Reading Response 5

This next section of Armstrong's book, chapter 9 specifically, she talked about the partial split in Christianity.  Some believed that Jesus was divine like God but wasn't really God because God had created him.  While on the other hand the rest believed Jesus had to be truly God because only "one who created the world could save it."  This is a very big question because in my understand of Christianity and Judaism this is where they also split I believe, Christians believing Jesus was the Savior and Jews still waiting for the Savoir to come.  In going with the first belief she explains that this wasn't the only time God had revealed himself and that Jesus was another part in his ongoing revelation.  I like how Armstrong related this to Jesus coming as a reminder of what was really important and that they let their temples and Torah and other worldy things, like geographical location, get in the way of what really mattered.  This might be an idea to look back on today and see if all of the fighting over sacred land is really what should be the main focus today.

Weblog 2: the conflict

I my opinion the Pressman article was the easiest to follow of all the readings we have done so far.  He gave a good outline of past history and an explaination of the area but only what was really necessary to understand the conflict instead of adding all past confusing details.  He talked about the Balfour Declaration which pushed England into the conflict near its beginning.  While I am still not very knowledgable on the conflict it seems to me that the United States has kind of taken over this role in attempting to intervene and though it might be negatively looked upon by other nations I think some sort of outside influence is necessary in making negotiations in any conflict. Though it would maybe be better looked at if it was the UN attempting at peace instead of the US at the front.

I don't really know if this is a conflict that can be solved anytime soon.  Since it is over the Holy Land for both religions as well as a homeland for Palestinians and Israelies it doesn't really seem right to me to allow either to individual lay claim to Jerusalem.  Just at Washington D.C. is kind of its own state in the United States an approach like this might be best for this area.  Giving each side land around this area and sharing the Holy Land could either lead to worse conflict or a peaceful solution. While I think the US or UN or both need to help the conflict, Pressman's reading leads me to think some presidents have been bias toward one side which will not help the conflict.  Any outside parties need to remain neutral, which of course is easier said than done when you put in outside countries individual agendas or concerns.

Reading Resposne 4

In chapter 5 of Karen Armstrong's book she starts to talk about the Israelites time in Babylon and how they wanted to make themselves separate from their Babylonian neighbors.  From her point of view it seems this is where customs like circumcision and food laws really become important for the Jewish faith.  Another important thing that appears to have come out of this time period is the idea of god or Yahweh being mobile.  This idea is one we still carry around today believing that we can pray from basically any physical place that we are.  Something that was hard for me to grasp was after saying Yahweh was moblie, Armstrong states he left the Israelites who stated in Jerusalem.  While this isn't really factual and is passed down oral tradition, I would assume, this is just the interpretation of those who were exiled to Babylon.  I sometimes find it hard to keep in mind this book is simply peoples interpretation of history, whether through written accounts or oral tradition or however she found her sources. I constantly find myself thinking how does she really know that is what happened or what the people thought.  Though there are some obviously important changes made during this period to the religion of Judaism, the exact stories she gives of how they happened are often hard to follow and believe.

Reading Response 3

I found that the first few chapters of Karen Armstrong's book were very informative about the history of Jerusalem and the entire area, though at times were a bit confusing when I found myself focusing too much on the names and such.  It was neat how she brought in the archeological findings of people like Kathleen Kenyon and how she brought up the difference in what was actually found and things that were written about the time in the Bible.  The difference between whether the Isralites were really outsiders or if they actually conquered all of Canaan is interesting and at the same time almost seems irrelevant since it is something we will probably never actually know.  Yet the idea of who came first and why the city is holy and important to different religions and peoples today is so central to the conflict. I think that this all goes back to a previous reading we had that talked about the difference between the Bible and myths or religious beliefs and what we have found to be actually true archeologically and how some people believe things simply through tradition and that those beliefs will always be stronger than any "facts" which have been uncovered.

First impressions of class

After two weeks in this Living in Jerusalem I am really excited about the things we are going to be learning.  I like the smaller groups we have gotten into, it makes it much easier to share you opinions and learn what others think or feel on certain things.  I think the groups are split into some very different and very interesting categories and we will get to learn about all kinds of aspects of the city through group presentations.  One thing I do not particularly like is our own personal blog posts.  I do not mind reading responses but I don't like that they are public for the whole class and on the internet.  I also do not feel particularly comfortable commenting on other peoples blog posts about their opinions.

Reading Response 2

Of the three readings for this week I found the Rubin article on Jerusalem the most informative.  It seemed like a very unbiased representation of the past history this city.  It surprised me to learn just how many times Jerusalem has actually changed hands constantly being overrun by different leaders with very different cultures and beliefs.  It makes sense that there is so much turmoil nowadays over the city many different people consider sacred. It is amazing to me just how much of the city's history is able to be uncovered.

I also really enjoyed the Khalidi article.  Though it was more a one-sided perspective I liked how he brought up the fact that people will believe want they want to and what they have learned through their faiths over historical facts.  I thought he put this fact nicely that people will believe legends or myths that were born out of tradition simply because it's what they have always done.

Reading Response 1

With my limited knowledge of Jerusalem itself I liked how these first readings gave us some insight into the city and how it is divided basically into an Arab and Jewish city.  I thought it was interesting when Suad Amiry mentioned how some places such as the Israeli representation of the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter are in East Jerusalem and some past Arab neighborhoods were located in West Jerusalem, though East Jerusalem is considered the Arab side and Western Jewish.

I liked how Professor Horowitz's essay talked about the similarities and mixing of and between the two cultures that researchers found when conducting studies for the project.  She talks about things like the mutual concern for the environment and similarities between foods found in both Palestinian and Israeli kitchens. The most interesting thing I found was how she brought up the issue of what really is contemporary culture for the city in relation to a time frame of how many years.  It was brought up that now days clothing styles in Jerusalem are more cosmopolitan and contemporary but in nearby villages more traditional.  I'm not sure which were going to be represented in the festival but it would seem like the traditional style would be more effective though possibly incorrect. As with any major city Jerusalem has many visitors and that tourist culture has also left an impact on the city.  I think it is important to consider and remember that though it is most effective to represent cultures in a traditional almost historic way it may not be correct and it may be the more modern day changes that are the similarities which can bring different perspectives together.

It is unfortunate that the project failed for lack of funding caused by political concerns surrounding it.  In my opinion the project seemed like a great way to study and portray the two cultures by looking at everyday life in the city.  I believe that this project is a step in the right direction for the best way to end a conflict is to learn about and understand the other side and it's perspective. By having those native to the city perform at the festival and such each side would be given many human faces to show to the American's visiting the festival and also help them understand. 

Introduction

Hello! My name is Jennifer Bellio.  I am a senior studying communications and culture with an international studies minor.  I am a transfer to IU and began college studying architecture before switching to cultural studies.  I have very limited knowledge of Jerusalem and the only disputed region I have previously studied is Yugoslavia, but am excited to learn about the culture of such a complex city.