acre, and eventually goes to a place called Ras Naquora in Lebanon. They were refugees abandoning their homelands because the Jews came to Palestine. They stayed very uncomfortably in Sidon for 3 nights and then the father somehow got money and bought a place on the outskirts of the city.
From what I can tell, the father had orange trees back home that he tended, because when the women had bought oranges in their journey, he looked at it despairingly. He was very angry at the political situation in their country and seemed to take it out on these foreign oranges. The children were sent out into the mountainside until midday to avoid being around for breakfast. One day someone had asked him for something, and he blew up and started frantically rummaging for a gun, saying he wanted to kill the children, and kill himself. After that, the kids ran away and no one asked for anything from that point on-if they were hungry, they kept quiet.
If You Were a Horse was most intriguing. The legend that a horse born with a reddish-mole-like spot on their body would kill someone close to them was what drove the father to fear his son. His wife was killed by a horse that had been born with such a spot on its side, and Abu Muhammad had told him to kill it or someone close to him would be killed, and he challenged the legend and lost his wife. His son, who had a reddish-brown spot on his skin as well, made h
im fearful for his whole life, as he told him at a young age, “If you were a horse, I’d shoot you.” Then in the end the father gets sick and needs surgery, and refuses to let his son, a doctor, perform the task. So during surgery, he told stories in his sleep about his childhood and what happened, and the surgeon was so intrigued that he almost lost concentration. So the son is walking away from the hospital and realizes that since he didn’t do the surgery, and the other doctor had gotten so distracted by the stories, that he probably had done something wrong and that would be the cause of his father’s death. This is so completely ironic, considering the father was afraid his son would kill him, but instead a doctor distracted by his unconscious stories would be the cause of his ill fate.
From what I can tell, the father had orange trees back home that he tended, because when the women had bought oranges in their journey, he looked at it despairingly. He was very angry at the political situation in their country and seemed to take it out on these foreign oranges. The children were sent out into the mountainside until midday to avoid being around for breakfast. One day someone had asked him for something, and he blew up and started frantically rummaging for a gun, saying he wanted to kill the children, and kill himself. After that, the kids ran away and no one asked for anything from that point on-if they were hungry, they kept quiet.
If You Were a Horse was most intriguing. The legend that a horse born with a reddish-mole-like spot on their body would kill someone close to them was what drove the father to fear his son. His wife was killed by a horse that had been born with such a spot on its side, and Abu Muhammad had told him to kill it or someone close to him would be killed, and he challenged the legend and lost his wife. His son, who had a reddish-brown spot on his skin as well, made h
im fearful for his whole life, as he told him at a young age, “If you were a horse, I’d shoot you.” Then in the end the father gets sick and needs surgery, and refuses to let his son, a doctor, perform the task. So during surgery, he told stories in his sleep about his childhood and what happened, and the surgeon was so intrigued that he almost lost concentration. So the son is walking away from the hospital and realizes that since he didn’t do the surgery, and the other doctor had gotten so distracted by the stories, that he probably had done something wrong and that would be the cause of his father’s death. This is so completely ironic, considering the father was afraid his son would kill him, but instead a doctor distracted by his unconscious stories would be the cause of his ill fate. Sunday, October 7, 2007
Men in the Sun
I was really surprised with this book. It begins with the stories of three different men: Abu Quais, Assad, and Marwan. All three of them want to get to Kuwait for the same reasons of finding work and getting opportunity so they can survive. Marwan has to support his mother and siblings, Abu Quais has a wife and two small children, and Assad was alone, but needed to find work so he could have the means to survive.
All three of them go to this man named Abul who helps smuggle people form Palestine into Kuwait for “the cheapest price” available, even though the cost was really steep for what the people could practically afford. And then, they risk their lives crossing the desert with the sun beating down on them like fire, and they follow this oil pipeline called “H4” to the road. They then meet up with others and eventually get smuggled into Kuwait.
I could not believe some of the stuff that happened, especially with Marwan, Assad, and Abu Quais dying in the tank in the end. After all of their plight, and their exhausting journey, they died. I was very disappointed; I wanted them to get to Kuwait. Unfortunately, this paints a very vivid, shocking picture of the Middle East for me. For one, if people are being smuggled out and risking their lives to escape, what kind of place was Palestine and how oppressive was their government that they were driven to do such things?
In the end when they die, Abul asks “Why didn’t you knock?” and I think this is significant. If the men would have knocked, even though they were suffocating, they would have given up what was going on, and then Abul wouldn’t be able to help anyone else get out of the country. There was also a good amount of trust between the three men and their smuggler, because he had agreed for them not to pay until they were done with their journey. They also trusted him with their lives, as they were in this lorry for so long and depended on Abul to get them across the hot desert. The bond between the men was important, as they only had each other to rely on for their survival.
All three of them go to this man named Abul who helps smuggle people form Palestine into Kuwait for “the cheapest price” available, even though the cost was really steep for what the people could practically afford. And then, they risk their lives crossing the desert with the sun beating down on them like fire, and they follow this oil pipeline called “H4” to the road. They then meet up with others and eventually get smuggled into Kuwait.
I could not believe some of the stuff that happened, especially with Marwan, Assad, and Abu Quais dying in the tank in the end. After all of their plight, and their exhausting journey, they died. I was very disappointed; I wanted them to get to Kuwait. Unfortunately, this paints a very vivid, shocking picture of the Middle East for me. For one, if people are being smuggled out and risking their lives to escape, what kind of place was Palestine and how oppressive was their government that they were driven to do such things?
In the end when they die, Abul asks “Why didn’t you knock?” and I think this is significant. If the men would have knocked, even though they were suffocating, they would have given up what was going on, and then Abul wouldn’t be able to help anyone else get out of the country. There was also a good amount of trust between the three men and their smuggler, because he had agreed for them not to pay until they were done with their journey. They also trusted him with their lives, as they were in this lorry for so long and depended on Abul to get them across the hot desert. The bond between the men was important, as they only had each other to rely on for their survival.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Deciphering the Koran
Mary
I have to be completely honest- I don’t think I have ever been so confused trying to read something. It wasn’t so much the material, but between the way it was formatted and the three different translations, it was easy to lose my place and lose some of the story along with it. The stuff I could decipher was very interesting. I figured out on the last couple pages that the voices in the text were talking to Mohammed. The end sounded a lot like the Bible….damned will be people who stray from God, and rewarded will be the faithful followers. I also recognized some of the people from the Bible as well as Mary, the virgin mother, being discussed. The different perspective on these characters and their meaning in a different religion was very peculiar. I never recalled Mary by a palm tree in the Bible, but it has been a few years since I’ve seen the inside of a church. I was raised, baptized, and took my first communion as a Catholic, but my family decided to leave the Catholic Church for a Methodist one when I was 14. Unsatisfied with that, we stopped going when I was 16, and never really took initiative to find a church that really appealed to me. Though this is not a forum for my religious background, I can recognize the different people and relate the two religion’s views on them.
House of Imran
Again, the text is confusing! I am trying really hard to understand….but things get lost in translation for me. The “Book” was sent down by Allah for men to read and take guidance from so people can live as Allah wishes. Allah is the almighty god and sees everything, much like the Lord God in Christianity. Again, I found it very cool that Jesus Christ and Mary are present in the text, but they are of completely different importance. Jesus was considered a prophet, not the Savior of mankind. And the ultimatum that is given for those who didn’t worship Allah; “and whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him (Allah), and
in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers” was a threat to anyone who doubted his power. And if they did anything against Allah they would not be “washed from their sins” and a “painful doom” would ensue.” This reminded me much of the Bible warning against idolizing false prophets to avoid “eternal damnation.”
My Personal Thoughts
I don’t know why I am so fascinated by this, but it’s such an intriguing topic. Who does one believe? How can anyone really know if there really is one true religion? And if there even is one true religion, how could we ever know which it is? Who is right? Again, I was raised in a very religious household, and though raised Catholic, I don’t know what I should believe. What if there really are different Gods and different cultures really do have different places they go when they die? I grew up praying on a rosary, eating communion bread and drinking wine every other Sunday. I even took classes on Catholicism so I could be “eligible” to take my first communion. Now looking back at it from an objective point of view, it all seems so foreign. What is right? Do we even need to know what is right, or do we all just believe what we will and hope that we were the lucky ones who picked the right religion to put our faith into? I’m beginning to rant, but I just wanted to get my feelings out there. Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic? I’d be interested in some different points of view.
I have to be completely honest- I don’t think I have ever been so confused trying to read something. It wasn’t so much the material, but between the way it was formatted and the three different translations, it was easy to lose my place and lose some of the story along with it. The stuff I could decipher was very interesting. I figured out on the last couple pages that the voices in the text were talking to Mohammed. The end sounded a lot like the Bible….damned will be people who stray from God, and rewarded will be the faithful followers. I also recognized some of the people from the Bible as well as Mary, the virgin mother, being discussed. The different perspective on these characters and their meaning in a different religion was very peculiar. I never recalled Mary by a palm tree in the Bible, but it has been a few years since I’ve seen the inside of a church. I was raised, baptized, and took my first communion as a Catholic, but my family decided to leave the Catholic Church for a Methodist one when I was 14. Unsatisfied with that, we stopped going when I was 16, and never really took initiative to find a church that really appealed to me. Though this is not a forum for my religious background, I can recognize the different people and relate the two religion’s views on them.
House of Imran
Again, the text is confusing! I am trying really hard to understand….but things get lost in translation for me. The “Book” was sent down by Allah for men to read and take guidance from so people can live as Allah wishes. Allah is the almighty god and sees everything, much like the Lord God in Christianity. Again, I found it very cool that Jesus Christ and Mary are present in the text, but they are of completely different importance. Jesus was considered a prophet, not the Savior of mankind. And the ultimatum that is given for those who didn’t worship Allah; “and whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him (Allah), and
in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers” was a threat to anyone who doubted his power. And if they did anything against Allah they would not be “washed from their sins” and a “painful doom” would ensue.” This reminded me much of the Bible warning against idolizing false prophets to avoid “eternal damnation.”My Personal Thoughts
I don’t know why I am so fascinated by this, but it’s such an intriguing topic. Who does one believe? How can anyone really know if there really is one true religion? And if there even is one true religion, how could we ever know which it is? Who is right? Again, I was raised in a very religious household, and though raised Catholic, I don’t know what I should believe. What if there really are different Gods and different cultures really do have different places they go when they die? I grew up praying on a rosary, eating communion bread and drinking wine every other Sunday. I even took classes on Catholicism so I could be “eligible” to take my first communion. Now looking back at it from an objective point of view, it all seems so foreign. What is right? Do we even need to know what is right, or do we all just believe what we will and hope that we were the lucky ones who picked the right religion to put our faith into? I’m beginning to rant, but I just wanted to get my feelings out there. Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic? I’d be interested in some different points of view.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Orientalism
I thought it was pretty cool how Orientalism meant so many different things. The official definition, is the study of near and far Eastern societies and cultures, languages, and peoples by Western scholars. Opposite to “occident”, or “west”.
I also enjoyed looking at Orientalism in the fine arts. The architecture and different paintings and sculptures that were inspired by Eastern culture are truly amazing. An interesting fact about paintings I enjoyed was that “Orientalism” in the arts was not truly established until the 19th century, though Islamic Moors and Turks were depicted in Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque art.
Edward Said’s main argument was that “knowledge about the East is generated not through actual facts, but through imagined constructs that imagined "Eastern" societies as being all fundamentally similar, all sharing crucial characteristics that are not possessed by "Western" societies.” This is most interesting, because it is basically saying since the East is the anthithesis of the West, their culture and lives must also be the antithesis of the West. Said also warned against the "falsely unifying rubrics that invent collective identities," citing such terms as "America," "The West," and "Islam," which were leading to what he felt was a manufactured "clash of civilisations." I never really thought about it before, but what he is saying makes a lot of sense. Each of the topics is too broad and has way too many subcategories to define anything under a collective group name.
I also enjoyed looking at Orientalism in the fine arts. The architecture and different paintings and sculptures that were inspired by Eastern culture are truly amazing. An interesting fact about paintings I enjoyed was that “Orientalism” in the arts was not truly established until the 19th century, though Islamic Moors and Turks were depicted in Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque art.
Edward Said’s main argument was that “knowledge about the East is generated not through actual facts, but through imagined constructs that imagined "Eastern" societies as being all fundamentally similar, all sharing crucial characteristics that are not possessed by "Western" societies.” This is most interesting, because it is basically saying since the East is the anthithesis of the West, their culture and lives must also be the antithesis of the West. Said also warned against the "falsely unifying rubrics that invent collective identities," citing such terms as "America," "The West," and "Islam," which were leading to what he felt was a manufactured "clash of civilisations." I never really thought about it before, but what he is saying makes a lot of sense. Each of the topics is too broad and has way too many subcategories to define anything under a collective group name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)