I know we have a blog for tomorrow but I can't remember what it is and I don't think anyone else does either because insofar no one has blogged. I thought I would take this opportunity to complete my blog that I started but did not post on Turkey. I was interested in the Armenian genocide issue as Pamuk was highly criticized for his liberal views. As it turns out Pamuk was accused of insulting Turkey, but the charges were dropped. Incidentally the US and the EU called for the charges to be dropped and Pamuk won the Nobel Peace Prize shortly before his trial date. Seems a little to coincidental to me. Not that Pamuk was undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize but it seems that politics may have been a stronger driving force than his writing.

This brings me to what our speaker said on Wednesday about Pamuk. I thought personally that he just did not like Pamuk or his writing and therefore thought he was undeserving of the award. Personally, I think that the addition of those pages from an ancient source added an artistic touch to the book the White Castle.

I also was interested that in the reasons that Turkey was not yet admitted into the EU. In addition to the reasons stated in class I think that the Armenian genocide as well as the death of 30,000 Kurds is another major block in Turkey's progress towards acceptance. Turkey denies that these incidents occurred and several countries in the EU want Turkey to admit to them before they accept Turkey into the EU. I also looked it up and saw that Turkey warned the US of the possible negative consequences for stationing our troops in Turkey if the US voted to consider the death of the Armenians a genocide.

I think accepting an Islamic country to the EU would be very beneficial. It could help strengthen ties between the "western culture" and the Islamic nations of the "middle east" It may have a negative effect and Turkey may be viewed as traitorous instead of as a role model but I think the effort toward unity between the differing countries and cultures should be commended.

Response to Presentations

The presentation by Dr. Ellin was very informative. I thought that attempted to limit outright opinionated comments but still there was definitely a pro-Israel message in there. I thought it very interesting how quickly he acquitted the Israeli government of fault for the settlements in the West Bank. He simply explained it away as a result of religious fanaticism and weak or strong political parties in the government. There was not mention of Sharon visiting the Islamic holy place or that the Israeli government's demand of peace were set at an unrealistic standard. In fact there was little criticism of Israel at all. I am not saying that I agree 100 percent with any side that has been presented thus far but I think it is important to recognize the faults of both parties. Dr. Ellin mentioned that at first the Palestinians did not accept the state of Israel and wanted all of the land for their own state and if they had just accepted Israel from the beginning that they would have had more land than before. I think that yes, perhaps that was a large missed opportunity but at the same time the Palestinians were angry at the forced creation of the state of Israel. It is not surprising that they did not accept it in the beginning and now its as though Dr. Ellin is asking us to continue to blame them for a mistake they made in 1948. Yes maybe they should have accepted Israel then but its a little too late now. Throwing that piece of information does nothing to solve the problem. I would like to know what he thinks should be done in the middle east to bring peace of if peace is even possible. He seemed very eager to place blame and show all the errors that the Palestinians made and basically say that their situation is the result of their actions and its their own fault. But I am left with the question now what?? How long can each side point fingers and lay blame, isn't it time to move past whose fault it is that we are in this situation and try to find a way to solve the problem.

I enjoyed listening to the soldiers from Iraq speak. I have a hard time criticizing what they say as they are over there risking their lives. I thought the difference felt toward Americans over the generations was interesting as was the teaching of cultural diversity to the army soldiers. I thought that they were entertaining speakers, and all had valid points and a little different take on what was going on over there. I was also interested to hear the one soldier's take on an exit strategy from Iraq as I have heard many people criticize handing power over to a foreign countries police or army force.

Hope everyone had a good weekend.

Relating the White Castle to something

I knew that this blog would be a problem because on Monday I could not find much to relate the book to. In fact, I could not even think of another book that this reminded me of or another character that I was reminded of, I have a big huge blank. Ian suggested reading the Hunger Artist, which i did and have added a link for anyone else who wants to read it. It does not help me understand the White Castle any better but it does give one an idea of the writing style in the book. I would like to think that the Sultans realization that all people are the same is one that Pamuk wanted to stress to the audience. That people no matter how different they appear from one another are really alike and I am hoping that was part of what he was driving at in the book. I think it is an important realization because where as people seem to come from so different of backgrounds, cultures and education levels, struggle with similar problems.

After searching some I also found a website that has an interview with Pamuk that I also linked to my blog. See ya in class

The White Castle

This was a not a difficult book to read but a difficult book to understand. I still am not sure of what happened nor am I completely sure that there were two main characters or one and I am still not sure what the White Castle Reference is all about. However, despite all of that I think I could safely say that I like the book. There seem to be several themes or issues the author is addressing throughout the text. One of which is can one really define themselves or what or who they are. There is the constant possibility that the two characters in the book could trade lives and also there is more than one scene where it is probable that they do trade roles and assume the other persons life. The first portion of the book characterizes the two men and there is a sense of learning who they are. Later in the book you wonder whether the people have traded places or if characteristics from one character have been adopted by the other character. There is also an important point where the Sultan in the story realizes or comments on how all people are alike no matter where they are from or who they are. Ian took a totally different interpretation of the book than I did and I wanted to write this part of my blog before I read his so that I could remember what I wanted to say without being completely influenced by another opinion but you could read his blog for another take on the book.

Under the Persimmon Tree Continues

This was a book written for a teen audience but what specific age and is the book able to be taught in school. I think the book could be compared to teaching Anne Frank but there comes several problems with this comparison. Anne Frank is taught sometimes in High school but most often in junior high, perhaps at 13, 14, 0r 15. This book could also appeal to that age group but in this book the Americans not a foreign country bombs Afghanistan and "accidentally" kills innocent people. I do not think the US malicioulsy intended to kill innocent civilians but they knew the cost of war and bombing a city. It take great care on the part of the teacher to teach a class of younger teenagers without insulting a student or having the student carry a message to their parents about the class. It is easier to teach about the Holocaust as it is now in the past and was a foreign country and ruler who was the enemy. In this situation one can see that the Taliban is the enemy but the US does not exactly look good in the book. I know that in Germany it is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. Perhaps following their example as to how they taught about he Holocaust could help teach about the "War on Terror." However, the Holocaust and all of Hitler's actions have been condemned and deemed wrong. Not everyone believes that the what the US is doing in the middle east is wrong. The subject is delicate and the book brings the most delicate subjects to the surface but does not explain them or really give an opinion about them. On the whole there is a sense of relief that the Taliban are gone but the cost of their removal and the ideas about women are not fully developed nor does the author really put forth her opinion. The book seems very americanized and a little to hollywoodish for me. The chance of the events in the book happening are slim to none. However the universal suffering that comes with war as well as realizing that their are innocent people on both sides of war help remind the reader that everyone is human no matter where they come from. It shows that the lines between good and evil right and wrong are not as cut and dry or black and white as the media tends to make them. The book introduces many ideas teachers could use in a classroom but they are delicate issues that may have limits to the extent they can be explained and discussed in a public school.

Under the Persimmon Tree

This is primarily about 2 characters, Nusrat and Nujmah . Najmah is a young Shepard girl in Afghanistan and Nusrat is an American woman who converted to Islam, married an Afghani doctor and moved with her husband to Pakistan. The story takes place just after 9/11. Najmah's father and oldest brother are taken by the Taliban and forced to fight. Her mother and newborn brother are killed shortly after her brother and father are taken by a bomb that hits their house. Najmah makes a long dangerous journey to a refugee camp in Pakistan and eventually meets Nusrat. Nurat's husband Faiz is at a clinic in the story but eventually is found out that he died when the clinic was accidentally bombed. Nusrat teaches a school in her back yard under a Persimmon Tree.
The two characters find each other in the story and help each other through the hardships of war. Eventually Najmah's older brother finds her at Nusrat's and they decide that despite the dangers they will return to their home. Najmah's father's last wish was that she and her brother stay at their farm. They decided to fulfill that wish. Nusrat learns of her husband's death and decides to return to New York to make peace with her family.
The story is not exactly up lifting but it is a story of hope. The people continue living with their lost loved one's in their minds and their actions are influenced by those that died.
The regiment of the Taliban in the story is described as oppressive and dangerous. The war caused more hurt death and hardships but in the end it seemed to give hope to the people. I think the overall feel of the story is one of hope despite the loss and pain that the people endure.

Iraq War Links

I took a little different approach in that I focused on the Kurds and Turkey as I knew less about them and their role in the conflict. My one link is to a news article and the other to an actual website. See ya in class.