|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B00N533ODE
| 2.67
| 3
| Sep 12, 2013
| Aug 28, 2014
|
it was ok
|
Through Cyprus by Agnes Smith Lewis (1887) (I am writing my reviews of Von Löher's Cyprus: Historical and Descriptive and Agnes Smith Lewis' Through Cy Through Cyprus by Agnes Smith Lewis (1887) (I am writing my reviews of Von Löher's Cyprus: Historical and Descriptive and Agnes Smith Lewis' Through Cyprus together as both traversed Cyprus within five years of each other and made similar observations. Lewis cites Voh Löher's book at points.) Apparently Agnes Smith Lewis and her sister Margaret were well-known travelers of the late 1800s. Agnes speaks and reads moderate Arabic, Greek, Latin, and apparently some French. Per Wikipedia, the author later learned Syriac and was instrumental in discovering and cataloguing ancient Gospel manuscripts found in monasteries in the Mediterranean. Prior this book, they had visited Greece and published a book about it. I found the personal accounts within the book to be too much like republishing someone's personal journal, often very dry reading. The sisters' experience in Cyprus differed greatly from Voh Loher's (whom the author cites at points), they had a tougher time despite apparently having much more means. They traveled with their own tents and hired servants from multiple countries, including a cook. The rainstorms they experience in Cyprus sometimes render their plans useless and they're forced to retreat indoors or rely on the mercy of strangers. Their guides cannot communicate with each other and Agnes does the translating from Arabic, Greek, and English. In many cases their guides lead them the wrong way, or into dangerous situations, etc. and the trip to Cyprus seems more trouble than it's worth to the reader. The first fourth of the book details their travels first through France, then in Egypt and Lebanon. Agnes has studied Arabic and takes two months in Cairo with tutors and visiting a girl's school to continue her studies in the Egyptian dialect. She is a Christian in admiration of the American missionaries and their schools. She is concerned for the plight of British troops holding down the empire as well as for the education of girls universally. She is very much the novelty wherever she goes. This book is one of several written by European travelers to Cyprus in the late or post-Ottoman era. Smith is writing in the fifth year of Great Britain's administration of Cyprus, endeavoring to show what benefits her country has brought. She acknowledges in Egypt that there are those who are not fond of British rule, and chalks it up to British snobbishness and downright rudeness to the native peoples. She laments that British soldiers are also not learning Arabic and Greek, but predicts (very wrongly) that the British will learn Greek before Cypriots learn English. "I have seen the bad effects of such conduct often. I have heard an English officer's wife speak contemptuously of the Arabs whilst being waited on by Arab servants; yes, even of the private soldiers whom her husband was commanding...Once, in my simplicity, I thought that the mission of Great Britain was to civilize the world; that, wherever her flag floated, it would be the symbol not only of all that is just, but of all that is pure and of good report. But my two months of observation in Cairo have shaken my faith in this." The sisters land in Larnaca and make their way north and east to the walled city of Famagusta. From there, they desire to trek to Buffavento but their guides take them far astray. They meet the British jailer and law enforcement in Nicosia before venturing to Kyrenia and then westward to ancient Soli. From here, the group somehow ventures through Akamas and on to Paphos with such ease that I am skeptical they actually made the journey, given the enormous difficulties they had in almost every other stage of their trip. From Paphos they venture along the coast where they are buffeted by storms in Pissouri and near Limassol before returning to Larnaca. The author takes great interest in churches and schools, remarking favorably upon Britain's educational reform (increasing funding, basically) and less favorably on the state of the monks and priests who seem less-educated and little-traveled. She laments the lack of heroes for Cypriots to study except those of the ancient Greeks. Lewis elaborates on the life of Evagoras of Salamis, whom she considers to be the only original Cypriot hero (indeed, his story was unknown to me and quite interesting). "(N)o Cypriot's name can make the pulses thrill except that of Evagoras, the self-made man, the liberator and tyrant of Salamis." The author is able to quote references to Cyprus from the ancient Greek histories and poetry which is helpful to the reader. "In the year B.C. 594, Cypriot independence vanished..." Like other authors of the time, she remarks on the Cypriot culture and its influences by Phoenicians, Greeks, and others. How the native people descend of immigrants from these cultures, and more, and incorporated various ideas and influences from their conquerers and forebears without becoming wholly identified with them-- including the Hellenism which would later inspire the revolt against British rule. She has her own hypotheses on commonality of pagan religions in the Mediterranean and Aphrodite worship in Cyprus, and whether Christianity spread rapidly or slowly. Example: "History tells us very little about it, but we can well imagine the change which must have passed over the face of Cypriot society before the temples were converted into Christian churches; and the worship of Aphrodite was supplanted by that of the Virgin Mary." She laments the scars of Turkish rule, particularly on education and the rights of women, and the fact that Britain is paying Turkey a handsome annual tribute for this land they now administer in its stead. "Turkish rule, in our eyes, is now a vast system of legalised iniquity. The way in which it degrades women is simply intolerable." The author recounts much of Cyprus' history, including her translations from ancient texts, that is useful to someone just visiting Cyprus. The details of the author and sister's travails traipsing through Cyprus with their own entourage of servants carrying tents on mules and horses is more annoying than humorous. One point of interest is that this is the only text of the period I've found where the author visits what is today called the Hala Sultan Tekke mosque: "Georgie and I struck into a mule path...to a spot which in the eyes of Mussulmans ranks just after Mecca and Medina. This is the Tepe of Alat-es-Sultana, a lovely little mosque, the Sultana, who was either the foster-mother or the foster-sister of Mohammed. Beside it were three plain tombs, two of them being those of the sheikh's father and grandfather, who had charge of the place before him, the office of ' president' being hereditary." I wonder if Agnes Smith Lewis' statement is the source of the oft-repeated phrase today that the Sultan Tekke is the "third holiest site in Islam." It is odd that anyone would claim this site, rarely visited and largely unknown outside of Cyprus, would rank above the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem or other sites in Islam. Is the author repeating something she heard from local Turks? Another author? The Wikipedia reference is an obscure/unavailable paper from a U.S. university. I end with the author's thoughts about British rule over Cyprus and what it may hold: "It is good for nations to be autonomous and independent, but it is good too, in the interests of the world at large, that some boughs of a great ethnic tree should be grafted on another stock, and partake of its root and fatness. Thus free peoples may learn to understand one another better; and no Greek can say that this is not necessary as between his country and ours. All honour to the Cypriot peasant, with his bullock-cart and his threshingboard; we hope that he may retain his rustic virtues, and that when his island shall have been under British rule for eighty-six years, like Malta, he too may show us some carriages and some upholstery, with plenty of gold and silver jewellery and lace...If we do not keep it ourselves, we must resign it to some other western Power, or to Greece. The Greeks have no right to Cyprus, say some. We agree with their verdict, but not at all with their reasons. Greece never had Cyprus, that is true, but it is stretching a point beyond the bounds of truth to say that her population is not in the main Hellenic. For what constitutes nationality? Blood and language, which are strongest in their ties if woven closer by a common religion. The population of Cyprus is of course mixed. One fourth is avowedly Turkish, and the remainder must undoubtedly have received many contributions...In one word, foreign dominations, even the most tolerable and tolerant of them, the most gentle and the most scrupulous in the fulfilment of their promises, are always step-mothers, never mothers. We need not fear that the Greeks will ever be able to wrest Cyprus from us. But they have before them the precedent of the Ionian islands, and they may succeed in making our rule unpopular, and in getting up an agitation which would be disagreeable to us and injurious to their own best interests. How are we to prevent this? The first is, to encourage the settlement of English families, and the second, to place ourselves in sympathy with the islanders by endeavouring at least to understand Hellenic aspirations. " I believe the author would have concluded by 1960 that Britain had greatly succeeded in the former but it was not sufficient to overcome the complete lack of the latter, and she would likely be disappointed that the English settlers were never known for learning Greek language (read Lawrence Durrel's Bitter Lemons of Cyprus). In all, I give the book 2.5 stars and would not recommend it. Von Löher's work has its problems, but is a far better read and the first book I would recommend to someone coming to Cyprus for the first time. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 25, 2021
|
Jun 15, 2021
|
Jul 05, 2021
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 0812967054
| 9780812967050
| 0812967054
| 3.84
| 14,124
| Feb 1869
| Feb 11, 2003
|
it was amazing
|
Free to read on Adelaide.edu I was eager to check out this book because I have read several books by American travelers of Europe and the Middle East i Free to read on Adelaide.edu I was eager to check out this book because I have read several books by American travelers of Europe and the Middle East in the 1800s and saw Twain's description of Istanbul referenced in Orhan Pamuk's Istanbul (one of my favorite cities). The difference between Twain's account and that of others in the same period is that Twain is the greatest wordsmith in American history. I did not know that this was one of the best-selling books of the 19th century. Twain's trip was in 1867 and the reader is quickly struck with how fragile Americans are as travelers today. You can tour the "Holy Land" in a week and be back on your couch in days. Modern inconveniences are doing without McDonald's or maybe a lukewarm shower. In 1867, such a journey would take the better part of a year and you very might well die. There is no medicine, few baths, you will ride in a rickety ship for weeks on end in close quarters with people you might not like, you will ride various animals for long journies across wastelands, and you will be subject to robbery and trickerey. Phoning home hasn't been invented yet. The journey is a pleasure cruise in a retired Union vessel with some of the well-to-do of America. Twain apparently sent some of his observations back to the US as newspaper articles and compiled all his notes into this 1869 work. Twain notes how many travelers eagerly keep journals the first few days, but every day on the ocean is roughly the same and they lose motivation to continue. Twain tolerates the eccentricities of his companions, some of the men seem prone to pretend knowledge on subjects they literally know nothing about. This sometimes leads to humor. Time zones are a complete mystery to one passenger who is certain that his watch has stopped working properly. Currency exchange rates also cause confusion, passengers go from thinking they're being extorted in dollars when actually being quoted a cheap price in a European currency. They overcome all. The cruise lands in Tangiers, Morocco in its first major disembarkment. When noting the legend of Hercules' relation to Tangier, Twain remarks: "Antiquarians concede that such a personage as Hercules did exist in ancient times and agree that he was an enterprising and energetic man, but decline to believe him a good, bona-fide god, because that would be unconstitutional." (If you love those one-liners that would play just as well in the 21st century, they are hidden like nuggets in this book.) In Morocco, as in other places, the travelers call on the American Consular General. This apparently is a "god-send" for the Consul because "Tangier is full of interest for one day, but after that it is a weary prison. The Consul General has been here five years, and has got enough of it to do him for a century, and is going home shortly. His family seize upon their letters and papers when the mail arrives, read them over and over again for two days or three, talk them over and over again for two or three more till they wear them out, and after that for days together they eat and drink and sleep, and ride out over the same old road, and see the same old tiresome things that even decades of centuries have scarcely changed, and say never a single word! They have literally nothing whatever to talk about." Note the polite picture he sketches:https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/twai... From Morocco, they north to France. There is little about Europe's treasures that impress Twain, he glosses over the tours that become monotonous and focuses on the misadventures of his companions. In Paris, they find that no barbers give shaves, or at least none that they can cajole to shave them. They get shaved by some wig-makers or people of some other trade in tortuous fashion. https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/twai... Twain writes rather disdainfully about the endless collection of relics, fake relics, that are displayed in museums and on tours across Europe. They've seen all the various shards of the cross and other imaginable relics that the Catholic Church sold as indulgences and continues to make money in Twain's time, while he remarks the faithful peasants are kept quite poor. Twain remarks that Jesus ranks pretty low in the Roman Church hierarchy, much more attention seems given to Mary, Peter, and more. The band continues traveling to Milan and on to Rome. As Twain wanders the streets of Europe, he notes the different rhythm than in the US, and again writes something for the 21st century: "Afterward we walked up and down one of the most popular streets for some time, enjoying other people’s comfort and wishing we could export some of it to our restless, driving, vitality-consuming marts at home. Just in this one matter lies the main charm of life in Europe — comfort. In America, we hurry — which is well; but when the day’s work is done, we go on thinking of losses and gains, we plan for the morrow, we even carry our business cares to bed with us, and toss and worry over them when we ought to be restoring our racked bodies and brains with sleep. We burn up our energies with these excitements, and either die early or drop into a lean and mean old age at a time of life which they call a man’s prime in Europe. When an acre of ground has produced long and well, we let it lie fallow and rest for a season; we take no man clear across the continent in the same coach he started in — the coach is stabled somewhere on the plains and its heated machinery allowed to cool for a few days; when a razor has seen long service and refuses to hold an edge, the barber lays it away for a few weeks, and the edge comes back of its own accord. We bestow thoughtful care upon inanimate objects, but none upon ourselves. What a robust people, what a nation of thinkers we might be, if we would only lay ourselves on the shelf occasionally and renew our edges!" https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/twai... There are other tales of hygiene hijinx, such as bathhouses with no soap. One can only imagine what this travel would be like for a woman. Twain finds Venice to be full of melancholy and decay, not quite the tourist destination it is today. He is definitely not impressed with the Medici mausoleums and other Italian displays, and everyone grows quite tired of Michaelangelo by the time they reach the Vatican in Rome. There is a humorous scene where the Americans troll their guide in Rome who is eager to show them something written by Colombus and a statue/bust of Columbus: "“Ah — Ferguson — what — what did you say was the name of the party who wrote this?” “Christopher Colombo! ze great Christopher Colombo!” Another deliberate examination. “Ah — did he write it himself; or — or how?” “He write it himself! — Christopher Colombo! He’s own hand-writing, write by himself!” Then the doctor laid the document down and said: “Why, I have seen boys in America only fourteen years old that could write better than that.” ... The doctor put up his eye-glass — procured for such occasions: “Ah — what did you say this gentleman’s name was?” “Christopher Colombo! — ze great Christopher Colombo!” “Christopher Colombo — the great Christopher Colombo. Well, what did he do?” “Discover America! — discover America, Oh, ze devil!” “Discover America. No — that statement will hardly wash. We are just from America ourselves. We heard nothing about it. Christopher Colombo — pleasant name — is — is he dead?” “Oh, corpo di Baccho! — three hundred year!” ... “Ah — which is the bust and which is the pedestal?” “Santa Maria! — zis ze bust! — zis ze pedestal!” “Ah, I see, I see — happy combination — very happy combination, indeed. Is — is this the first time this gentleman was ever on a bust?” The crew ascends Mount Vesuvius, inspects the ruins at Pompeii, and devise a clever escape from their quarantines in Athens. (Americans definitely don't can't comprehend the ubiquity of 1800s quarantines today.) Then, it's onto Istanbul and Asia. Twain does not have many deep observations about Istanbul. Twain notes the cultural diversity of the city and that Armenians are known Christian liars. The crew crosses the Black Sea and visits Sevastopol too close to the end of the Crimean War for that not to be somewhat somber. The Americans then travel back through Turkey down to Smyrna (Izmir). Twain remarks about this point of his interaction with Russian ladies, their long names and endless charms. So, Russian ladies impress him as much as anything else in Europe or the Holy Land and I'd say that's about right. Smyrna is just a short train ride to the ruins of Ephesus, and Twain seems actually impressed with it as well. He notes the long list of international historical figures who have come through Ephesus from Alexander the Great to the Apostle Paul to many others. He retells the Legend of the Seven Sleepers, it seems like one he wish he'd written himself. From Smyrna, the group treks south toward Damascus. They have to telegraph ahead to US Consulates in Damascus and Beirut to arrange transport, make sure there are enough horses, etc. It's a 13 hour horse trek to Damascus, and Twain suffers from a bout of cholera while there. Through the Levant, the crew is always hounded by beggars asking for "bakhshish." The poverty and the culture of begging foreigners for money seem quite embedded. Palestine is much smaller than Twain imagined. He makes a good point that there have been many books published by American Christians describing their trips to the Holy Land, but each describes Palestine according to its denomination's desires. None seem to remark that the events of Jesus' life take place in an area the size of an American county. The Holy Land trek inspires Twain to write an awful lot of biblical commentary, retelling the Bible stories with his own insights and dry wit. If you like it, it goes on for quite a while. Eventually, the American travelers exit the future Israel out of the port at Joppa. There is a stopover in Egypt and the pyramids that Twain didn't seem keen to write about. "We suffered torture no pen can describe from the hungry appeals for bucksheesh that gleamed from Arab eyes and poured incessantly from Arab lips. Why try to call up the traditions of vanished Egyptian grandeur;...?" He ends the description of that rather quickly, and the crew then voyages home and through another quarantine. Twain wrote a newspaper immediately upon return that apparently sparked controversy among his crew mates. "The pleasure cruise was a funeral excursion without a corpse." But Twain has since grown fonder of the memories of the voyage in the year since he traveled. He survived to tell the tale, at least. I give this book 5 stars out of 5. What book doesn't have flaws, but this is basically an American classic written by the classic American English wordsmith. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 10, 2017
|
Jan 15, 2017
|
Feb 09, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0691140898
| 9780691140896
| 0691140898
| 3.74
| 9,947
| Mar 23, 2014
| Mar 23, 2014
|
liked it
|
This book presents Cline's research on the collapse of several societies around the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age and explores mysteries such as
This book presents Cline's research on the collapse of several societies around the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age and explores mysteries such as "Who were the Sea People?" It helps connect the dots between several peoples at the time and an attempt to recreate (with much uncertainty) what might have brought about the simultaneous collapse of these cultures. It is not that this is a bad book, but the author has unfortunately chosen to sell it by linking the promo to the modern world and picking an arbitrary date in which "civilization collapsed." I was intrigued because Tyler Cowen seemed to like its promo: "The economy of Greece is in shambles. Internal rebellions have engulfed Libya, Syria, and Egypt, with outsiders and foreign warriors fanning the flames. Turkey fears it will become involved, as does Israel. Jordan is crowded with refugees. Iran is bellicose and threatening, while Iraq is in turmoil." This is silly as those nations as we know them today did not exist in 1177 BC and such words could be written about many time periods in history. Cline doubles down, however, by trying to draw parallels between the ancient and modern world. For example, what oil is to the modern economy tin was to the ancients. Those types of stretches are not necessary. I was pleased to see that Cline collaborated some with Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, whose book David and Solomon I reviewed shortly before picking up 1177 BC. But like those authors, you are just as well to skip the book and read the articles the author has posted online (for Finkelstein look at Academia.edu). This article Cline wrote in September does a decent job if you want the gist.http://asorblog.org/2016/09/07/ask-ne...Another help to me was having lived in Ankara, Turkey and visited the museum of Hittite culture there and seen the relics of Hattusa and elsewhere. Jared Diamond's Collapse is also probably a must-read, as is Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail. If this part of the world doesn't interest you, you will be unlikely to enjoy it. I study the Bible and recently spent a long time looking at Genesis to the exile, reading several books and commentaries comparing various hypotheses on the origins and possible dates of a Jewish migration from Egypt. Cline is pretty fair to all viewpoints, noting that biblical historians favor the 1400s as the time of the Exodus, whereas archaeologists favor the 1200s, and there is room for debate on either side. In some cases, Cline's work on the Sea Peoples rebuts some of what Finkelstein wrote rather confidently in his work. (Finkelstein claimed the description of Goliath's armor in 1 Samuel could only be that of a Greek hoplite of later post-exile Hebrew invention. But Cline writes that sketches found in Egypt of the Sea People from the 13th-12th centuries vary in their description and some sketches may contain either Sea People or ancient Greek warriors clad similarly to the biblical Goliath.) The book is a good reminder that archaeological theories change constantly with evidence, trends, and who gets funding or publicity. Hypotheses that solidify into theories in one century may be discarded the next, so take everything you read with a lump of salt. Cline recounts what is known or suspected of three Sea Peoples invasions of Egypt and Palestine. Egypt was basically in decline from the 1500s until Shishak led a brief revival in the 900s. Egypt bore witness to struggles in Palestine among various peoples, some of whom Egypt had authority over during various periods. An example was the ~1480 BC battle of Megiddo in which Thutmose III fought to pacify a Canaanite people. (Gen. Edmund Allenby was conscious of this history when he fought the Battle of Megiddo in WWI.) There were also major battles between Egypt and the Sea Peoples but the various origins, tribes and distinctions named by the Egyptians are lost to us today--we can only hypothesize. Another mystery of this period is who razed several cities in the Mediterranean just before the migration of the Sea Peoples? Mycenaean cities were destroyed and their civilization was sent into decline. Was it the Sea Peoples? Earthquakes? From Canaan, Cline shifts to the discovery and known history of the Hittite civilization in Anatolia. The Bible sometimes uses "Hittite" to describe the later descendants of these people in Canaan, the remnants of the empire. In 1595, the Hittite army sacked Babylon and apparently remarkably returned home, not expanding the empire. In 1430, there was an Anatolian uprising against the Hittites that may have some legendary connection to Homer's Trojan War. The Amarna letters showing Akkadian-written correspondence between Egypt and Canaanites give some insights into the Hittite world as well; some correspondence was between Pharoah and a Hittite king. Egypt allegedly supported the uprisings in Anatolia and perhaps supported other powers against the Hittites as well. Archaeologists have determined by looking at the range and type of artifacts originating in civilizations found in foreign cities that Hitties and Mycenaean on the island of Crete apparently did not trade with one another for centuries, they were in a deliberate state of war. The Hittites and Egyptians did fight in the 1200s, resulting in a treaty under Ramses II. The Egyptian-Hittite rivalry roughly prefigured the later Egyptian-Assyrian and Egyptian-Babylonian rivalries. THe rise of the Assyrians coincided with the decline of the Egyptian and Hittite empires, and the Assyrians began to assert their own will in places formerly under those kingdoms' influence. So, from Anatolia to Canaan there was massive destruction around 1177BC. Cline believes there was a confluence of factors, a "perfect storm" that led to the collapse of these societies. There was widespread famine around 1250 BC that put stress on populations and led to migration. There were earthquakes in these regions that may be the cause of some of the devastation. Cline argues that the Bronze Age was a time of the first global economy and that their economies were too dependent on bronze. If you've read Jared Diamond's Collapse, you may remember a domino effect-- when societies are dependent on one another and specialize heavily and trade, they suffer greatly when something happens to one society, which then leads to the collapse of the other. Perhaps the Mycenaean decline hastened the Hittite decline which led to the collapse of Ugarit, Lachish, and other cities separated by considerable distance. Ugarit is one example of a city lost in that period around 1177 that had previously been at the intersection of Hittite and Egyptian influence; records indicate that it was overrun by Sea Peoples. Lachish, in Palestine, was destroyed around 1150 BC. Archaeologists and biblical historians have long suggested this was done by Hebrews in occupying the land, but the fact that it happened around the time the Sea Peoples were causing destruction elsewhere raises questions. Hattusa, the Hittite capitol, was destroyed by unknown culprits but presumably the Sea Peoples and perhaps with help from locals. Along with the question of "Who destroyed Lachish?" is the question "Who were the Philistines?" and "When did Israelites arrive in Canaan?" It is thought that the Philistines are the later descendants of the Sea Peoples, but they could be the (migrants or descendants) from SW Anatolia as well. Archaeologists and anthropologists look for clues in commonalities in language, religion, structure, etc. Much remains mystery. But the archaeology does suggest that during this period Palestinian cities began to be overtaken by a technologically-inferior people, which fits the Biblical account of Joshua. The Philistines are recorded as having the ability to make iron tools, weapons, and chariots while the Israelites are not. Egypt's New Kingdom dynasty also ends, after a long decline, around the same period. War and an apparent decades-long drought (possibly due to volcanic activity somewhere, according to some scientists) contributed to this decline. While the book really oversells its premise that we can learn much about today's complex society by learning from the apparent simultaneous collapse of many ancient societies, it is still a decent overview of what is known or believed about that period and what is still being learned by archaeology and ever-changing timelines and hypotheses. The author stresses that it is all still a mystery. It makes one sad to think of all the treasures and undiscovered information lost in Syria and Iraq due to ISIS looting and the battles there now. Perhaps even our 20th century history is just as good a lesson at how quickly nations can go from largely peaceful cooperation and trade to being overrun and borders redrawn. In all, I give this book 3.5 stars out of 5. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jun 09, 2016
|
Dec 09, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0385352034
| 9780385352031
| 0385352034
| 4.18
| 3,031
| 2014
| Sep 16, 2014
|
really liked it
|
I suppose the title is a play on 13 Day in October about the Cuban Missile Crisis; there is nothing that dramatic in this book. The strength of the bo
I suppose the title is a play on 13 Day in October about the Cuban Missile Crisis; there is nothing that dramatic in this book. The strength of the book is that the author delves into biographical details of every character at Camp David in those days, even giving a history on how Camp David itself was saved from Carter's budget axe after inauguration. All of the main characters have written autobiographies and several other books, so it's nice to have a more miniaturized form by an author who has presumably read them himself and uses them to help understand each party's motives and emotions in the peace conference. I listened to the Washington Post's Presidential podcast episode after this book and found much of the same information covered. September, 1978 was sort of the peak of the Carter Administration, or the beginning of the end. The Peace Treaty, when signed in March the following year, marked the beginning of the end of the presidencies of President Sadat and Carter and PM Menachem Begin's government in Israel. With a religious commitment to peace, Carter had been inexperienced with Arab policy until his time as a governor eyeing a run for President. He visited Israel in 1973 and noted the strong Jewish voting bloc and lobby, which tended to vote Democratic. Egypt's Anwar Sadat was religious as well. Sadat was the grandson of a slave whereas one of Carter's constituencies in Georgia were the descendents of slaves. Wright discusses how Carter walked the racial tightrope as a politician, winning over African Americans in private meetings and later implementing policies that he would not have advocated publicly for fear of losing the white vote. His campaign played the "race card" as needed, a blemish in hindsight but pragmatism at the time. But he had been criticized as a "nigger lover" all of his life and was deeply aware of black/white differences from an early age. Wright gives a history of Carter as governor of Georgia, and the difficulty of running as progressive conservative. Carter is an odd president in many ways and apparently a micromanager who often had the most facts in the room and could be rather difficult to work for. Sadat was an interesting character who came to power after the death of Abdel Nasser in 1970 and had worked quickly to show himself to be a bold leader. Sadat grew up admiring and studying Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Adolph Hitler, who he saw as reformers, and particularly liked Hitler's suspicion of Jews. His military's bold 1973 crossing of the Suez had created great Israeli insecurity, even if it ended up being a tactical defeat for Egypt. Former General and later Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan worked secretly with Sadat's representatives when Sadat made rumblings about peace. Sadat made the unthinkable move of going to Israel, including the temple mount in Jerusalem on Eid al-Adha; one of his bodyguards died of a heart attack. Sadat gave an unprecedented speech at the Knesset in which he demanded Israel withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories of 1967 as a condition for peace, a non-starter in the Knesset. Begin and Sadat both were combating economic stagnation and inflation at home when they arrived at Camp David for the accords. Menachem Begin defended the Israeli occupation after the Six Day War and worked to dispel the "myth" that there were Palestinians in the land before Israel, reaching back to ancient roots that Jimmy Carter would have been plenty biblically familiar with. Begin spent time with Carter in Washington, but Carter held out hope of negotiating some kind of deal. If you believe that you are God's chosen people, then you had the right to strengthen the rights of others. Meanwhile, Yasser Arafat's PLO did their best to distract and disrupt any negotiations via terrorist attacks. Wright writes that Begin had similarly pioneered terrorist tactics against the British Mandate in Palestine in order to get the UK to relent and allow more Jews to migrate from Europe to save them from the holocaust. Ironically, Osama bin Laden later read Begin's book to learn how to make a movement from terrorist to statesman. The author chronicles each day's events with the tangents into histories and personalities of all the participants. Future UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was in Egypt's delegation. Rosalyn Carter gets her own mini biography. Wright delves deep into the frustrations, the shouting matches, the lists of points to resolve, and the sticking points that almost derailed the negotiations. The participants tried to choreograph and sometimes walk on eggshells to keep things going. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski loses to Menachem Begin at chess on purpose at one point in a psychological tactic. Sometimes there is too much information, but to understand the ramifications of the peace accords you need a lot of historical context. Begin hearkened back to the Old Testament and saw the founding of Israel as a "new Exodus." They revisit all the wars and battles fought, with particular focus on independence and atrocities in 1940 and the consequences of 1973. Wright rejects any historical timeline of Genesis-Exodus that would put the book of Joshua in any actual reality, writing that Jericho and Ai had already been destroyed. Wright writes this as incontrovertible fact, when the reality is anthropologists and archaeologists still debate who the Sea People were, when and whether an Exodus occurred, and what explains the collapse of civilizations around the time of the 12th century (see Eric Cline's book 1174 BC for just one example). Begin also understands American history, citing Gettysburg and other events. In a roundabout way, Nixon and Kissinger's policy of "detente" made the Camp David Accords possible, writes Wright. The settlements were particularly the sticking point. Carter wanted an official Israeli commitment to the suspension of settlements on the West Bank and elsewhere. Moshe Dayan started to undermine the negotiations over disagreements with Begin about the Palestinian settlements and would later resign his position after the actual treaty was signed. General Ariel Sharon, a war hawk signed off on settlement evacuation. Carter thought he had agreement on the suspension of Israel's building of settlements but Begin never produced the letter. On Day 13, there was a failure over the state of Jerusalem, which the US still does not officially recognize as the capital of Israel. (These are the days before personal computers, every jot or tittle in wording has to have new drafts typed up, giving a new appreciation for the President's staff.) Carter personally draws up redrafts and cajoles and does all he can, shuttling back and forth. Just when things look like they won't happen, they do. They agree upon "A Framework for Peace in the Middle East" and "A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel." Among the key points of agreement to present to the world would be that there would be a five-year transition plan to sovereignty and autonomy for the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza. (The stipulations of this agreement were rejected by the UN). Israel agreed to withdraw from the Sinai and Egypt would require permission to place troops there in the future, like a neutral zone of free passage. Egypt would officially recognize Israel, and the US would give them both money. Further, the peace treaty would have to be approved by Egypt's parliament and the Jewish Knesset to be binding--nothing they would shake hands on here would truly matter. After smiles and handshakes, things go south when Begin and Sadat return home. Begin seemingly begins to undermine the deal and Carter has to travel to the Middle East himself to iron it out, his Presidency in the balance. He succeeds, the treaty is officially signed, and peace is had, but at great price. Egypt is suspended from the Arab League as most conservatives, and the PLO, reject the deal and the UN refuses to acknowledge or enforce key aspects of the agreement. In 1981, Sadat leads a viscous crackdown and mass arrests of many parties on intelligence of a coup plot by radicals. In October, he is assassinated in a celebration of the 1973 war by radical conservative members of the army. Menachem Begin's Likud party faces a setback in Parliament and Begin eventually withdraws from public life and is a recluse that barely agrees to speak to President Carter on the phone years later. Gaza and the West Bank would not have the five years to autonomy they would hope for, but Egypt and Israel would have a decent relationship of trade and peace. Both have made billions in aid money and hardware from the United States. Carter cemented his legacy as a peacemaker, but would lose the 1980 election partly over his inability to do anything about the Iranian hostage crisis. (A memoir I read recently by the Ambassador to Turkey in 1980-1981 suggested Carter's various quirks toward foreign policy (particularly budget cuts) were not very popular. I've not read any books suggesting that the US military was sorry to see Carter leave, either. But he seems to be a man of consistent principle.) --------------------------------------------------------- Other books I have reviewed on Israel's founding and modern history: A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson (4 stars) My Promised Land by Ari Shavit (4 stars) Lawrence in Arabia by Scott Anderson (5 stars) I Shall Not Hate by Izzeldin Abuelaish (4 stars) Six Days of War by Michael Oren (4 stars) 13 Days in September by Lawrence Wright (4 stars) Jerusalem 1913 by Amy Dockser Marcus (2.5 stars) ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jun 2016
|
Dec 02, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0865478031
| 9780865478039
| 0865478031
| 4.16
| 4,605
| Apr 21, 2015
| Apr 21, 2015
|
really liked it
|
Eltahawy writes on the subject of women's rights in Islamic cultures from having lived in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and now America. Opinions of the veil,
Eltahawy writes on the subject of women's rights in Islamic cultures from having lived in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and now America. Opinions of the veil, of course, vary around the world. I lived in Turkey where opinions among best friends vary, and in Azerbaijan where the veil tends to be found in rural villages but less in larger towns and villages. But, as the author notes, the veil is becoming more common and, disturbingly to Eltahawy, necessary to be accepted in many Middle Eastern and Central Asian cultures. She wore the hijab for years before deciding it to be a "white flag to extremism." If the purpose of covering is to keep from bringing a woman to a man's attention, it does the opposite in Western countries where the veil is rare and invites stares. If the purpose in the East is to show proper respect and submission, Eltahawy writes that it takes away the last bit of courage and self-respect that women have, and besides does not protect them from sexual harrassment and discrimination. She notes that while many people (like John Esposito) may claim the Middle East is modernizing in its attidues toward women, and more women are educated there now than ever before, the use of the veil and laws pertaining to it have grown since the early 20th century. Pictures of uncovered women in Egypt, for example, were more common in the early 20th century than today. The author traces the spread of headscarf use from working people in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the education and economic empowerment of women has resulted in a backlash. "(Men) hate us because they need us and they fear us...Women have been reduced to headscarves and hymens." She begins by telling of her frustration with the Egyptian Arab Spring, where women fought along side men in the protests, but were also raped and molested in large numbers and ultimately betrayed. She returned to Egypt to cover the story as a journalist, having already moved to America. She was targeted for rape and later criticized by a nurse treating her. "The revolution is not complete" unless and until women overturn exploitation in public as well as the bedroom. 99.3% of women polled in the Middle East experience sexual harassment, and it is her goal to expose this evil as both a violation of what is accepted as human rights and the treatment of women by Muhammad. **** The Muslim Brotherhood, which is often hailed as a somewhat moderate political pan-Islamic group, supports the traumatic practice of female circumcision (read Hirsi Ali's Infidel or Kristof's Half the Sky for the gruesome details about what this is like for a woman). While interviewing a high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood official, she is told that she is "naked, according to the Quran" for not wearing a niqab. She examines the context and intepretation of the Arabic in the verse that he cited, which is very limited in its scope anyway. (See this site for a more conservative interpretation:https:// al-islam.org/hijab-muslim...) She recounts a story about a Tunisian feminist who asked a Salafist member of parliament a question. He refused to answer it because she was not wearing a hijab. When she begins to disrobe completely, he is terrified. "I’m showing you what a naked woman looks like." He pleaded with her to stop and took her question. Eltahawy agrees with the French ban on the hijab, and the EU's Human Rights court ruling in support. She identifies other disturbing trends in Islamic countries such as Qaddafi's weaponization of rape in Libya, the exploitating of Syrian refugees, and various polls from Tunisia, Lebanon, and elsewhere where wives frequently report physical or sexual abuse in their marriages. She highlights some initiatives to record and prevent domestic violence. When Eltahawy's family lived in Saudi Arabia, she saw even further abuse of women. Eltahawy is even groped while walking during the Hajj, harassed right at the Kabaa, while fully covered and wearing a hijab. Qanta Ahmed (The Land of Invisible Women) also chronicles this poor treatment of women during the Hajj, and the attempts by the Saudi government to segregate what has for centuries not been segregated. All this aside from the ban on women driving, running for office, etc. The author writes that both the Quran and accepted hadiths speak of sexual pleasure, and of one hadith saying that preventing foreplay is cruel. Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood reject these texts or interpretations. If sexual pleasure is to be desired, why do they favor female circumcision in the name of Islam? I had thought female circumcision was relatively isolated to Africa, but she notes surveys showing it is fairly common around both the Arabian Peninsula as well as among European immigrants. Eltahawy eventually found herself a 29 year old virgin filled with guilt and unable to trust men. But she notes that men also feel guilt and deep insecurity, which probably relates to domestic violence. Unlike Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Eltahawy seems to want to remain a Muslim. She quotes modern interpretations of the Quran from progressive groups. Ponders why Aisha is always held up as the example and not Khadisha, Muhammad's first wife who was an educated business owner. She mentions the plight of the transgender and LGBT as well. In all, I give this book 4 stars out of 5. It took an amazing amount of courage to write this book. But it does not appear that Eltahawy has done a complete introspection; one senses a sequal along the lines of Hirsi Ali. One wonders if she's become bitter based on the tone, and it seems incomplete. How can she stay in a religion that promotes misogyny, and which in her estimation the majority disagree with her views? I imagine she has weighed that family and cultural cost but it is not completely present in this book. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Mar 2016
|
Aug 17, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0143034332
| 9780143034339
| 0143034332
| 3.83
| 1,322
| 1991
| Oct 26, 2004
|
liked it
|
One critic has suggested the book "be re-named as A Western History of the Middle East" but I would suggest perhaps "A Political History of the Middle
One critic has suggested the book "be re-named as A Western History of the Middle East" but I would suggest perhaps "A Political History of the Middle East." It is definitely the view from 10,000 feet, focusing mostly on political maneuvering and power struggles. This makes sense given that Mansfield wrote for papers like The Economist and the Financial Times in the mid-20th century; the majority of the book is devoted to the 20th century. Mansfield largely sets aside theology, almost ignoring any role it may play in dividing relations between Iran and the Saudis, for example. Why are Shia largely repressed and marginalized in Saudi Arabia while Sunnis and Kurds face difficulties in Iran? He devotes a few paragraphs on major Shia-Sunni differences, but only after he reaches the end of the 19th century. What are Alawites, Druze, Coptics? What is the interplay of Lebanese Christians alongside Palestinian Arab refugees and Shia militia? This level of detail is not really found. Given his financial journalistic background you would think he would have included more details on demographics, economic growth, and other such aspects of the Middle East but these are also largely left out. Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted is a world history through the eyes of Islam, which is a decent book to read in contrast to this work, and is much more detailed in terms of religion and culture. Other books that I read prior to this include Albert Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples, The Cambridge History of Turkey vol. 1 and 2, Paul Johnson's History of the Jews, Anderson's Lawrence in Arabia, Kissinger's World Order, Kinzer's Reset (on relations between Turkey, Iran, and the US), and Salim Yuqub's Great Courses lecture series on The United States and the Middle East from 1914-2001. Yaroslav Trofimov's The Seige of Mecca is also an important work on events in 1979 that have much to do with 2016. All of these provide details that Mansfield book does not, but I find Mansfield largely hits the high points and gives a good overview of life until 1991. One major weakness of this book is that Mansfield dismisses the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (1960s) and events such as the attack on The Grand Mosque in 1979 by a multiethnic group of Wahabbists as simply dead-enders showing they have nothing large to offer the larger populace and being henceforth rejected and never of any real significance. He writes in the closing chapter that Saddam Hussein proved "Arab nationalism and Islam cannot be mutually exclusive," citing Saddam's ability to muster Arab support for his "jihad" against Iran. His view from 1991 was that oil prices would again rise and the Middle East would again "be important" as its dictators again had oil riches and complaints. As a result, the reader might imagine that the US would end up returning to Iraq to face off against Saddam one day, and that Saudi Arabia and Iran would fight proxy wars someplace like Yemen, but you would not imagine that Saudi-inspired terrorists were already plotting attacks against the US even as this book went to publication or that by 2016 there would be an international war in several countries battling violent Islamists that showed a remarkable ability to recruit internationally by the tens of thousands. (It is similar to the mistake US policymakers and diplomats made in not properly seeing the undercurrents before the Iranian Revolution and being surprised as it unfolded. Even that episode is treated rather politically, Mansfield doesn't bother explaining that Iranians were outraged that the Shah went to America for treatment--an act they saw as an intentional harboring of the puppet.) That is the danger of pulling religion/theology and the underlying values and culture out of a book that aims to be a sweeping history. The author begins with a rapid run from about 0 BCE to the founding of the Ottoman caliphate. On one hand, it is nice that he does not look at the region in previous times but focuses on the period when the Arabs developed. There is little information available from around the time of Muhammed and rather than speculate, he just speeds forward. On the other hand, many events around the time of Mohammed are important and provide context both to the formation and spread of Islam as well as modern-day struggles (see Tom Holland's The Shadow of the Sword). Mansfield then gives a decent overview of Ottoman life and policy, highlighting various aspects of the long decline. In 1497, the Portugese bypass the Cape of Good Hope and the New World takes away the monopoly the Ottomans had on trade and the Western economy. Rather than innovate in the face of competition, the structures of the empire impeded progress and as it declined economically the idea of the Caliphate was revived in order to push its influence over Islam in its territories. There was an ongoing struggle between the Sultan and Mohammed Ali of Egypt which the British and French were able to exploit, as well as the rise of Mohammed Ali's son, Ibrahim Pasha, who invaded and occupied Syria in 1831. In the midst of this came various Western missionaries who built schools, hospitals, and brought Western ideas (I recommend American missionary Roger Goodell's work on his stay in Beirut during this period) as well as mass-printed books. (It was not until the late 1800s that the Ottomans allowed the Koran to be printed and the printing press was not used widely in the Ottoman Empire.) The 1838 Anglo-Turko treaty and an increasing amount of Russian meddling in the "Holy Land" eventually led to the Crimean War. During this period, young Turks were finally allowed to travel abroad and study in Western schools; they returned with bold ideas for reform and democracy. The Young Turks pushed constitutional reform on Abdul Hamid II in 1876 only to later see counter-reforms and a strengthening of the autocracy two years later. According to Mansfield, Armenian revolutionary movements aiming for independence grew during the late 1800s. The slaughter of many in Eastern Anatolia was reciprocated by an Armenian terrorist attack in Istanbul, followed by a further pogrom of Armenians from that city. In Egypt there were likewise nationalist movements aiming at self-determination. There was an open Britain-France-Nationalist-Ottoman struggle for Egypt which eventually led to British occupation because the Suez was too important to fall into enemy hands. Mansfield also mentions the ongoing struggle between Sudan and Egypt, a point of contention between Egypt and Britain. In the 1890s, the Ottoman Empire could not stand long against the Young Turks in Istanbul or the growing Arab nationalism in its territories. Places like Lebanon, inhabited by both Western Christian missionaries, Druze, and others with more ideas of democratic capitalism, the Sultan's stifling grip on either ideas or commerce began to chafe. Hamid brought Hussein and the Hashemites to Istanbul as part of the court in an effort to keep his friends close but his enemies closer. After he pivoted toward Germany for aid and the construction of railroads, the Young Turks managed to overthrow Abdul Hamid in 1908, only to see the further slaughter of Armenians in a conservative counter-coup. Nonetheless, the Young Turks restored the constitution and its reforms, particularly for women's rights and education. After Mansfield briefly describes the major differences between Sunni and Shia Islam, he explores the history of the Safavid Dynasty of Persia and the development of unique Persian/Iranian nationalism. One of the founders of the Pan-Islamist movement of the late 1800s was Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani was invited to Iran by Shah Nasser ad-Din where his popular preaching calling for reforms, resistance to Western influence and a return to Islamic principles, caused the Shah to eventually deport him in 1891. As elsewhere across the Middle East there was a growing movement against Western colonialism, and al-Afghani's disciples would eventually oppose British exploitation of Iran's oil resources. Once the time line goes to World War I, the British outrage many in the Middle East with the Balfour Declaration and the eventual resettlement of Jews into Palestine under a British Mandate. There is a good explanation of how the mandate worked along with the chronicling of the Arab rejection of various offers for a divided state and the fraught immigration of Jews into an increasingly dangerous Palestine. The rivalry for power and independence in the Levant is well-documented in Anderson's Lawrence in Arabia and other works. The Hashemites versus the French, Ibn Saud, and others. Early on in the 1900s there was not a notion of an Arab nation-state or states in the Middle East, but there was clearly a strong pan-Arab, pan-Islamic tide through which various tribal powers appealed to a common base against Western influences. Ibn Saud forges his still-so-consequential alliance with ibn Al-Wahhab and Reza Shah taks the throne in Iran and both Saudi Arabia and Iran enjoy selling oil to Western markets and rivalry with one another. In Egypt there is the education of Abdul Nasser and an increase in nationalism. Kemal Atatürk remakes Turkey into a secular democracy while the author really misses Reza Shah's envy of the secular aspect of Atatürk's country as he pays a visit (see Kinzer's work for this subject). WWII simply delays the inevitible as eventually Nasser and Sadat succeed in overthrowing their British yoke in 1952. The British and Americans made sure not to allow Iran slip out of their influence by overthrowing Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1953. Iraq's nationalist generals cooperated with Germany to move toward independence, but Allied victory in WWII maintained it in the British camp until a 1958 coup installed a monarch who dissolved the Baghdad Pact. Eventually Egypt tries a pan-Arab union with Syria, but Mansfield writes that the bourgeois opposed Nasser's strong socialism and the alliance collapses into Nasser-Baathist rivalry, a Syrian-Iraqi union at Nasser's expense. Meanwhile, Faizal creates a conservative Islamic front in Saudi Arabia against Nasser. The French and British basically withdraw from the Middle East and Northern Africa. Eventually, America stops viewing anyone who is not in the pro-America camp as a communist; Kennedy embraces Nasser and Johnson continues the support. The incredible defeat of allied Arab forces against Israel in 1967 have wide repercussions, along with ending Nasser's rule and creating more political squabbling among the Arab states. Anwar Sadat tries to get the US to take Egypt more seriously and starts the Yom Kippur war, leading to greater Israeli insecurity and a more hawkish attitude toward the Arabs, particularly in the form of making ties with US politicians. In the 1960s-1970s, everything seems to center around oil. The Saudis have five-year plans for infrastructure and use oil funds to eventually mount a joint effort to build Dubai. OPEC becomes the household word in the West. Jimmy Carter's foreign policy is humiliated by the overthrow of the Shah, which eventually leads to US engagement in the Iran-Iraq war as the Saudis increasingly have to balance the domestic pressures of a growing Salafist movement opposed to the House of Saud with proxy struggles with Iran. Mansfield essentially dismisses the conservative Islamist seige of Mecca in 1979 as the last gasp of the conservative religious movement on the road to greater secularization. Mansfield cruises through the 1980s, ultimately building up to the 1991 Gulf War, the results of which were not complete by the time the book was published. Saddam had both gathered Arab sympathies in his war with Iran and tried to boost his credibility as a force to be reckoned with by "retaking" Kuwait, perhaps this is similar in Mansfield's eyes as Sadat's attempt to get Western attention via the Yom Kippur War. He speculates on what would happen if the USSR breaks up-- the Middle East and central Asia would likely grow closer due to its pan-Islamic ties, and Turkey would also be involved due to the pan-Turkic relationship. But Turkey looks to be moving more westward than eastward in 1991. "The Middle East will not be ignored," concludes the author as he forecasts a return of oil prices closer to pre-1980s levels and a return to power of the monarchs and dictators that rule the region in a great rivalry. In all, I give it 3.5 stars out of 5. There is no ancient history, little treatment of the ethnic histories and religious undertones that clearly mean so much today, no understanding of the demands of jihadi fighters returning from Afghanistan, and no imagination that the pan-Islamism we would see just two decades later was one united in a violent struggle not just among Sunnis and Shias but also between Sunni powers. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Apr 2016
|
Apr 21, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0801031834
| 9780801031830
| 0801031834
| 4.45
| 33
| Nov 01, 2011
| Nov 01, 2011
|
it was amazing
|
This is one of the best biblical commentaries that I have read, with plenty of notes on each Hebrew word in the text placed prior to an expositional s
This is one of the best biblical commentaries that I have read, with plenty of notes on each Hebrew word in the text placed prior to an expositional study of each pericope, making it accessible to Hebrew scholar or lay Sunday school teacher (me) alike. It is modern, contains the author's own thoughts and humor, and and is highly readable. Hamilton demonstrates clearly the use of Exodus language in the New Testament (see example below) which makes it easier for the reader to see how the themes presented fit into biblical theology (the arc of Scripture as a whole). I read this while reading Carol Meyers' commentary on Exodus; Hamilton's contains much more information about the text, translation, and other scholars' works than does Meyers'. I highly recommend this work. Hamilton divides the book into seven parts, with a few paragraphs introducing each part. Each pericope within in each part is outlined. He begins with a Translation, then Grammatical and Lexical Notes on each verse. This includes descriptions of the Hebrew words and a brief study on where else they are found and translated in the Hebrew Bible, how others have translated them, and the Hamilton's own open-ended questions. Then there is an expositional commentary. Some of the commentary gets a bit shorter toward the end of the book. Examples from the book: "Fourteen times God remembers the covenant he has made with somebody, as here: Gen. 9:15, 16; Exod. 2:24; 6:5; Lev. 26:42 [3x], 45; Pss. 105:8; 106:45; 111:5; Jer. 14:21; Ezek. 16:60... "God’s remembering always implies his movement toward the object of his memory.... The essence of God’s remembering lies in his acting toward someone because of a previous commitment.” The narrator tells us that this place is “Horeb,” which is another name for Sinai, maybe in the sense that “The Big Apple” is another name for New York City, or “The Windy City” is another name for Chicago. Nobody in Genesis is called holy or even challenged to be holy. Noah is “righteous” (ṣaddîq) and “blameless” (tāmîm, Gen. 6:9), but not “holy” (qādōš). The Lord calls Abraham to be blameless (tāmîm, Gen. 17:1), but he never calls him to be holy. Holy places and holy people appear in the Bible only in conjunction with the covenant and covenantal law that God gives to his chosen people, Israel. Moses after fleeing Pharoah and being told by God to return (p. 150-151): "men seeking your soul” anticipates Matt. 2:20, “For those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead”: tethnēkasin gar pantes hoi zētountes sou tēn psychēn (Exod. 4:19) tethnēkasin gar hoi zētountes tēn psychēn tou paidiou (Matt. 2:20). Most interesting here is the preservation of the plural participle hoi zētountes in the Matthew reference even though Herod is the only one trying to kill the infant Christ. The retention helps to maintain the parallel with Exod. 4:19. Third, in Exod. 4:20 Moses takes his wife and child(ren) and returns to Egypt. In Matt. 2:21 Joseph takes his wife and child and leaves Egypt. The death of Pharaoh opens the door for Moses to leave Midian and return to Egypt, just as the death of Herod opens the door for Jesus to leave Egypt and return to Palestine. On the Sinaitic Covenant compared to surrounding nations' legal codes (p. 610-611): Two items set the Covenant Code apart from all other Near Eastern legal corpora. First, in none of these cuneiform law codes does any deity ever speak...A second item sets the Covenant Code apart: unlike any of these cuneiform codes, the Covenant Code is set within a historical-narrative context, without which it would be shorn of much of its significance. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 03, 2016
|
Feb 02, 2016
|
Jan 03, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0345461924
| 9780345461926
| 0345461924
| 4.16
| 5,719
| Jun 06, 2001
| Jun 03, 2003
|
really liked it
|
I read this book after reading Ari Shavit's My Promised Land and Abuelaish's I Shall Not Hate, as well as Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews. 1967 s
I read this book after reading Ari Shavit's My Promised Land and Abuelaish's I Shall Not Hate, as well as Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews. 1967 seems to be such a pivotal moment both in Israeli and Arab psyche and had wider implications in the perspective of the Cold War. I agree with those who call "lazy" the pundits who claim the rise of Islamic fundamentalism finds its roots in the disappointment of 1967. As usual, reality is more complicated than that. One resource website I found while writing this review issixdaywar.org,a good place to go for the quick Israeli-leaning narrative; Oren's work simply adds the military and political details and personalities. It's one of the highest-rated books I've read on any topic, especially one as widely covered as the Six Day War. I'm 36, and it's not uncommon to hear people younger than me (and maybe some older) think gloom and doom about the world today, particularly the situation in the Middle East. "What has the world come to?" "Surely this is the end times." Nuclear Iran, ISIL in Iraq and Syria, Syrian civil war, Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Saudi and Iranian proxy war in Yemen, etc. But let's examine 1967: The world divided between communism and markets, both armed with nuclear weapons and just a few years away from various almost blowing up the world. America in the midst of a liberal social revolution while being increasingly mired in its own proxy war called Vietnam. Every nation surrounding Israel refusing to recognize any right to existence, armed and eager to invade. Much more of the world in poverty and under despotism than today. The first half of the book is the long spring build-up to the 1967 war, which is dominated by actions by Abdul Nasser's Egypt. We forget (or are ignorant) today that Haffez Al Assad and Nasser forged an alliance unifying Egypt and Syria into one nation. Egypt had been fighting battles in Yemen. The Arab League was bent mostly on the destruction of Israel and if they had dreams of a pan-Arab region it was always at risk from internal squabbles. Nasser held contempt for Jordan after Jordanian troops refused to help his battalion, leading to a glorious defeat and his elevation as a national hero. Nasser held Jordan's King Hussein in disdain, and Jordan seriously feared (as Nasser threatened) Egyptian troops pushing through Israel straight into Amman. Hussein had already survived multiple coup attempts he saw Nasser's hand behind. Oren does a good job helping the reader feel the building tension. The Israelis were genuinely concerned about being wiped off the map by the overwhelming 500,000-strong Arab force, and Prime Minister / Defense Minister Levi Eshkol walked a fine line between hawks calling for pre-emptive strikes and a desire for Western support by not being the belligerent. The Jewish diaspora held protest rallies at universities and raised funds and other support for the besieged country, increasingly cut off from trade after the Egyptians blockaded the Straits of Tiran. Meanwhile, the Soviets helped the Syrians design a battle plan (shades of 2014-2015) and were eagerly shadowing any US ships in the region; tensions were high. Lyndon Johnson advised the Israelis to be patient and not be the ones to strike first-- at least not until they absolutely had to. This would give the US some clout in the UN, Israel had to be recognized as the non-belligerent, something Soviet propaganda would contradict. Johnson, while now known as a complex figure and often racist in conversation, had many Jewish advisors in his White House. "They consider the war to be like the Alamo and I don't aspire to be like Santa Anna." The US proposed the "Regatta Plan" to sail a convoy of international ships through the Straits of Tiran (at the Gulf of Aqaba) which would demonstrate if Egyptian belligerence if prevented, but could also risk a much wider war if a NATO ship was fired upon. Johnson was not prepared to come to Israel's aid in anything other than diplomacy, hoping a wider war could be avoided or, at the least, that the Arabs would fire first and the UN could intervene quickly. Egypt poured troops into the Sinai while Syria did likewise on the Golan Heights, both expelling UN observers or preventing their access to locations where they could observe the buildup. Iraq and Jordan began mobilizing their own forces sensing the impending attack. Chief of Staff (and future Prime Minister) Yitzhak Rabin had to take a temporary leave of absence after exhaustion from stress. As Israel finally activated reservists, they were condemned by the USSR as war-mongerers. On May 30, the Jordanians signed a defense pact that gave the Egyptian army command of Jordanian forces while reopening PLO offices, the PLO would also play a part in the battle. Moshe Dayan was named Israeli Defense Minister and folk hero Menachem Begin was also brought into the Cabinet. Arab propaganda across all nations prepared their people for a glorious retaking of Palestine. On June 4, the Israeli cabinet voted to launch a pre-emptive strike to end any Arab hopes of victory and force a quick UN resolution. The greatest emphasis in Israeli strategy was given to the Egyptian front in the hopes of crippling their military and convincing the Jordanians to the fight was futile. Air superiority is the key to any modern war. The most telling statistic in the book was that Israel had trained to develop an eight minute turnaround between a jet's landing and its refueling, rearming, and being back in the sky. Compare that to the reported eight hour turnaround for the Egyptian Air Force and it's not hard to do the math. Israel also had scouted any gaps in the Egyptian radar system. On the morning of June 5, after dawn patrols and when Egyptian leaders were stuck in traffic, Israel flew almost its entire air force over the Mediterranean then back behind Egyptian lines from the west to strike Egyptian air bases. Jordan had cabled Egypt warning of the approaching planes but a remarkable miscommunication about the channel or updating the Jordanian codes to be used between the forces Egypt to entirely miss the warning. The Israelis were able to fly 144 sorties in 100 minutes in a strategy where waves of jets would be able to attack in a non-stop rotation. Israeli tanks and paratroopers poured into Sinai simultaneously, a costly but successful campaign. Some Israeli mistakes led to casualties, but the Israeli forces were able to push through to the Suez Canal where Israeli commanders had forbidden anyone to cross. Egypt lied via its state-run media about dramatic Israeli defeat and Egyptian forces pressing on to Jerusalem, which sowed greater confusion both among Egyptian army and the other Arab states. The author writes of pledges from around the world of volunteers to the Egyptian cause that came pouring in after June 5. The Egyptians ordered Jordanian forces to begin attacking while claiming they had destroyed 75% of the Israeli air force in the opening hours, when the opposite was true! Given the information by the Egyptians, including a claim that Egypt was launching its ground invasion of Israel, the Jordanians rebuffed Israeli attempts to push a cease-fire with its sometimes amiable neighbor Jordan, Israel was promising no attacks on Jordan if Jordan would do likewise. Israel initially held off counterattacking the Jordanian forces who were inflicting casualties on the Israeli side. Suddenly, Jordan's army, weak compared to Egypt's, began fighting the most fiercely and took up positions formerly held by UN peacekeepers. Meanwhile, the Iraqi air force seemed lax and uneager to join the fray and moved slowly before mobilizing-- remarkable given the long buildup and knowledge that the war was imminent. Israel had remarkable luck or skill in destroying Jordan's small air force while it was on the ground refueling. The late-mobilizing Syrians and Iraqis also quickly lost any air superiority to Israeli jets. But Jordanian and Syrian artillery poised a threat, particularly to the airbases and civilian settlements. Jewish portions of Jerusalem that were surrounded by Arabs were also threatened. Having advantage in the air, the Israelis had success counterattacking near Jerusalem with a small, outnumbered infantry force on the ground while their air force punished any incoming reinforcements. The Israeli cabinet was ecstatic to learn that by the morning of June 6, recapturing the Temple Mount with the rest of Jerusalem was now a distinct possibility before a UN ceasefire could be imposed. Oren retells the story of the ecstasy of Israeli troops able to again pray at their holiest site. After heavy fighting against other Jordanian forces, Jordan was out of the fight on June 7 and a UN-brokered truce was signed. By now, the Arab media spread false rumors of British and US planes and involvement, with Egypt blaming their embarrassment on intervention by Western imperialist forces backing the zionists. Despite no actual US involvement, 34 Americans on the USS Liberty died when Israeli forces mistook it for an Egyptian destroyer on June 8 (for which Israel later paid reparations to victims). With their Arab allies losing badly, the US feared Soviet involvement in order to avoid the humiliation of their supported allies' defeat. Syrian troops were well-trained and with a Syrian advantage as most of Israel's army and air force was focused on the Sinai. But as Egypt retreated and Jordan dropped out, forces were quickly shifted to the Syrian front. Israel gained air superiority over Syrian on June 6, and after Syria violated a cease-fire on June 8, Israel mobilized its forces for the attack. After a fierce tank battle, Israel captured more territory, including Masada, while the Syrians tried to get the USSR more directly involved. A decision to announce the impending fall of Damascus in the media in order to ensure Soviet protection (again, think Russia moving to protect Assad in 2015) had the reverse effect of Syrian retreat and surrender, giving the Golan Heights to Israeli forces. Fighting officially ended on June 10. Some of the best fighting, interestingly, seemed to have been done by PLO operatives in already-occupied territories. One of the bizarre effects of the war was to cause Abdul Nasser to withdraw from all contact for three days after June 5 when he learned his army had been humiliated. After he appeared on national television to announce the truth of the defeat, blaming US and British armed intervention and Israel for attacking "from the West," he resigned. People took to the streets in a panic, calling for Nasser to return (which of course he did). As documented well by Ari Shavit, in the aftermath of the war Jews were rapidly expelled from all over the Arab territories. Confidence in Arab regimes was perhaps tainted, but not shattered. In 1973 everyone would again make a go at it before suffering similar humiliation and no liberation of occupied territories. Meanwhile, Israel would be left with a long legacy of occupation and abuse of Palestinians. Interestingly, the author does not mention much about the nuclear question. As Shavit points out, the Israelis had long since completed a nuclear reactor with the aid of France, and likely had nuclear arms by 1967. If Tel Aviv had been in danger of falling, might Israel have started a nuclear war? An aftermath not mentioned is the increasing religiosity around the Israeli victory, which Shavit writes came soon after the insecurity 1973 Yom Kippur war. Zionism began in the late 1800s as a secular movement and most remained that way through the 1950s. But the capture of Jerusalem and a determination through archaeology and religious history to show historic claims to land began to justify continued occupation of the Arab territories, despite international condemnation. The UN passed Resolution 242 in 1968, which basically left Jewish ownership of now-occupied Jerusalem in question, but it increasingly became central to Jewish nation-state identity. It was vague enough to be interpreted a dozen different ways as in a "yet to be determined." In the West, many evangelicals see Israel's victories in 1948 and 1967 as miraculous fulfilment of biblical prophecy. The Six Day War seems to be straight out of the Hebrew Bible-- impossible victory with few casualties despite overwhelming odds. While there is widespread theological disagreement about Israel's claim to the land, given their rejection of the Messiah, many influential evangelical politicians (Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, etc.) point to 1967 as divine intervention that America would be wise not to ignore. As I read this book, I was reminded that there were always many fortunate coincidences that a much more organized military is able to take advantage of in all of Israel's wars (from what I've read regarding the Maccabean revolution, 1948, the Yom Kippur War, etc.). 500,000 troops, 5,000 tanks, 1,000 fighter planes from seven different countries, plus the pledge of support from the USSR was able to bring nothing but humiliating defense and further loss of Arab territory. The Israelis lost hundreds while the Arabs officially lost thousands. Relevant or not, I'm still exploring covenentalist theology versus dispensationalist in an attempt to understand events in my own mind. I would like to read King Hussein's personal memoir of the war which he published later. I give this book 4 stars out of 5. Highly readable, great with details. However, it makes me wonder what the author missed. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Dec 31, 2015
|
Dec 31, 2015
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0060915331
| 9780060915339
| 0060915331
| 4.16
| 2,459
| 1987
| Sep 14, 1988
|
liked it
| The only way to get through massive volume like this quickly is to listen to it, which is what I did. You can discount all the negative reviews that s The only way to get through massive volume like this quickly is to listen to it, which is what I did. You can discount all the negative reviews that say "just read a Bible!" because biblical history is only the first 15% of this book. Most Protestants have never read Maccabees and are generally unaware of the history of Israel between Micah and Matthew, making it hard to understand the contextual backdrop of the Gospels. Johnson comes from the Catholic tradition and almost assumes the reader has already read the Bible including the Apocrypha, so I think he gives the Maccabean and Hasamonean histories short shrift. Judah Maccabee surely is a more important figure even to modern Israel than it would appear in this book. Johnson does not claim to be a scholar but a "man of letters who writes history." I think that's a false cop-out. The narrative of this book shows how the Jews have survived over the millennia. There is a remarkable ability to rally together around shared identity and the Torah. The Torah (and its formalization during Babylonian exile) gave the Jews a basis for Judaism. "Judaism created the Jews and not the other way around." The Jews gave the world "ethical monotheism," which was embraced and later copied by other religions. The Jews are ultimately survivors, the shared identity that binds them through the ages is the long list of persecutions. From a mixture of fighting for survival to adhering to the spirit of the Torah, the Jews have largely been industrious, increasing world GDP, contributing an untold number of scientists and philosophers, and being both a blessing and a curse to whatever land they inhabit. "The Jews believed they were a people of Providence, so they became a people of Providence." Being such a wide and broad history (6,000 years or so), there is not much at which this book excels. The exception is the chronicling of the persecution and pogroms of Jews from the Seleucids of 175 B.C.to the Poles immediately after WWII. The dates, numbers killed, eyewitness accounts, etc. add detail to the theme of the book, that the Jews are ultimately a sojourning people under constant suspicion and threat. The Nazi Holocaust is chronicled well, yet succinct enough that it is not an entire book in its own right. The biggest weakness of the book, I think, may be the lack of emphasis on the diverse religious and political views of Jews throughout history, and especially as they immigrated en masse to Palestine in the 20th century. I read Ari Shavit's My Promised Land immediately after this, and I think he does a much better job with 20th century history than did Johnson, though they are admittedly 25 years apart. I think Shavit would say Johnson painted the Jewish reoccupation of territory in a too favorable light and without the philosophical introspection that it warranted. Johnson also does not explain the evolving Jewish religious thought toward characters like Abraham and Isaac. I note that absence from what Bruce Feiler included in his book Abraham. There is a lack of explaining any particular rituals, holidays, or beliefs that currently unite the worldwide diaspora of Jews. Critics have written that Johnson is writing as an outsider bringing his Western Christian and politically conservative lens, but all of us bring our own biases to our work, Johnson admits his own interest in the history up front. Compare this to historical works by Jews and those of other backgrounds to get a more complete picture. Others have pointed out many factual errors, like writing that Jesus was somehow a disciple of Hillel; it is odd that for a Christian Johnson does not stop to ponder the reason given in the Bible for the conversion of so many Jews to Christianity-- the resurrection. If anything, there are places where Johnson stretches to find parallels between Jewish history and that experienced by Christians in Jerusalem in the first century. I'd be curious to read Johnson's history of Christianity, which he completed before this work. I give it four stars out of five. For a detailed summary, go to my blog. http://justintapp.blogspot /2015/1... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Dec 20, 2015
|
Dec 31, 2015
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0521807816
| 9780521807814
| 0521807816
| 3.89
| 18
| May 30, 2001
| Jul 25, 2005
|
it was ok
|
I used Meyers work alongside Victor P. Hamilton's own Exodus commentary in working through the book of Exodus; the latter is far superior, particularl
I used Meyers work alongside Victor P. Hamilton's own Exodus commentary in working through the book of Exodus; the latter is far superior, particularly for exegesis. Meyers book has some value, but I could not recommend it over other works. The publisher advertises that "It explains important concepts and terms as expressed in the Hebrew original," but Meyers largely does that by ignoring looking at how the Hebrew words are translated and used in other contexts in the Hebrew Bible. This book is a not a verse-by-verse commentary, but mostly an overview of how a few aspects of Exodus fit into Israel's national identity. She assumes the documentary hypothesis (most good commentaries these days have good critiques of the weaknesses of this approach) which leads to her to assign meaning to certain texts that the authors most certainly would not have. The book is devoid of any biblical theology--seeing how the work fits in the total arc of scripture--and does not connect much with other passages in the Hebrew Bible that rely on Exodus; Exodus is mostly left on an island by itself, and even its Genesis roots and parallels are largely ignored. That makes her assertations about Israeli identity questionable, in my opinion. The strength of the book are the "closer look" sections on topics like circumcision, the Sabbath, comparison of the Decalogue to the Laws of Hammurabi, and more. Meyers draws from modern anthropology and archaeology to make her points. Meyers also draws more attention to the role of female heroins in Exodus than other male authors, this is worth noting. The Torah truly elevates the status of women, and Exodus is no exception. An example (pgs. 51, 69): "Jochebed is a theorphoric personal name with a shortened form of Yahweh (see Exod 6:20), making her arguably the first person in the Hebrew Bible to bear such a name and signifying the origin of Yahweh as the name of god with her son...A name is related to identity; and the name of Israel's god indicates an open and fluid identity, not linked to any specific cosmological, natural, or functional phenomena, as was the case for other deities in the biblical world...Jochebed's name is also significant - using a shortened form of yhwh, it means 'Yahweh is glory.'" In some cases, she may stretch a bit to find feminine characteristics of God in the text. D.A. Carson might find some "exegetical fallacies." One example (p. 123): "the use of the epithet" merciful "for God as the source of divine compassion is probably related to such maternal images. The adjective" compassionate "(or" merciful ") and the noun" compassion "(or" mercy "), as well as the verb" to be compassionate, merciful, "all are related to the Hebrew word for" womb "(rehem); and they all are used in relation to God more often than to humans in the Bible." Nonetheless, there is some good commentary on law and legal customs among the Jews and other Near Eastern peoples that I found helpful. I give it two stars out of five. It gets a bit thin at the end as Meyers appears to get bored with the text. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 04, 2015
|
Feb 02, 2016
|
Dec 04, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1565856708
| 9781565856707
| 1565856708
| unknown
| 4.18
| 245
| 2003
| Jan 01, 2003
|
liked it
|
This is a set of 24 lectures by The Teaching Company giving an overview of U.S. involvement in the Middle East in the 20th century. Yaqub earned a PhD
This is a set of 24 lectures by The Teaching Company giving an overview of U.S. involvement in the Middle East in the 20th century. Yaqub earned a PhD from Yale and his old biography at the Wilson Center suggests this book sums up his published arguments and research interests. As a prerequisite, I recommend Albert Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples (goes from 600 - 1991 A.D). For more detailed information on William Yale and U.S. involvement in World War I and the Zionist movement during that period I recommend Scott Anderson's excellent Lawrence in Arabia (2014). My knowledge of American relations with the Jewish people and the Palestinian question was shaped by chapters in the second half of Freedom from Fear by David Kennedy. For a look at the U.S.-Turkey-Iranian relationship with a tangent on the Palestinian peace process, I suggest Kinzer's Reset. There are a host of books dealing with the U.S.'s relationship with Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the 1991 Gulf War. You might try Prelude to Terror by Joseph Trento for a jaded view on the CIA's involvement that Yaqub can only touch on. There are several works written in the 1800s by American missionaries and diplomats to the Middle East that are available on Gutenberg and elsewhere. Yaqub could easily add five more lectures since 9/11. Although the devil may be in the details, these lectures (and accompanying note outlines) give a good overview of Middle Eastern policy mostly divided up by the terms of U.S. presidents. The student can better understand the disintegration of the Ottoman empire, the triumphs and trials of Zionism, the rise of Arab nationalism, and the effects of each American president's policies in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Before World War II, and definitely before 1914, American involvement was largely commercial and missionary. Yaqub provides good documentation of missionary schools and hospitals and the headaches created for U.S. diplomats trying to assist citizens in times of trouble. After WWII, insuring stability, preventing communism, and safeguarding oil became the driving forces of each administration. Yaqub gives much attention to Abdel Nasser's often tenuous relationship with the U.S. from seizing the Suez Canal after U.S. rejection of aid for the Aswan Dam to the Six Day War of 1967. Nasser is the face of Arab nationalism and the mold in which many leaders seem to have followed. Yaqub does a good job tracing the history of Israel and the Zionist movement, as well as the plight of Palestinian Arabs from 1914. I appreciated that he included a lecture on the Kurds, looking at their history with modern Turkey and importance in Iraq policy. They are one of the few nationless minorities mentioned, which is unfortunate. Yaqub contrasts policies of various presidents (most of whom experienced deep and consequential failures). LBJ, for example, cozied to the Shah of Iran and to Saudi Arabia and offered little criticism of their internal human rights abuses at the same in contrast to Kennedy. Nixon was too distracted by Watergate to be trusted with any decisions during the Yom Kippur War, so Kissinger had ultimate authority. Carter was bent on peace in Palestine and defunding the military abroad but ramped up defense spending after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan's Lebanon fiasco and Iran-Contra are rehashed. The 1991 Iraq war and aftermath are also revisited. The Clinton years and his effort with Arafat and Barak to make piece are somewhat critiqued. Yaqub posits that Barak's offer was less generous than Clinton and history give him credit for. Yaqub helpfully includes a lecture on Afghanistan and its history up to 9/11. The weakness of the series is that there is little mention of Yemen, not a great deal of focus on Syria outside of its wars with Israel, and nothing the economic rise of the Emirates. Libya is not technically in the Middle East but has been important in Middle East policy and counterterrorism since the 1980s; it gets one mention. Those countries are not in Yaqub's research interests so they are noticeably absent. The accompanying notes are quite helpful, but the lectures themselves could have been edited better for quality. I give it 3.5 stars out of 5. If you're looking for a primer on U.S. policy in the Middle East, this is a good place to start. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Apr 21, 2015
|
Apr 21, 2015
|
Audio CD
| |||||||||||||
| 0446393924
| 9780446393928
| 0446393924
| 3.87
| 4,303
| 1991
| Apr 01, 1992
|
really liked it
|
Albert Hourani - A History of the Arab Peoples, 1992 edition This book is a mile-high overview of the history of Arab peoples from Mohammed to 1991. I Albert Hourani - A History of the Arab Peoples, 1992 edition This book is a mile-high overview of the history of Arab peoples from Mohammed to 1991. I imagine it is standard textbook in an Arab Culture or Middle Eastern studies curriculum. In certain eras, Hourani has little historic and archaeological information to go on but does his best to present what we know. He does not have the space to delve into the details of any particular events, personalities, or tribal distinctions. I would have liked for him to elaborate on the linguistic differences across Arab lands, but instead he closes the book with a look at the modern political languages of Arabs: nationalism, social justice, and Islam. He also is able to give little detail when he reports particular events, such as when a leader was assassinated, and why that event was important and what exactly the context was. If you're interested in a particular region or country, check out more specific books. Histories written with narratives and anecdotes of the time are easier to read, but may contain less information. This book contains nothing of the sort and is all information. I learned much about Arab peoples and their history, the interaction with Turkish history via the Ottoman age, and a little about how modern borders were formed, although much of explanation of development of modern states is too detailed for this book. Part I: (Seventh-Tenth Century) pre-800 A.D. Muslims had copied/studied almost the entirety of know Greek texts, preserving them to be translated back into Latin in the Middle Ages. Arabs also developed on the science and mathematics found in the texts, publishing their own works. Hourani explains how tradition on Mohammed differs, his sayings were compiled first during the reign of his third successor. There is much debate about his life and the authenticity of what is recorded. Hourani returns to Koranic interpretation throughout the book, explaining how the various schools of religious and philosophical thought developed. He looks at Persian Shiite beliefs as well, the Mahdi belief arose very early. Abbasids vs Shiites, etc. Mystical experiences and writings versus more strict traditions, etc. Despite Mohammed's wishes, it appears monasticism in Christianity was influential on Muslim scholars, and some issues of Islamic doctrine mirror debates in the monophysite Christian churches as well. Paternalism was present well before Islam (and Judaism) in the Middle Eastern native cultures. Part II: Arab Muslim Societies (11th-15th centuries) Hourani looks at the spread of Islam and the interaction of Arabs, Persians, and Turks. There is a look at cities, Hourani notes that Cairo and Baghdad were likely metropolises of 250,000 before the plague. The Mamluk's controlled the land from Mecca to Cairo and ruled via vassals. Mamluk government differed from that of the Seljuk's in Anatolia. He describes the common architecture found in cities, houses, palaces, as well as the importance of Arabic writing in artwork. Wine seems to have been widely consumed despite prohibition. The Arabian Nights and other tales probably originated from other cultures and were translated into Arabic, the earliest roots seem to come from the 10th century.Schools of theology and laws became important. Islamic scholars were expected to travel around learning from various teachers to get a wide range of views. I found his discussion of "ishtihad," or "independent reasoning" in Sunni law as interesting. Only a "mujtahid" is qualified to exercise "ijtihad" in evaluating Islamic law. The Koran and Hadith were not sufficient, knowledge of history and reason were also required. (This is something ISIS apparently rejects, it is a pre-11th century version of Islam). Part III: Ottoman Age (16th-18th centuries) While the Ottomans are Turks, they ruled over the Arab people and set the stage for the modern struggles of Arab independence movements. I enjoyed the lengthy look at Ottoman government and culture. The Ottomans were innovative in that they codified their laws, including the Sharia aspects (just as Justinian had done with Roman law during the Byzantine Age, not mentioned by the author). We forget that besides the Crimean War of 1853-1856, there was the previous Russian-Ottoman conflict of 1768-1774 in which the Russians annexed Crimea. This has implications for events of today. Hourani does a good job looking at reform attempts within the aging Ottoman empire and how that later affected Arab independence movements. Turkey also dominates much of Part IV. Hourani does look at Jewish relations with Arab Muslims over the centuries as well. Part IV: The Age of European Empires (1800-1939) As Europe grew stronger and the Ottomans grew weaker, Europe made its presence felt in North Africa and the Middle East. French colonization of Algeria is examined. U.S. aid money for Lebanese survivors of a civil war in 1860 was one of the first examples of a coordinated international aid effort. The U.S. later set up schools in the area, as well as France and other powers. Germany was of large assistance to Turkey and the British took more interest in Middle Eastern oil. The first Western interest in Middle Eastern philosophy and history came in the early 1900s. Hourani mentions the 1908 Arab revolts and widespread killings of Armenians without the dreaded "g-word." I learned a bit about the development of Salafism in the 20th century and the roots of Arab nationalism in Syria. He of course looks at T.E. Lawrence and WWI but remarks that the fabled Arab Revolt is of debatable value in the war. The division to modern borders is really only glossed over in Part IV and Part V. Part V: The Age of Nation-States (since 1939) As linguistic study and literacy increased in the 20th century, so did Arab/Islamic philosophy and poetry. Hourani makes remarks on several poets who choose to publish works in the colloquial Arabic. Economic growth happened post WWII, but stagnated as countries like Egypt tilted toward Socialism and became reliant on either the West or the USSR for aid and military support. Arabic socialism as promoted by Nasser had little appeal to Islam but rather to nationalism and anti-colonialism. Hourani describes some of the political intrigue of the 1950s-1970s, with coups and assisinations. Rivalries and wars with Israel, etc. He gives an overview of how Arabs favor strong central governments, partly as a reaction to western colonialism, and partly in order to unite and subdue several competing factions within arbitrary borders (think Iraq). He also describes the evolution of the role of women both in economics and in politics. The rise of the Muslim brotherhood is described as one of several attempts to interpret Islam and its idea of social justice into modern contexts. The competition with Wahabist and Sufi schools of thought, critical today as Sunni Arabs are now at war with one another in Syria. Hourani makes no predictions about the future but clearly does not forsee current developments. The book was written before the Gulf War of 1991, so it is dated (while a later version adds an afterword with updates). I learned a lot about the Arab peoples and have a greater appreciation for the cultural history. I'm giving it 4.5 stars out of 5. I partly wish the author had broken it down into five larger volumes with more detail, but am glad for this large overview. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Apr 16, 2015
|
Apr 18, 2015
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0465030564
| 9780465030569
| 0465030564
| 4.22
| 1,448
| Oct 21, 2014
| Oct 21, 2014
|
it was amazing
|
Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms: Journeys Into the Disappearing Religions of the Middle East by Gerard Russell Gerard Russell was a career diplomat in the Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms: Journeys Into the Disappearing Religions of the Middle East by Gerard Russell Gerard Russell was a career diplomat in the British Foreign Service with postings around the Middle East and Afghanistan. His personal memoir would surely be fascinating, particularly his time in Israel and being witness to elements of the peace process. Instead, he's devoted his energies to researching and chronicling the histories of ethnic and religious minorities in the Middle East, some of which are in peril of assimilation, either in their Middle Eastern home or other countries (such as the USA) where they have fled for refuge. He describes his 14 year career as 10 years of travel and four years of study, learning both Arabic and Dari (the Farsi of Afghanistan). His position granted him access to lands and people that others would not have obtained; Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the West Bank, etc. I respect him for using this for the benefit of research. On one occasion, he visits the head of a religion with a British Ambassador, otherwise the meeting may not have happened. In many places, he pushes cultural and legal boundaries as far as he can to get that rare glimpse, that difficult interview, that historic location. I listened to the audiobook as I traveled Cyprus, a land where some of these minorities have fled for refuge as well as a land with its own ancient histories and traditions clouded by the mists of time. It reminded me of my years in Azerbaijan, encountering ancient minorities in the Caucauses Mountains whose origins and beliefs also overlap with traditions recorded by Russell. The written version of the book contains helpful maps and photos. My favorite quote comes from someone he interviews upon learning of the probable title of his book: "Forgotten Kingdoms? WE haven't forgotten!" The book is a wonderful overview that provides so much information requiring further study. By chapter, the author covers: 1. Mandaeans 2. Yazidis 3. Zoroastrians 4. Druze 5. Samaritans 6. Copts 7. Kalasha Epilogue: Chaldeans and other minorities Detroit and elsewhere in the USA. The author begins the book investigating the mysterious Mandaean religion found in marshy area of what was once ancient Babylon, modern Iraq. The whole exploration of rituals, highly-protected written traditions, secrets and mystery are a theme of the book. Many people in the same minority have different traditions related to their own origins and beliefs. There is much overlap among several of the beliefs and practices of the groups. Mandaeans and Yezidis along with ancient Harranians and modern Alawites show overlap with Mithras worshippers of Ancient Rome. Both Yezidis and Alawites pray three times daily toward the sun, for example. One forgets that the Persian Empire conquered at least 23 separate peoples or nations. The author gets to escape his handlers in Iran and travel to "Southern Azerbaijan" where he encounters those maintaining the traditions of Zoroastrianism, and today's Iranian Shia and Zoroastrians maintain similar worldviews. The author reminds the reader that Iran only became Shia in 1500, and various other traditions flourished before that. The Druze of Lebanon have beliefs that may originally trace to Neoplatonism, a relic of the settlement of the Greek diaspora in the Levant long ago. They have already experienced forms of war and ethnic cleansing going back a thousand years. Very few Druze are even allowed to know what their precise religious beliefs are, simply knowing that they identify as "Druze." The Druze belief in reincarnation put them at odds with both Shia and Sunni Islamic elements around them, and currently the Druze feel besieged by surrounding Shia elements. The author's intentional effort to travel to the Palestinian Territories to experience a Samaritan Easter is interesting. Only a few hundred Samaritans remain, and are largely unknown to their Jewish cousins, but make an outsized place in the book. Samaritans have a different history of Hebrew history (as evident in the Gospels), maintaining it was the Judeans returning from Babylonian exile who adopted heresies and not the opposite, as claimed by Jews. They still keep a passover with real lambs and reject any traditions or customs after the Torah. Cairo was the author's first posting and he seems to have a sentimental attachment to it, and deep sympathy for the Coptic Christians who have seen their freedoms erode over the recent decades. Even today, the Coptic Church has more actively-professing Christians than you will find in the UK. The author recounts Egyptian history to show the traditional history of tolerance. Copts were shown tolerance when Egypt was governed by Isma'il Pasha in the late Ottoman Period while the pasha attempted modernization and reforms. Russell points out that only with the rise of Nasser did Egypt become an Arab-aligned state, and Anwar Sadat made it a truly Islamic one, beginning a more widespread persecution of Copts. Coptic traditions and songs trace back to the earliest days of Christianity. Just like the Islam practiced in Egypt, some traditions may incorporate elements of ancient Egyptian rituals (the author discusses the history of the "evil eye" amulet as found in the region and especially Turkey). Some Egyptians claim that even the Psalms of David are taken from ancient Egyptian songs of the time. (Not surprising, really. If Hebrews lived in Egypt for centuries before the Exodus, they would have taken many of the art, customs, and songs with them-- as the Torah itself suggests.) Perhaps the most interesting chapter is that of the Kalasha, an Indo-Aryan people who live in a remote area of Pakistan that few are able to travel to; even the author has a challenging time getting a visa. The group may trace its origin to the original Indo-European settlers who likewise settled Western Europe; hence the author claims a relationship between Kalashan language and English. People may incorrectly ascribe the genes behind blond-haired, blue-eyed children of Pakistan and Afghanistan to Greeks coming with Alexander the Great; the reality may be much more ancient. Kalash beliefs incorporate many traditions that could trace back to the Greeks but have at least incorporated parts of Hindu and Islamic beliefs as well. They adhere to extreme purity beliefs, particularly as it relates to women and menstruation, which are similar to that of ancient Jews. Dwindling in number, today's Kalasha often convert to Islam to save money and hassle. (The isolation of the people again reminds me of isolated villages in the Caucasus with their own specific languages and custom) The epilogue examines Chaldean refugees from the mountains of Iraq, having fled most recently in the aftermath of Saddam and rise of ISIS and other hostile elements. Chaldeans are Aramaic speakers who trace their origins to days before Christ, and their Christian traditions to its earliest days as well. There are now more Aramaic speakers in Detroit than in Iraq, sadly. Parents are concerned about their children losing the ancient traditions and language. The author encounters other minority groups in the United States, particularly recently-arrived refugees that have fled the Syrian crisis. Some of these are growing in new centers in small towns west of the Mississippi. All of them face the challenges of modernization, assimilation, and maintaining a sense of identity so far from their ritual homelands. Having survived thousands of years of war, persecution, and more, they're now vanishing in a new environment-- freedom. Five stars. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 2020
|
Dec 31, 2020
|
Sep 22, 2014
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0198721943
| 9780198721949
| 0198721943
| unknown
| 4.11
| 801
| Apr 29, 1996
| Dec 09, 1999
|
it was amazing
| I started this book when I was in college and made a determined effort to finish it as part of a New Year's resolution. It is a long book with small p I started this book when I was in college and made a determined effort to finish it as part of a New Year's resolution. It is a long book with small print covering 4,000 B.C. to 640ish A.D. and has to be the most comprehensive history of the three civilizations ever written. Freeman covers everything from governments & conquests, to literature and pottery, economic life, cultural & religious life, and the enduring impact these civilizations have on society today. There are plenty of aside chapters on philosophers and artisans, architecture, etc. I feel there are very few details he leaves out. Whether you're interested in specific battles or historical figures, you'll find plenty of info and further recommended readings in the back. A comprehensive timeline is also included and plenty of maps. In the closing chapters there is a history of the rise of Christianity. It's interesting to read from a secular perspective and I appreciate how little I know about the early church and the development of the major manifestations of the Christian religious orders. I give this book 5 stars out of 5. I am now glad to move down the list of other dusty books on my shelves asking to be read. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jan 2010
|
Jan 12, 2014
|
Paperback
|
Loading...
14 of 14 loaded
