|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1493690027
| 9781493690022
| 1493690027
| 4.00
| 4
| Jan 01, 2013
| 2013
|
it was amazing
|
**spoiler alert** This is a critically important book for anyone considering investing in charitable work in Turkey. Norita Erickson devoted her life
**spoiler alert** This is a critically important book for anyone considering investing in charitable work in Turkey. Norita Erickson devoted her life to sharing Jesus by caring for the orphan, the widow, the abandoned, and the neglected in Turkey and bore the mental and emotional scars to prove it. Surely she presented herself before God as an unashamed workwoman. I knew the author briefly and am thankful for the glimpses I got of Kardelen's work in Ankara, trying hard to help kids with mental and physical disabilities, and their caregivers, get the proper training, equipment, and support they needed to live healthy lives. This book is a difficult read and I was only inspired to finish it after reading Andrew Brunson's book God's Hostage. Both books give a raw look at the frustrations of dealing with maddening bureaucracy, indifference, and injustice within Turkey. Norita Erickson ventures into a state-run orphanage for disabled children and discovers rampant abuse, neglect, and death such that she cries out to God. "After a time, I start to get it about these people's attitudes: behind this type of questioning is a deeply held shame. These people are ashamed of the children, the smells, and the actual facility. Turkey is a magnificently beautiful country and the Ministry of Tourism wants the world to come to this land to enjoy the natural beauty, historic sites, and wonderful food, but no one wants anyone--foreigners especially-- to see their 'hidden' population." Others come alongside her to volunteer over the years, ranging from foreign diplomats to volunteers from churches all over the world. Everything from just properly feeding and bathing children since the nurses can't be bothered, to providing physical therapy. It is a long and difficult journey of both triumph and frustration that lacks a happy ending, but one can find Jesus on about every page. Turkey keeps a close eye on foreigners with ties to religious organizations, and Norita's group is met with everything ranging from cynical skepticism to threats of imprisonment and deportation on charges of terrorism. Culturally, many Turks see various handicaps as contagious. Some of the saddest moments are when neighbors try to expel physically disabled people from their buildings out of fear or shame. The most encouraging parts of the book for me were the chapters written by those whose lives were changed by her work. *Spoiler alert* In the end, Kardelen's work with the orphanage is abruptly halted due to the international exposure of the conditions of the facility. Norita's initial prayers for the buildings to be razed is ultimately answered-- the government builds a newer, modern facility (with no foreigners allowed). Kardelen's work continued in a different form, and continues after Norita Erickson's death. Five stars. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 03, 2021
|
Nov 03, 2021
|
Dec 03, 2021
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1493421611
| 9781493421619
| B07Q11FVWQ
| 4.43
| 653
| Oct 15, 2019
| Oct 15, 2019
|
really liked it
|
God's Hostage: A True Story of Persecution, Imprisonment, and Perseverance by Andrew Brunson This book is not an easy read. There are many famous Chri God's Hostage: A True Story of Persecution, Imprisonment, and Perseverance by Andrew Brunson This book is not an easy read. There are many famous Christian prison memoirs but, as the author himself noted while in prison thinking about such books, many of those memoirs are notable for their joy-in-prison triumphs. Andrew Brunson's prison experience was far from joy. He struggled with mental health issues and was edging toward the brink of madness before finally being transferred to prisons where he could experience visitors, books, music, and normal conversation. The closest comparison in my reading history is 90 Days in Heaven by Don Piper, a book that is famous for its first chapter (heaven) and less famous as the memoir of a man with debilitating injuries that would take years of suffering and mental anguish to return to near-normalcy. Both Piper and Brunson struggle to find any joy or purpose in the suffering. These memoirs are sobering in the "What would I have done in his shoes?" sense. Brunson reaches some theological conclusions about God's sovereignty that might make some of his fellow Baptist readers uncomfortable. But he also ultimately speculates that his ordeal was likely intended by God to direct prayers of Christians from around the world to Turkey, as his case was made famous (especially via President Trump's twitter) by media around the world, and he trusts that ultimately those prayers laid the groundwork of future spiritual fruit in the country. I have a lot of American and Turkish friends who were adversely affected by the 2016 coup attempt and it is good that this memoir chronicles part of that period. I recommend it to anyone contemplating missionary or humanitarian work in Turkey as a worst-case-scenario. Turkey's court system in the State of Emergency period seems to be unbound from any laws or legal precedence. I also recommend it to anyone in the Department of State assigned to Turkey. The behind-the-scenes Consular work affected all of Mission Turkey with a steady stream of high-level visits, tense negotiations with the White House, and Presidential tweets that rocked Turkey's economy and public sentiment about the United States. We imposed Magnitsky Act sanctions on Turkey, among other bi-partisan efforts. I can think of no other case in history in which so much of the U.S. government's resources were devoted to the welfare of one single U.S. citizen. It's difficult to rate a book like this, but the author writing it so soon after his release and being very forthright about how difficult the whole ordeal was cause me to rate it four stars. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 08, 2021
|
Jul 07, 2021
|
Aug 08, 2021
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 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
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1848854110
| 9781848854116
| 1848854110
| 3.00
| 1
| Jan 01, 2010
| Jan 30, 2010
|
liked it
|
From the President's Office: A Journey Towards Reconciliation by George Vassiliou The former President of the Republic of Cyprus (ROC) wrote this memo From the President's Office: A Journey Towards Reconciliation by George Vassiliou The former President of the Republic of Cyprus (ROC) wrote this memoir in 2010, chronicling in great detail the efforts of his administration in the U.N.-brokered negotiations from 1989-1993 to settle the "Cyprus Problem" and reunite the island into a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. I see no reviews of this book on Goodreads or Google, indicating that the audience must indeed be quite narrow. I work in the ROC and have read several known works on the 1950-1974 conflict period but little specifically about recent negotiations. James Ker-Lindsey's The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Should Know devotes roughly a single (rather dismissive) paragraph to the entirety of the negotiations discussed in From the President's Office. My Greek-Cypriot friends loathe Vassiliou, one told me that she eagerly awaits his death. Apparently, this has some to do with the negotiations and party affiliations, but more to do with his domestic policies around the time the ROC was working to meet the requirements to join the European Union. They see Vassiliou as opportunistic and narcissistic, noting that he touts himself as a successful business man while allying with the communists while in office. This memoir deals solely on negotiations and nothing else domestically. The memoir reads like a strong apology--meaning defense-- of the Vasiliou administration's negotiations with the elected leader of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" under the guidance of U.N. Secretary-Generals Pérez de Cuéllar and Boutros Boutros-Ghali guidance. It is a tale of coalition-building at home and abroad as as the president tried to raise the ROC's international profile while deflecting criticism from political rivals at home for negotiating in the first place. It an illustration of the small steps and wins necessary while facing larger defeats. Vasiliou painstakingly lays out meeting minutes, conversations of record, and various documents to push back on criticism from such rivals as Glafcos Clerides, who succeeded Vassiliou as president. The right-leaning Clerides administration (1993-2003) took a more hard-line stance toward negotiating and thus scuttled any "momentum" and global political support that Vassiliou had built. (ROC's current president is also in the party line of Clerides). My main takeaways: 1) Vasiliou revitalized the National Council, a regular meeting of the heads of the political parties, in order to present a united front on his trips abroad to meet with key leaders and in New York for negotiations. He refers back to minutes of these meetings to criticize Clerides and others for later making contradictory statements that were critical of Vasiliou. (Vasiliou seems to have taken a page from Archbishop Makarios' playbook in taking these party leaders to New York during negotiations, similar what Markarios did in the controversial London and Zurich Agreements, ostensibly to deflect culpability for controversial compromises). 2) Domestically (and in Greece), Vasiliou had the challenge of hard-liners, including the current Archbishop, undermining negotiations by criticizing the conditions and organizing protest marches that brought international criticism on ROC on the eve of negotiations. Vasiliou goes to lengths to prove to Clerides and others that Makarios himself had agreed with the 1977 and 1979 high-level agreements of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation as the best possible solution. 3) Abroad, Vasiliou had painstaking success in winning key leaders, namely British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President George Bush, to supporting current U.N. resolutions and putting pressure on Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership to negotiate in better faith. Thatcher had multiple hours-long meetings with Vasiliou. Bush hosted Vasiliou at the White House four times and took a personal interest in the Cyprus negotiations. He personally telephoned Turkish President Evren, allegedly the first such call from a U.S. President specifically on the Cyprus issue since LBJ threatened Turkey in the crisis of 1964. The U.S. Department of State had a special envoy, Letsky, for the negotiations at the time. 4) "Building up our international credibility and mobilising the USA, EU, Russia and other international powers was the only recipe to make Turkey move towards a compromise on the Cyprus issue...We tried to render the continuing occupation painful and useless for Turkey. We tried to increase Ankara's costs (in every field)." Vasilious efforts succeeded in marginalizing Turkey, to a point. President Turgut Özal publicly admitted that the $20 million annual cost (1990) of supporting "TRNC," including Turkey's 35,000 troops occupying bases in northern Cyprus, was unsustainable and Özal was even critical of the elected leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Rauf Denktash, for his intransigence in negotiations. Vasiliou attributes certain concessions Denktash made over the period to direct pressure from Turkey and indirectly from other U.N. Security Council members. (This is a far cry from today's situation where the Turkish President publicly stated that "there is no Cyprus," and during a visit to the island essentially announced the re-opening of the Varosha under "TRNC" administration in direct contradiction to U.N. Security Council resolutions.) 5) The author's fear was that refusing to negotiate would give the other side political capital and start a path in which the de facto partition of Cyprus would become de jure. I find Vasiliou's speech from August 1989, aimed at those criticizing him for negotiating, to be prophetic: "After many years, however, nobody will know who those political leaders were. What the world will know is that for 20 or 30 or 40 years there was a de facto situation, Cyprus will be partitioned, partition will be accepted and after a certain time it will be recognised. This is the harsh reality. That is why we will never accept the perpetuation of the present situation. We will not accept it as a solution. It is not a sign of patriotism for someone to say that he does not want dialogue. Patriotism is for someone to have the courage to hold and defend the right stand, to fight bravely in order to reach a fair and viable solution." "‘Compromise does not mean cowardice,' said John Kennedy. ‘Indeed it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views of their constituents.' (John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, Harper, 2006, p. 18.) 6) Vasiliou's accomplishment was influencing the U.N. Security Council to issue new resolutions that reaffirmed previous principles regarding Cyprus that favored Greek Cypriot positions: Resolutions 649, 716, 750, 774, and 789 (which reaffirmed five UN resolutions dating back to 1974). He got a U.N. Secretary-General to essentially blame Rauf Denktash for the collapse of talks, rather than blaming Greek Cypriots for not negotiating in the first place. Resolution 789 specifically calls on Turkish Cypriots to return to previously-established principles. Vasiliou was relentless in insist on returning to already-established principles whenever the other party deviated or obfuscated, or when any party to the talks wanted to inject a new idea into discussions without having reached agreement on previous points. Today, Cyprus is again on the verge of negotiations with 5+1 talks in Switzerland with Turkey and "TRNC" leadership holding an "official" position that there must be a two-state solution, with the current declared independence of "TRNC" as the fallback position. Varosha is being publicly reopened outside U.N. control in violation of Resolution 550 (1984). There is generally less-interested involvement from the United States and quotes in the media suggesting many parties are open to "new ideas" and moving away from previous UN resolutions. In my view, since 2006 (and especially since 2013), Turkey has moved away from any aspiration to join the European Union and such an incentive can no longer be used as leverage by parties to push for its compromise. 7) The U.N. and ROC's position at the time seem regrettably antiquated due to subsequent events. Vasiliou's argument in European capitals in 1989-1993 was "Imagine if the people of the Balkans each demanded their own territory..." suggesting that allowing Cyprus' partition would have implications elsewhere-- that the world may no longer believe people of different ethnicities can live peaceably under their own flag. (He mentions the Armenia-Azerbaijan war in the book). In the years after the events of this book, however, the Balkan peoples indeed fought a bloody civil/ethnic war resulting in individual ethnicities with separate, independent countries. The United States supported the creation of an independent Kosovo. Inter-ethnic conflict in Syria and Iraq have further brought de facto partitions and a global refugee crisis. Reuniting all of Cyprus under one flag would now swim against the prevailing tide of the 21st century. One criticism of the book may be that the author does not readily address modern criticisms that his administration's EEC/EU accession talks undermined negotiations. Vasiliou does discuss this in the book, EEC accession was seen as inevitable and predating anything in 1974. He saw the Turkish Cypriots being responsible for failed negotiations creating an opportunity for the ROC to move forward toward the EEC. "I considered the moment opportune because the behaviour of Mr Denktash in New York made it possible to submit the application, as such a move could not possibly be considered to have negative consequences on the Cyprus issue." As all memoirs are one-sided, I'm sure there is much else to be criticized. As it is, I find the book to be an interesting chronicle of the tedious process of international diplomacy and worth reading for historical purposes. 3.5 stars. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 09, 2021
|
Feb 28, 2021
|
Jan 09, 2021
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 019973304X
| 9780199733040
| 019973304X
| 3.60
| 197
| Feb 02, 2012
| Mar 02, 2012
|
really liked it
|
Turkey: What Everyone Needs to Know by Andrew Finkel Books like this never please everyone, but I would give this to someone going to live/work there a Turkey: What Everyone Needs to Know by Andrew Finkel Books like this never please everyone, but I would give this to someone going to live/work there and trying to make sense of the context in which they'll be operating prior to arrival. (Context: see my Goodreads book review list on Turkey.) The author touches on geography, history, delves a bit into the interesting political history, deals with the arts, the environment, and more. The book is particularly interesting as it was written just prior to the coup and includes a look at Gulenists. The author was working as a journalist and got into trouble with his employer for looking too closely at Gülenists and their relationship with the Deep State. Having lived and worked in Turkey myself, I'd say political intrigue and conspiracy theories of many stripes are quite common in Turkey, almost like a national past-time. The bit mentioned on the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" also shows the breadth and relevancy of the book. The author summarizes many of the modern challenges of Turkey, the massive growth of Istanbul, the political struggle within democracy, the problem with losing the rich cultural history of the region while developing infrastructure. 4.5 stars. Now it just needs a refresher. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 10, 2020
|
May 20, 2020
|
Aug 06, 2020
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1859841899
| 9781859841891
| 1859841899
| 3.95
| 173
| 1984
| Sep 17, 1997
|
really liked it
|
Hostage to History by Christopher Hitchens Related books I reviewed previously: Bitter Lemons of Cyprus by Durrell The Cyprus Conspiracy by O'Malley and Hostage to History by Christopher Hitchens Related books I reviewed previously: Bitter Lemons of Cyprus by Durrell The Cyprus Conspiracy by O'Malley and Craig The Cyprus Emergency: Divided Island by Van Der Bijl The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know by Ker-Lindsay Authors like Ker-Lindsay treat Hitchens' work very cautiously, if not dismissively, as biased and unhelpful. Hitchens, almost comically, found Durrell's book biased and fanciful. Hitchens has his definitive, rather caustic, style but to his credit he at least presents original sources in both Greek and Turkish to make his point; a careful reader need only to consult the source to see if it is misquoted. This book encouraged me to order former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State George W. Ball's memoir, as well as download and read the 1975 European Commission of Human Rights report. Hitchens' essential thesis is that Cyprus was doomed to fail in the hands of its three Guarantor Powers-- the U.K., which has sovereign territory on the island; Greece, whose undemocratic military junta had the explicit backing of the United States; and Turkey, who has generally pushed boundaries in the Mediterranean with its broad view of what its "interest" entails. Many of the events leading up to 1974, such as Turkey's drilling and exploration in Cyprus' EEZ, are similar to today's news stories, along with the accompanying rhetoric from Greek and Turkish sides. Hitchens perceived bias is because he is perhaps one of the few people who is sympathetic to Archibishop Makarios and unwilling to give him the bulk of the blame. While Makarios governed Cyprus as both president and pontiff, he was at least both Cypriot and democratically elected. Thus Hitchens takes umbrage with Greece's attempts to overthrow him, and the U.S. using a backchannel with Col. Grivas' (per George Ball's memoir) to undermine him. Hitchens is correct that Ball and others plainly wrote back in 1964 that the U.S. preferred a settlement involving a divided island and saw Makarios as the ultimate hindrance to any arrangement. Hence, even Ball admits that the outcome in 1974 looked much like what had been drawn up at 1964 but at a price "unfair" to the Greek Cypriots, for which Ball blames both Makarios and Henry Kissinger. Perhaps the greatest strength of the book is Hitchens' drawing on Turkish sources to illustrate how even Turkish Cypriots lament the loss of what happened to the Kyrenia and other places they once knew, and their Greek Cypriot neighbors, due to Turkey's intervention and ultimate occupation. Sometimes the sources are very left-leaning newspapers in Turkey have since been closed by the government. Hitchens details the history of action by undemocratic characters in Turkey's military and the tragic result for Turkey's then-politicians who were pushed into a conflict they may not have necessarily wanted or needed. One need only read the authoritative human rights reports, or visit the modern ruins of what would otherwise be preserved UNESCO World Heritage sights in the current "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," or read a history of Turkey from 1974-1984 to see the damage done. One can read Ker-Lindsay's book to see what attempts have been made since 1984 to bridge the great divide. Recent events in the relative neighborhood, such as Russia's annexation of Crimea, which the U.S. does not recognize, are a similar challenge. Anyone with an appreciation for rule of law, and logical consistency, is unable dismiss events 50 years ago simply in order to push for a peace that legalizes the status quo. A couple great appreciations I have from the book is a greater understanding of how difficult it must feel to be a refugee in one's own land, to see the mountains of the North taunting you as you live across the barbed wire in the South. I also appreciated Hitchens' detailed timeline of ancient Cypriot history in the appendix. For Hitchens, the result is the same as Durrell. He leaves the beautiful land he is fond of frustrated with the powers that have brought misery to its people. I give the book four stars out of five. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 06, 2020
|
May 07, 2020
|
Jan 06, 2020
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1860647375
| 9781860647376
| 1860647375
| 4.08
| 98
| Jan 28, 2000
| Aug 25, 2001
|
really liked it
|
The Cyprus Conspiracy - America, Espionage, and the Turkish Invasion by Brendan O'Malley and Ian Craig It's easy to dismiss a book with "Conspiracy" in The Cyprus Conspiracy - America, Espionage, and the Turkish Invasion by Brendan O'Malley and Ian Craig It's easy to dismiss a book with "Conspiracy" in the title, but I highly recommend the book for its breadth of research. It's a completely different tone from Hitchen's quite angry Hostage to History. The authors have dug into State Department archives, minutes of Parliament, various memoirs, interviews, etc. to paint a particular picture. This makes it a rather lengthy and tedious read, at times, similar to many books on the "Cyprus Problem." I think the interview with Kissinger in the appendix somewhat weakens the authors' efforts to find a smoking gun -- that Kissinger (and America's foreign policy establishment) essentially had the result of the 1974 separation in mind from the beginning. But it is clear from interviews and memoirs that there are different perspectives on what took place during the crisis. The Turkish leadership claim one thing, British leadership another, Greeks another, Americans another. It's easy to pick any one thread or comment and say "Aha!" Kissinger dismisses the idea of some consistent U.S. plan from 1964-1974 to achieve the 1974 outcome. In my observation, America's foreign policy establishment changes too much between administrations, and with career diplomats only spending 2-3 years in any given role. Hence, institutional knowledge suffers and it's quite difficult to maintain some secret ten-year plan to achieve a specific policy outcome. As the authors point out, there was also a good bit of dissent in the U.S. Foreign Service about what happened. Also, for America and NATO today, the current situation is anything but ideal. Many people serving in Cyprus today are ignorant of the 1964 context, which is another reason I recommend this book. The greatest takeaway from the book for me was that 1964 was just as critical a year as 1974. On that point, the book is very informative and inspired me to purchase former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State George Ball's memoir: "In 1964, US Assistant Secretary of State George Ball told a British officer who was working to end the growing ethnic separation by bringing both sides together, ‘You've got it wrong son. There's only one solution to this island, and that's partition.' The officer, Lieutenant Commander Martin Packard, confirmed that the maintenance of the military facilities on Cyprus was deemed of para-mount importance by the British and American governments and their military advisers at the time, and they thought this would more easily be achieved in a divided Cyprus. Did they finally achieve their aim in 1974? That is what this book seeks to prove." Many people today are forgetful or cannot conceive of the Cold War and Middle Eastern great power competition context that made Cyprus such a critical place such that America and NATO wanted to guarantee it stayed in NATO hands and away from Soviet influence, no matter what. I think many are also ignorant of the tense crisis of 1964 that almost led to war and demanded intervention from the highest levels. "1964 – In January, acting US Secretary of State George Ball suggested partition. President Johnson resisted calls for the United States to send in troops. In February, a US contingency plan to allow a ‘controlled' Turkish occupation in northern Cyprus was discussed with Britain...Turkey threatened to invade, but Johnson vetoed it in a ‘brutal diplomatic note'. Turkey backed down. In August, former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson proposed enosis, with a military base for Turkey and autonomous cantons for Turkish Cypriots. When this failed, Acheson and Ball considered forcing Greece and Turkey to split Cyprus between them. Grivas returned to Cyprus." While I think the book fails on its goal to "prove" that America and Britain finally achieved their aim at partition in one fell swoop in 1974, it succeeds in showing that 1964 is the more critical year. There was already an idea of partition in place, U.N. troops keeping the peace, etc. The situation just hadn't reached a stable equilibrium yet. It was clearly unstable and untenable even in 1960. It took the events of 1974, the junta in Greece, the coup in Cyprus, to push things toward an equilibrium. I think the "Cyprus Problem" has largely been intractable because it's a classic Nash equilibrium. There is a perhaps more ideal outcome, 1964 would have liked to see the island divided between Greece and Turkey. But the current less-ideal Nash outcome has become stable-- Turkish and Greek Cypriots are all Cypriot passport holders who can travel freely between the territories and freely travel to Europe. The Republic of Cyprus is an EU member, the British still have their sovereign bases, and with each passing year the difference between the two sides grows both legally and in terms of difference in infrastructure (per a recent World Bank report about the increasing monetary cost of re-connecting the two sides). Also, it's possible that too many parties have a stake in maintaining the status quo to move to the more ideal equilibrium. With all of the research and information, I give this book four stars out of five. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 06, 2020
|
Feb 07, 2020
|
Jan 06, 2020
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0812967054
| 9780812967050
| 0812967054
| 3.84
| 14,236
| 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
| ||||||||||||||
| 0275912744
| 9780275912741
| 0275912744
| 3.33
| 3
| Jan 01, 1984
| Dec 16, 1984
|
really liked it
|
I read this book after reading the 1893 memoir Diversions of a Diplomat in Turkey by American Minister Samuel S. Cox (available at archive.org, and se
I read this book after reading the 1893 memoir Diversions of a Diplomat in Turkey by American Minister Samuel S. Cox (available at archive.org, and see my review). Spain is writing 90 years later, as a true Ambassador, and from a different capital, but much of the observations and meanderings of the pen are similar. Diplomacy is boring. I write this review as a conditional hire of the State Department as a Foreign Service Officer; it's been my lifelong dream to work in diplomacy. I happen to also aspire to live and work in Turkey, which I did for a year once. Hence, this out-of-print book was a must-read and I gladly bought it used for a decent price. This book is a good read on life in the Foreign Service and how the staff of an embassy serves their Ambassador, and what he does all day/night. (Page numbers are missing from most of my citations because my camera did not capture them.) Anyone interested in modern events in Turkey should enjoy the first couple chapters of this book which deal with Spain's early days in Turkey and the coup of September 12, 1980. The unrest and evacuation of American families in 2016 pales in light of the killing of several Americans in Turkey in the late 1970s, including one who had spent years in service to the consulate in Istanbul: "(A)ttitudes toward personal security had changed (since 1974)...By February of 1980...seven U.S. citizens had been killed in the previous year--and one more, an old friend, was to die before that awful winter was over. Now, things were being taken seriously." (Spain doesn't mention it, but I think some of the 1979 deaths during the uprisings after the capture of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Sunni radicals, for which America and Israel were wrongly blamed; there were attacks on US consulates in Turkey and elsewhere.) The Turkish constitution at the time made it difficult for a ruling coalition to last and bring stability. As inflation and violence spiraled upward (at one point it seemed that every Turk was carrying a gun), civil services and political cooperation spiraled downward and it seemed inevitable the military would intervene. Spain's staff spent much of 1980 ferreting for information and sending it back to Washington. On the night of the coup, his team actually neglected a chance to tell Washington it was underway because there had been several false alarms. He puts to bed the notion that the Embassy or CIA was somehow behind the coup, which was claimed by Soviet media and is almost accepted as fact by most today. (Probably won't change any minds, but American capabilities are always far less than conspiracy theorists dream up.) While the coup happened too late to be printed in Soviet morning newspapers, they were out the next day in the US. Soviet propoganda ignored the time zone differences, it was easy for US news channels to cover word of the coup on television as the event happened in the afternoon/evening in the US. But what was less easily deflected is that the Turkish General Staff that directed the coup were all acquainted with the Ambassador and had attended parties at his residence. As his wife remarked "I never knew even one member of a military junta before, and all six of these have been in our house the past couple weeks." Spain writes about the relief of law and order that arrived with curfew. Gone were the marches, strikes, and violence. Soldiers worked to scrub grafitti off buildings and streets could be cleaned. He notes that "several hundred more terrorists were rounded up, including some from the Marxist-Leninist armed propoganda unit (which had killed a US Navy officer just prior)." While he writes that at least 50 parliamentarians were arrested, and several leaders put under house arrest, Spain does not delve much into the long-lasting implications of this. I doubt he could imagine that decades later Gen. Kenan Evren would stand trial (he was elected President with 90 percent of the vote in 1982), and the arrests and torture of citizens would become a focal point of Turkish art and culture in the early 21st century; the memories of the coup perhaps dooming 2016's attempt from the start. From Washington's standpoint, stability had arrived. "Long-standing debts" were paid, long-stalled treaties were finally ratified. It suddenly became easier to provide security for US sailors and visiting parties. But Spain and other visiting US Congressmen (and other NATO partners) pressed the Turkish government on a timeline for a return to free elections, as well as better relations with NATO ally Greece, enough to be annoying. Spain notes that the new draft constitution put "restraints" on the press and universities but left "considerable domestic freedom... (and) what most Western nations call democracy." The junta left Turgüt Özal in his post in charge of the economy and supported his plan of privatization, eliminating subsidies, a flexible exchange rate, reducing barriers to foreign investment, and bringing down inflation. The subsequent economic growth allowed Turkey to negotiate better credit arrangements. Spain writes that "a few thoughtful Turks" pointed out that Atatürk's disciples had opposed such reforms due to the lack of contextual understanding of Atatürk's time. Atatürk had indicated he looked forward to the day when Turkey was attractive enough for foreign investment. Özal and Spain conversed on several occassions, and Spain was able to get Özal to listen to US business concerns when CEOs visited (Spain cheekily gives credit to "Allah, always a powerful force in both business and diplomacy" ). Özal ran in opposition to the regime in 1983 and was elected Prime Minister. In his official capacity, Spain attends and hosts several parties a week. (In this sense, the junta's curfew was a godsend.) He explains the pecking order of diplomats and some of the awkward occassions of conversing with a PLO representative or other sort. Parties are the chance to pass along messages to the Turkish government and bring up issues of importance. The US was looking for all the cooperation it could get on the Iranian hostage crisis, and Turkey was loathe to do much. Any "tense" moments in the book are instances like when Spain pushes back on an official letter from President Carter, expressing concerns about wording and suggesting edits (via telegram) hoping for quick turnaround before he has to present said letter to Gen. Evren or others. In 1981, Spain and his team help during an airline hijacking and hostage taking by Dev Sol (The Revolutionary Left). At some point, a mysterious group of Dept. of Defense employees arrive in Turkey ostensibly in regards to scouting an operation in Iran to free the hostages (p. 201). Spain gets concerned about their mucking about without the Embassy or the Turkish government aware of what they're doing and he sends them packing; he later learns this annoyed unnamed people in DC but was wise in hindsight. (One wonders what this almost-chapter in history was.) If you're a foreign affairs/diplomacy wonk you will also enjoy the tales in this book from his posts in Karachi and Dar es Salaam during the Nixon Administration and his dealings with Henry Kissinger. Spain happened to accidentally get in the middle of the Pakistanis' secretly carrying Nixon's overtures to China in 1969 before Kissinger secretly visited said country (p. 196). (Kissinger also once saved Spain from a Secret Service agent.) Kissinger had a strong personality known for sending strongly-worded telegrams on various subjects to be communicated to the powers-that-be, Spain's wording is diplomatic but you can tell his displeasure. I would enjoy Spain's later autobiography, this book contains few personal details about his life and early service days. From a hopeful Foreign Service standpoint, there is much about embassy operations in this book. Hosting and coordinating visits of various US delegations is one difficulty, as is arranging various meetings with foreign dignitaries. Much of the work involves writing official communiques with Washington. There was one airline hijacking/hostage situation the Embassy had to work around-the-clock on in the book. The Ambassador makes decisions to benefit the most where possible, requires Solomonic wisdom in divvying up available housing, and they occassionally has to spend from his own pocket to host parties for US staffers or even to pay some of the staff at the official residence. Spain had previously served at two posts in Turkey from 1970-1974 and clearly wanted to be appointed to return when the opening came up during the Carter administration. That whole process is as amusing as archaic bureaucratic processes can be-- you get used to it in working for the State Department. Spain's nomination is held up by an apparently well-meaning Senator Javits who is concerned about Spain having once had some connection in his early career to the CIA. Spain notes that such concerns by Congress were becoming less frequent; foreign policy has been increasingly centralized in Washington, DC and Ambassadors do not have as much autonomy as they did in, say, the late 1890s. He writes that JFK was the last President to regularly communicate with envoys going to and from Washington. "(T)he more decisions that are left to embassies, the better U.S. foreign policy interests are likely to be served," he moans (p. 207). Spain and his wife desired a post in Turkey for a reason-- it is magical and important. They enjoy "'being in Turkey' more than the formal duties of our stay there" (p. 121). There are always sights to see, new archaeology being discovered, no shortage of beaches, mountains, or other destinations. It also borders Iran (this is during the US hostage crisis) and the USSR, making the Embassy hugely important. The Ambassador is a Turkophile and seems to be well-read in old books he finds in the British Embassy's library and elsewhere. He writes that he could speak an "elementary school" Turkish, which was enough to give long toasts and put most other Western Ambassadors to shame. He fills many of the pages with stories of outings with family, shopping, etc. that seem more for his own family than a general audience. As such, the book lacks any information about the majority of Turkish people, you only get a view into the lives of the "elite." When the Reagan Administration made controversial appointments to embassies upon taking office, Spain is one who is surprisingly replaced. He is diplomatic in his disappointment, not mentioning his replacement by name and only stating that he had pulled considerable political strings to get the job. (The fallout results in Congressional action to strengthen the career Foreign Service.) I give this book 4 stars out of 5, mainly because I want people to find it and read it. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Dec 03, 2016
|
Dec 13, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 3.12
| 8
| 1887
| 1887
|
liked it
|
Diversions of a Diplomat in Turkey - Samuel Sullivan Cox, 1887. This book is legally copyright-free at Archive.org. Diversions of a Diplomat is an 800 p Diversions of a Diplomat in Turkey - Samuel Sullivan Cox, 1887. This book is legally copyright-free at Archive.org. Diversions of a Diplomat is an 800 page hodgepodge of every observation imaginable from the view of an American congressman turned diplomat. Observations range from education to gender roles, the life of diplomats and the life of slaves, domestic squabbles and foreign intrigue, the arts and fashion, legends and folklore, and more. Loquaciousness and verbosity are his forte. I leave it to historians to point out which observations or assumptions were incorrect, there are too many to judge. The amazing bit is that he spent only a year in service there to have made so many confident observations. The following are some of the notes about things I found interesting. One absolute must-read before attempting this book is Cyrus Hamlin's Among the Turks, who Cox quotes from repeatedly in his book. Dr. Hamlin was one of the first Americans to live and work in Turkey, establishing Robert College in Istanbul which still stands today and of which Cox writes so proudly. Hamlin and his fellow missionary Roger Goodell (40 Years in the Turkish Empire) wrote much more readable works on their time in Turkey than Mr. Cox. (I've reviewed their works here.) Cox (1824-1889) has quite a resume himself, he served as Congressman from both Ohio and New York before his time in Istanbul and returned to Congress after his return to New York. He succeeded the famous Lew Wallace as the U.S. Minister to Turkey. Cox had apparently been to Turkey previously and written a book about it, and he worked in Congress to shore up Wallace's title to make it closer to Ambassador, which America did not have many of-- the Foreign Service was not developed until the 20th century. As such, the American representative in Turkey had to often be inconvienced by being low in the pecking order by representatives of smaller countries who had better titles. Despite his career, he was well-suited to the position and I would rate him as quite the Turkophile, he seemed to have been eager to take the appointment. He admires rather than condescends. I am skeptical how much Turkish he actually learned in his time, although he seems to speak authoritatively on the language, but sprinkles enough Turkish definitions in to make one think he learned some basics. He ends his time rather abruptly: "Call it home-sickness, or patriotism, or an inclination after old and fixed parliamentary habits, or the ineradicable desire to be near one's own—and you have the best explanation that can be made for my premeditated and unprecipitated return. I had done all that a Minister of my ability could do, to place the Legation and the American interests in excellent condition" (p. 757). I agree with the author that "Turkey is, in a diplomatic way, among the most interesting of the Powers of the earth" (p. 32). Istanbul today is quite colorful, diverse, and vibrant. But in the 1800s, Constaninople was even moreso. Cox includes many sketches in the book of the varied costumes and characters (p. 434). "It is not uncommon for writers who are dazed with Constantinople and its variety, to stand on the Stamboul bridge and look and look, and wonder and wonder. All this dual city passes there...All this is only seen in a glimpse, and the next moment you find yourself in the midst of a crowd of Persians, in pyramidal bonnets of Astrakhan fur, who are followed by a Hebrew in a long yellow coat open at the sides; a frowsy-headed gypsy woman with her child in a bag at her back; a Catholic priest with breviary staff; while in the midst of a confused throng of Greeks, Turks and Armenians comes a big eunuch on horseback, crying out Larva!" Cox's greatest contribution to diplomacy might have been having US Census documents shipped over for the pleasure of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who wished to incorporate such a precise and organized census in his own territories ( "The Sultan was delighted at the elegance, uniqueness and magnificence of the gift" p. 59). Historians have had to rely on various Ottoman documents to estimate populations of various cities. "As to the population of Constantinople—no one can tell what it is, whether one or two million, much less of what elements it is composed. It is the greatest seat of commerce in the Eastern world. Its industries are manifold and various, and yet, there is no local data..." k Cox recounts the history of the Sultans and looks at more recent reforms under the current Sultan and his father, Abdul Mejid, who extended larger freedom of worship to people in his Empire, which meant a great deal to the Western missionaries who were opening grammar and technical schools. But Cox explains the difficulty of advocating on behalf of Americans in regions outside the capital, where such laws were "a dead letter." There are various musing on geography and natural resources, oil was fast becoming an important resource for which international exploration was of interest. I enjoyed his thoughts on Azerbaijan, where I once lived at the time of the construction of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline which was completed in the early 2000s (p. 166-167, 183): "and the Caspian Sea, to the vicinage of Baku, where the soil absorbs the oil as if it were a huge sponge to be squeezed, and where 20,000 acres alone of petroleum land have furnished 1,000,-000 tons of oil annually. Here we are in the" Black California, "as the Russians call it, which furnishes fuel for locomotive and steamer, and kerosene for Central Asia and Europe...I mention these instances, as a fact and a warning, to account for the inrush of this oil into markets where once our own petroleum prevailed. No wonder the oil sells cheaper at its source and in the neighboring countries! There is a large margin for profit, because of its cheapness. No wonder the market in the Turkish empire, which was once all ours, is now divided between Russia and America! The residuum of petroleum, as a substitute for coal, is just coming into use in America. In this we are copying the carriers of Baku...The petroleum people at Baku cannot expect to be above the peril of bankruptcy, until they complete the construction of their pipe-line from the Caspian to the Black Sea. This they will do in time." Cox basically sees "The Great Game" taking shape in Central Asia (p. 186). "The Standard oil agent, who was here on the way to and from Baku, told me that it was impossible for the outside world to know the grandeur of the scale by which Russia is pushing her military power into the heart of Asia. Troops he saw by the thousands, of which no journal or correspondent takes notice. They are on the constant advance. The Caucasian railway was built for troops and their transportation." The Minister makes observation on the various races and cultures in Constantinople. You get statements like this (p. 206): "(I)t takes the wit of four Turks to over-reach one Frank; two Franks to cheat one Greek; two Greeks to cheat one Jew; and six Jews to cheat one Armenian." He is in the empire when a great migration of Jews from Britain and Europe has begun into Ottoman Palestine, and Cox remarks on the growing population there, and persecution. He almost clearly forsees an independent Hebrew state there (211-236), in the meantime America is the chosen country. This is still the view of those of the Dispensationalist eschatological bent today: "It was my especial good fortune,when trouble and trial seemed to be renewed in the persecution of the Jews of Russia, Roumania, Morocco and other lands, to make such public remonstrance in Congress as, I think, eventuated in some restraint, if not altogether in the cessation, of such persecution. More recently, while acting as Minister to Turkey, I have had the opportunity of observing, within my own bailiwick, the condition of the Hebrews in their ancient land...The Jewish population in the Ottoman empire, which includes Egypt, is only about 350,000...Jerusalem, not 20,000, as is represented, but fully 22,000...during the past few years the number of Jews in Palestine has increased from 15,000 to 42,000. This is an accurate statement. It is confirmed by my informants...Now that the United States has sent a Hebrew as Minister to Turkey, perhaps we will have more authentic accounts of his race and their progress...In a. d. 1824, there were only thirty-two Jewish families in all Jerusalem, and but three thousand in all Palestine. This increase has come in the last twenty years. This gain has been in spite of interdictions by the Turkish government, for I think that that government has had an apprehension lest there should be Hebrew colonies formed in their old beloved land...Quietly and without ostentation, by some supernal influence, Jerusalem at last is becoming through its new population, a Jewish city. A majority of its population are Jews. Its trade is Jewish. It will own the soil of Palestine in time. This prosperity has inspired many with the hope that the redemption of Israel and the restoration...There is a majestic meaning in the events which are taking place in the world. They point with no unmistakable finger toward the beautiful walls of Jerusalem. If it be the purpose of Jehovah to return the Jews to Palestine, why may not the ravening wolves, which have driven Israel almost to despair, and which have used the force of brutes against her, be balked in their endeavor; so that the hope of the Hebrew shall have realization even in our time? All is possible with Jehovah...But until that day doth come, America seems a chosen land for a chosen people. Here, under our Constitution, is their vine and fig-tree." I write this in 2016 after the so-called Islamic State of the Levant has been brutalizing Christians, Jews, and other minorities in its attempt to establish a caliphate in the region. Cox writes of Ottoman tolerance for minorities, stemming from an ancient Muslim document I have not heard/read of in light of recent events-- the Ashitname of Muhammad, a document granting protection and priveleges to monks at St. Catherine's monastary, including exemption from taxes. The original still exists preserved in Turkey (since 1517), and historical copies of the document have been ratified authentic by Islamic authorities over the centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtina... Cox writes: "It bears the following heading: 'This paper has been written by Mahomet, the son of Abdullah, and Emissary of God, the Guardian and Preserver of the Universe, to all of his nation and religion, to be a true and sacred grant for the race of the Christians and the offering of the Nazentes.' Is not this the fountain and origin of the 'Capitulations' and toleration toward the Christian and other sects?" (p. 240). ISIS either does not recognize the text or, as others have argued, the document applied only to the limited community of Christians on Mt. Sinai. Besides a history of the Ottoman Sultanate, Cox provides an overview of the history of the Christian church and how the Eastern Orthodox church was formed and the role that Constantinople has played. "The Russian Church remained under the immediate control of the patriarchate of Constantinople until the sixteenth century" (p. 306). The Patriarch-elect of the Greek Orthodox is received by a formal ceremony by the Sultan, a centuries-old tradition. Cox recounts the state of division among the churches and the rifts between Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants: "While the Turks threaten or banish those who discard the Mahometan religion, they allow the Greek Church the like privilege. Out of this toleration comes much of the trouble to the Protestant teachers from America. They are striving nobly to elevate the races of European and Asiatic Turkey, and that too despite the bigotry, not of the Moslem, but of so-called Christians" (p. 315). As Minister, he had to defend the Americans against attacks from the various Orthodox that saw the Americans' schools and teaching students to read texts like the Bible as a threat to their authority. Americans present also worked to translate the Bible into Armeno-Turk, Bulgarian, Arabic, and other languages. Cox ponders the role that Bulgarian and Armenian graduates of Robert College will have on their home countries, what this might mean for the spread of the ideas of freedom and the republic (p. 322): "The fact that the brightest of the Armenian race is being instructed in Robert College and in the United States, and return to the Armenian people as teachers in theology and (other subjects), is significant of that future when the question shall be raised, 'Shall it be Cossack or republican?'" Here is how the missionary work looked in Cox's time (p. 341): "Here are some statistics of the operations of these Societies and associations within the Turkish empire:... Men and women, engaged in the work of the Societies: 254. Average aggregate attendance at each Sabbath service: 50,000. Organized churches: 138. Number of church members: 10,776. Number of high schools and colleges: 35 Number of girls' boarding-schools 27 Number of common schools: 508. Preaching places (about) 400." Cox's job is to give ear to the complaints Americans working in the Ottoman Empire have, particularly as persecutions or other problems break out. The visit of US naval vessels sometimes helps the cause in Istanbul, but less in the regions: "There is much trouble brewing about closing the American schools of Asia Minor. Constant complaints come up to the Legation from the consulates on that head. The American Protestant schools are not alone in suffering from the recent intolerance of the Mahometans, in certain localities where they predominate over the Christians, and where they are aloof from the central authority. Shortly after the closing of the Protestant schools in Syria, an official order was sent out by the Minister of Public Instruction to the provinces, to close all the Jesuit schools established without official permission, and to refuse thenceforth...The same order was issued about our American schools. This, however, under our energetic remonstrance, has been remedied to a great extent. If the United States had more power to its naval elbow, there would be less occasion for the constant protests of the American Consuls and Minister" (p. 663). Cox notes that "very few Turks" are "baptized into the Protestant faith" and most of the converts come from the Orthodox, from which also arises the greatest persecution. "During a period of nearly sixty years since the first of these missions was opened in Turkey, the Turkish government has never, it is believed, presented a single specific charge against American missionaries or their employees for illegal or offensive conduct...the missionaries aim to make every church and every school self-supporting and independent of foreign funds. Where they expend funds upon existing churches and schools, it is as an aid to the pastor's salary, or for the construction of buildings, or such auxiliary purposes" (p. 347). There are plenty of cultural observations from formal customs to superstition. Plenty of parables and folk stories. "A superstition among the Turks is that nothing should be wasted that might be used as food for dogs or fish. Another is that no paper should be left lying around loose; for non constat, but that it may bear the name of Allah. Oftentimes a piece of paper with Allah on it, is swallowed in water by the sick." (p. 369) I did find it interesting that the notion of street dogs dates back to centuries before. Some Turkish friends had told me they thought it dated to Atatürk making European customs, such as keeping dogs, more en vogue. Not the case: "It is the custom of travelers and authors always to mention these dogs. Compared with the indolent and inconsequential curs upon the streets and docks of Naples, and other places-among the lazzaroni, which have not yet attained to the dignity of a literary and scientific study, they are honorably mentioned. From Miss Pardoe down to Edmondo de Amicis, I find reference to these dogs. In a. d. 1835, Miss Pardoe found them on the threshold of her entrance into the city." A sultan once tried to ban the dogs to an island, but so many swam back across the Bosporous that he relented. Here's one that I think historians would find patently false. Education for the masses didn't happen in much of the Empire and not in many parts of Anatolia until Atatürk: "There is scarcely any man of the empire who cannot read and write. Schools are as common as the mosques. The very disposition of the Turk leads him to be a reflective reader. Some of the best scholars of the world are those with large Arabic libraries, who pass their lives in their literary harems" (p. 433). In one moment, Cox will say there is no reason that Turkey should decline or go away. On the other hand, he bemoans its lack of development: "It is doubtful if Turkey is now advancing. Her doctrine of" Kismet "is applicable to her condition. The Christian people of her empire are gaining upon the Turkish, War, plague and contention in and out of Europe—in Africa as well as in Europe —have limited her boundaries and undermined her (p. 450). "Turkey has a kind of democratic-republican society and government. This is true in many respects. It is a constitutional monarchy under the constitution of December 23, a. d. 1876...the Constitution is a dead letter and the Almanack is a bundle of ignorance, in this as in other regards" (p.544). "A railroad through this harassed land will be a godsend" (p. 705). Fire was a constant danger (p. 495): "There was a conflagration at Pera in 1870. It was accomplished with neatness and despatch. In six hours two-thirds of the town was destroyed; nine thousand houses were burned; two thousand people killed." Cox writes that women had it well and had full respect of their husbands. No domestic violence or abuse in his Turkey: "The truth is that the Turkish woman is more free than almost any other woman" (p. 594). I dare avouch that no people are more fond of their homes than the Turks, and toward their children they are inordinately partial. So far as I have observed, their courtesy to the other sex is unfailing. The Turk treats his wife at home, as I have understood, with the same inbred courtesy which he displays toward the gentler sex away from home (p. 649). Yet, there are slaves, including eunuchs, a practice Cox finds antiquated and distasteful. "There is scarcely a family in Turkey which has the means, that does not possess a number of women and girl slaves, black and white. The black are from Central Africa and Nubia; the white are Circassians sold by their parents...I do not believe that there is now any public market for slaves. There is no selling at the bazaars, as there used to be. Still they are bought and sold, and the authorities very likely know how and where, and regulate the traffic. The price varies with the beauty. The ungainly are used for domestic work. The beauties are educated..." What are slaves worth? "A white boy may cost two hundred dollars, depending upon his acquirements; a girl under ten, one hundred dollars; a maiden between twelve and sixteen, if she be attractive and can play on the zither, brings from thirty-five hundred to five thousand dollars. If the young woman be a blonde, with black eyes and rare beauty otherwise, she may bring from four to six thousand dollars. An amateur will pay double that for a choice specimen, well educated in French and other graces. The black slave will bring ninety dollars, the black maiden seventy or seventy-five" (p. 605-607) see more at my blog... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 20, 2016
|
Aug 13, 2016
|
May 20, 2016
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
| 0199916365
| 9780199916368
| 0199916365
| 3.89
| 626
| Jan 01, 2014
| Nov 03, 2014
|
really liked it
|
In an effort to greater understand the history of Islam and the Middle East, I worked through several books and concluded with some of the most recent
In an effort to greater understand the history of Islam and the Middle East, I worked through several books and concluded with some of the most recent books on Islamic reform and the rise of ISIS (many reviews forthcoming). In God's Path most closely resembles Tom Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword as well as the first half of Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted. I've also read Reza Aslan's The Origins and Future of Islam, but Aslan crafts his story far too selectively from history in the years this book covers. Other books that assissted my understanding of this book are Albert Rouhani's History of the Arab Peoples, the surprisingly helpful Islam: A Very Short Introduction by Ruthven, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction by Cook, The Cambridge History of Turkey Vol. 1, and Justinian's Flea for the immediately preceding context up to 565 AD. I also used to live in Azerbaijan which was at an important geographic crossroads of much of the history in this book. In God's Path is a lightning read, as it is a amazing how quickly nomadic tribes from the Middle East were able to subdue so many lands and peoples in just a couple centuries' time. Hoyland embraces the challenge of examining the scant literary evidence from the time period of 600-800 AD that Islam fanned out across the globe. He gives credence to 7th and 8th century sources as opposed to earlier texts, irregardless of their religious source. Christian texts of the period writing fearfully of Islamic invaders (ie: biased) still have value in dating events into a timeline. Hoyland does not focus much on religious development, except toward the end when Muslims began to write down and codify Islam. Instead he focuses on the battles and the characteristics of the tribal organizations that allowed for the most rapid expansion of an empire since Alexander the Great. Beginning in the 630s, Hoyland examines the context in which Muhammed the Prophet arose. The Persian Empire had dreams of success over the collapsing Byzantine empire after the time and treaties of Justinian in the 550s. Plague and division had greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire. From 602-628 the Sassanids had pushed back in the Levant and Anatolia, forcing a seige of Constantinople in 626 before Turks in the area actually helped defend the area from the Persian-Avar attack in 627. A Byzantine resurgence and Sassanid civil strife eventually pushed the Sassanids out of their territories in Persia and Jerusalem. The Sassanids were in a weakened state to face a new threat of united tribes of Arab warriors. The first period is the time before 600 to 640. The author points out that contrary to sterotype, Arabs are/were not all monolithically nomads, some controlled and inhabited cities alongside other peoples, like Jews. There were already a lot of battles around 610 AD between Arab tribes and Persians, Muhammed's own tribe was only one of many attacking Sassanids in both Persia and the west around 625-630, though the details are "lost to history." Muhammed's rise is dealt with rather quickly. He is opposed at Mecca in 622, the beginning of the Islamic calendar, forms an army in Medina, takes Mecca through both battle and marriage, uniting tribes into an impressive force capable of subduing other tribes of Arabic speakers and leading them to conquest. After Muhammed's death, the conquest of Palestine continued under the Rashidun Caliphate, for which Abu Bakr had laid down rules of war from Muhammed's teaching. Actual historical details of battles are not many, but in the 634 Battle of Ajnadayn, Muslim warriors from many united-but-rivalrous tribes outfought Byzantines. A monk in Jerusalem in 634 is recorded as calling for repentance in his city because the "Saracens," the Greco-Roman term for Arabs, were ravaging the area. In 636, the Rashidun Caliph's army defeated the Sassanids at Basra. There were definitely raids, if not battles, throughout Arabia. In 636, perhaps weakened by plague and doubtless out-generaled, the Byzantine force lost the Battle of Yarmouk, and with it Palestine and the Levant, a major blow. Syria, Damascus, and Antioch were written off by the retreating Byzantines. Gaza and Palestine eventually became fully occupied in 637. Historic accounts of the 636-637 seige of Jerusalem by Caliph Umar's forces are "murky." The Byzantines apparently surrendered without a fight. Jews had been both slaughtered and marginalized by the Byzantines, so some welcomed the Arab forces as liberators, as did some Christians-- who increasingly joined the Muslim conquerers for various reasons. Muslims granted freedom to Jews and Christians to practice, although there were varieties to policies in various territories depending on who was in charge fo the area. Conversian was often optional, and large populations of ethnic Christians were left alone provided they did not pose a threat. Later 9th century Muslim scholars adopted a view of spreading Islam by uniting all Arabs under Islam, but in the 7th century there was quite a bit of variety and not everyone in the marauding armies was Muslim. The next major period is 640-652 AD. In 643, the Christian John of Nikiu chronicled conquest of Egypt by Amr ibn al-Aas, which took only two years. John apparently wrote that the Muslims were harsh on the populace, particular with taxation, but left churches and church property untouched. (His is a chronicle I'd like to read.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of...) Like other Christian writers of the time, John saw the Muslim conquests as God's judgement on apostate Christians (his church itself was considered un-orthodox after the Council of Chalcedon). Hoyland then quickly moves to the conquest of Libya and then Iran. Iran had claims on the Caucauses lands since 428 AD, but the Arab tribes moved quickly. (Today, the peoples of the North Caucases are largely Sunni whereas Azerbaijan itself is Shi'ia from later Persian occupation of the land south of the mountains.) In 640, the Arabs had invaded Armenia and were able to set up a buffer zone with Byzantium in Anatolia. History records that the choices facing non-Muslims were not "just submit or be killed in battle" but that a wide range of remedies were applied, the Arab conquerers were often outnumbered by Christians and others, after all. Some were given deals exempting them from taxes upon conversion, which led to quite a few converts-- and quite a few angry converts when those privileges were later taken away once the conquest had roughly ended and the focus switched to governing. Christians still made up the majority in Damascus, its walls were left intact. Many simply thought the Arabic occupation was a thing that would quickly pass at any rate. While Hoyland does not go into nearly as much detail and speculation as does Holland, he does note that "the Arabic 'Bismillah' is an exact translation of the Greek en onomati tou theou (" in the name of God ", p. 101). He notes a papyrus written in Greek and Arabic from 643 AD, the first document we have written in Arabic, which adopts many Greek terms and cutural forms of the area (some of which also come from Syriac). This suggests that there was already a similar Arabic" administrative tradition "as was found in Byzantine areas and that there was already a familiarity among both the conquered and the conquerers in culture, administration, and religion, such as that it may not have been a radically big deal for these groups to be under Arab control. Hoyland writes that we should refer to the conquerers as" muhajirun, "whose message was" to conquer and settle "which was part of the appealing message for their recruits (p. 102). Chapter 4 covers 652 to 685, beginning with the movement toward Constaninople. An Arab fleet sent to blockade the Bosphorous was "miraculously" (to the inhabitants) wiped out by a storm in 654. The Arabs were later able to blockade Constantinople from 668-669. Meanwhile, Arab differences resulted in civil war, allowing Christians a chance to regroup; Armenia restored its ties with Byzantium in 656. From 656-661, there was the first "Arab civil war" (chronicled well by Holland) which resulted in the Umayyads supplanting the Rashidun caliphs. There was increasing debate about who had the right of succession. Arab conquests had reached into what is now Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_F...Hasan ibn Ali submitted to the Ummayads to keep the peace. Chapter 5, "The Great Leap Forward," covers the Berber-Arab conquest of Spain and an increasing shift toward actual governance circa 685-715. Caliph Abd Al-Malik is credited with the minting the shahada onto coins. Arabs were outnumbered 100 to one in non-Arab territories, so Islam and Arab cultured tended to be absorbed over time, with syncretism common in territories like the Caucasus. The line between ethnic and cultural Arabs became quite blurred. Hoyland writes that conversion became more common in Al-Malik's reign, and the Arab practice of enslavement encouraged conversion to gain more favorable treatment and potential freedom. At the frontiers of the Islamic state, deals were increasingly worked out which encouraged syncretism in order to get local subjugation. In 703, Armenians revolted against the Arabs in what is now Naxchivan, and between 715-730 there was further "retrenchment and revolt." There is very little about Arab battle tactics or technology during this period and in 732 Arabs gained full control over what is now Azerbaijan. Armenia and Georgia were largely left alone and maintained their Christian heritage, whereas (Caucasian) Albania was not and did not. As the Arabs increased codification of Islam, the practice of Islam as the state religion became codified and minority religions were held protected but subservient. Alms-giving became mandatory around 730 AD. Arab Muslims, interestingly, paid lower taxes than non-Arabs but all were taxed. Initially, exemption from poll taxes encouraged local converts, but when fiscal needs led to repeal of this exemption the local populations across the territory would revolt. We may often forget that there was no organized clergy or system of religion yet in the 8th century, most people who were writing down sayings of Muhammad or chronicling events were amateurs with other jobs. But Arabic becoming the new lingua-franca uniting the region from North Africa to the Central Asian steppe led to the intellectual boom in the 9th century as trade increased and Greek works were quickly translated into Arabic and disseminated. There were distinct differences between "Gentile Islam" and Arab Islam. While some aspects of codified Islamic law were already present early on, in many cases some local laws were incorporated. Some laws which were rejected were later claimed to have been explicitly rejected by Muhammed. The early civil wars were covered over by later Islamic history, and later scholars overrode the earlier. Only the Caliph ruling from 632-660 had the ability to truly legislate, after that the canon was closed. The author concludes with thoughts on the success of the spread of the Islam empire, crediting it ultimately with the recruitment of nomads under one central ruler that made it effective. (My own thoughts): In that sense, it is no different than the Mongol invasions from the East-- a centralized command structure over a highly mobile force encountering other tribes and people who were weakened by divisions and plague, and in some cases eager to cast off the yoke of their current rulers. Perhaps unlike the Mongols, Arabs allowed for some tolerance and self-governance, and actually focused on building in place rather than simply extracting resources. It was only later when exclusive and extractive institutions were built, leading to the inevitable decline of the empire. Other books in the list at the top of this post deal more with the decline and psychological effects, Hoylands work deals purely with the rapid expansion. A solid four-star work. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Feb 2016
|
Apr 26, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0143034332
| 9780143034339
| 0143034332
| 3.83
| 1,347
| 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
| ||||||||||||||
| 0307386481
| 9780307386489
| B000MAHBZ0
| 3.82
| 20,774
| 2003
| Dec 05, 2006
|
it was ok
|
This is my first Orhan Pamuk book; I am better with nonfiction than fiction. The book is ostensibly about the history of Istanbul, of which I am prett
This is my first Orhan Pamuk book; I am better with nonfiction than fiction. The book is ostensibly about the history of Istanbul, of which I am pretty familiar. But the actual experience of the book is the author's autobiography, as Pamuk writes "Istanbul's fate is my fate." This book mainly consists of childhood memories and experiences, intimate in such a way that I am not sure who it would appeal to other than an obsessed fan. Some topics are perhaps taboo in Turkey (though probably not so much in Istanbul). While translated from Turkish, it seems clear that Pamuk is writing the book for the Western reader, explaining history that would already be known by a Turk, and elements of Turkish for those who are not familiar. Besides a brief stay in the city a few years ago, my literary experience of Istanbul comes mainly from Told in the Coffeehouse, a collection of old fables and short stories from the recorded or translated by Westerners in the late 1800s, and the memoirs of Cyrus Hamlin, an American who lived there from 1830-1870 who founded Robert College, where Pamuk went to school. I have also read through Cambridge's History of Turkey volumes I and II which includes some Istanbul history in the couple centuries after Constaninople was conquered. I would highly recommend the first two works to anyone interested in the tales of the city that Pamuk's stories are reminiscent of. "I've never left the Istanbul of my childhood." Pamuk, of course, fled Istanbul in 2007, after being prosecuted for "crimes against Turkishness" due to comments he made around the time this book was published. He is aware that many childhood memories are ones that are told rather than actually remembered, and he explains the Turkish -miş past tense for events that "apparently" or "reportedly" happened. Glimpses of the old city live on only in his memory or in the old black and white Turkish films Pamuk longs for, the reality has since been destroyed by modern development. This longing for the past makes up part of the feeling of "hüzün" that Pamuk believes permeates the city and all who connect wıth it. Hüzün means, roughly, melancholy; Pamuk dives into the entymology of the word, its Arabic roots and its historical meanings with examples cited. The poet Gautier captured the melancholy of the city in his book Constantinople in 1856. (Pamuk doesn't mention Cyrus Hamlin, unfortunately, but his memoir also records the trials and tribulations of living in the city in roughly the same period. The divisions, the cholera, the Sultan, etc.) Pamuk tells the history of Istanbul through its writers and poets as well as Western observers. One interesting tangent is when he reads a random collection of newspaper clippings from the city over the decades. He focuses on how it feels, what music best expresses it, and what was lost. Hüzün is necessary "it is the failure to experience hüzün, that leads (one) to feel it" and it is forever in Istanbul's shadows. Pamuk also focuses on his misconceptions of the city, realizing it's important to see how foreigners experienced the city. "My city is not really mine." Many comment on the city's dogs, but he notes that dogs were banned when the jannisaries were. The conquest of Constantinople and its memory differs across Istanbul's historic population of Greeks, Armenians, and Jews, now much fewer in number. He ponders the 1956 pogroms of Greeks in Istanbul, something I'm sure raised an eyebrow when this was published. The author appears to have come from a middle class Kemalist family with affluent relatives. He writes of attending lavish parties with people who used to be connected to the Sultan. The parties were upbeat but the people were depressed. His personal recollections deal with puberty and how he was more than a teenager when he realized he wasn't alone in his struggle with feelings. The details of all of this are a bit much. He recalls romances and difficulties with his parents, whose relationship was fraught as his father betrayed his mother. His family's preferences caused him to look down on religion, and it was only later in life that he learned to respect the preference of the religious as well. In the end, he spends years studying to be an architect, but never truly happy. The book closes with his decision to become a writer. Again, I wish that other long-forgotten (but freely available on the Internet) memoirs of Istanbul had been cited; I'd love to make Pamuk aware of these. I recently herad an interview with Kaya Genç, author of An Istanbul Anthology that contains much of the classic writing on Istanbul that Pamuk highlights-- Genç seems to borrow heavily from Pamuk in the interview. Genç notes that everyone has a love/hate relationshp with Istanbul. Pamuk basically explains why. I give the book 3.5 stars out of 5 ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jan 30, 2016
|
Feb 10, 2016
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 1402153058
| 9781402153051
| 1402153058
| 3.67
| 3
| Jan 01, 1875
| 1875
|
it was amazing
|
Forty Years in the Turkish Empire - The Biography and Memoirs of William Goodell (1792-1867). This book is available copyright-free at Archive.org in
Forty Years in the Turkish Empire - The Biography and Memoirs of William Goodell (1792-1867). This book is available copyright-free at Archive.org in many formats. It was first published in 1875. Goodell was among the first American missionaries to Turkey, and among the longest-lasting. He was a catalyst of and a witness to a great revival among Armenians there and was survived by children who also served there. I will start this review with an attention-grabber, the single most awesome and telling statement about the task at hand, written in Beirut in 1823-1824: "We almost daily read the Scriptures in Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Ancient Armenian, Modern Armenian, Turkish Armenian (or Armeno-Turkisb), Arabic, Italian, and English, and frequently hear them read in Syriac, Hebrew, and French. Seldom do we sit down to our meals without hearing conversation at the table in Armenian, Greek, Arabic, Turkish, Italian, and English, and prayer daily ascends from this house — I hope to heaven — in all these languages, excepting the Italian. In translating the Scriptures, we have open before us the Bible in Ancient and Modern Greek, Ancient and Modern Armenian, Turkish, Armeno-Turkish, English, two translations in Arabic and three in Italian, and occasionally Hebrew and Syriac" (p. 104). My review is too long for Goodreads, so check it out on my blog here:http://justintapp.blogspot /2015/0... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 08, 2015
|
Jul 19, 2015
|
Jun 08, 2015
|
ebook
| ||||||||||||||
| 1316172988
| 9781316172988
| B00MY7JRLA
| 4.15
| 13
| Nov 12, 2012
| Nov 12, 2012
|
really liked it
|
Like Volume I, this book took me about a year to work through. Volume II was apparently completed after Volume III due to the complexity of the inform
Like Volume I, this book took me about a year to work through. Volume II was apparently completed after Volume III due to the complexity of the information within. It covers the period roughly from Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the accession of Ahmed I in 1603. Each of the 13 chapters is written by a different scholar (with Kate Fleet penning two) and the wealth of scholarly research and translation is impressive. There is so much ongoing work going through archives and books written by poets, accountants, travelers, etc. in Arabic, Persian, Old Turkish, Greek, and Romance languages and each author has incorporated the latest and the best together to put together a complete story. You get to relive the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe (Rumeli), the wars with the Mamluks in Egypt and the campaigns against Shahs in Iran. The never-ending wars are matched by the ongoing palace rivalries and intrigues between vizirs, would-be heirs, and others. I had read Ernle Bradford's The Great Siege: Malta 1565 which was quite helpful to recount the workings of the Turkish navy and the careers of officers like Turgut Reis. The Cambridge History gives very short shrift to the battle for Malta and its consequences. As an economist, I found the chapters by Colin Imber and Murat Çızakça dealing with the economy of the Ottoman state interesting. The wealthy could hoard their money into charities (vakif) to avoid taxation, but the trick was to continue to be generous and yet have enough to live off of. Vakifs are still plentiful in modern Turkey and it was interesting to make this historical connection. Murat Çızakça carefully deems the Ottoman Empire's political economy as "proto-pseudo socialist" P. 262). It was not based on class warfare but the government could "choke" the mercantile class when the need arose by price controls or other means. Ones who the Sultan disliked were doomed to be butchers in Istanbul, consigning them to a sure life of poverty. "The functions of Ottoman government were, in essence, to raise revenue with which to support the sultan's army and court, to conduct war and relations with foreign powers, to uphold law and order, and to support what the ruling elite regarded as the right religion. Most day-to-day public functions – for example, the construction and maintenance of mosques, education, wel-fare of the poor, the provision of a water supply in towns and the upkeep of bridges and cemeteries – were the responsibility of vakıfs (endowments of land or other sources of income used for the charitable purpose dei ned by the founder), established through the private beneficence of individuals" (p. 205). There was also an interesting practice of raising revenue by farming out taxation on land, which was sort of like selling bonds. The Ottoman government did not run massive deficits or have a need to borrow formally until after the period covered. Fascinatingly, the Ottoman's pursued a policy of reverse-mercantilism: "the Ottomans impeded exports and promoted imports in order to maximise the supply of goods available in their markets. Thus the export-promoting European mercantilism was matched perfectly by an import-promoting Ottoman system!" (p. 260). Generally, the Ottoman empire followed the pattern of exclusive political arrangements and extractive economic institutions typical of a declining state in Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail. Besides the government, there were guilds who kept reins on prices and innovation. There was also the practice of the devşirme as Christian youth were rounded up to be sent off to train as janissaries, fierce fighters for the Ottomans who basically had nothing to lose but like the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome became a powerful political force in their own right. "The constant possibility of a janissary rebellion was a permanent check on the sultan's freedom of action" (p. 217). Fukuyama credits the janissary recruitment as helping the empire survive-- creating a loyal class of people who cannot inherit the kingdom (like eunuchs elsewhere). Çızakça concludes that "ever since the seventeenth century, income per capita in the Ottoman Empire, and later in Turkey, declined consistently when compared with Western European countries. Such a long-term decline can only have been caused by a path dependency over centuries, for which I have here suggested the term Ottoman 'proto-pseudo-socialism.' The trend was reversed only after the 1980s when the Özal government introduced modern capitalism" (p. 275). (This is one of the few look-aheads in this volume). The religious situation within the Empire was also interesting. The volume really does not deal with the minority populations nearly as much as it could or should have, as there were plenty of Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and Kurds of various stripes. "(T)he Ottomans granted religious freedom to Christians and Jews. Martin Luther confirmed this much discussed religious tolerance when he observed that the Turks granted religious freedom to all, while the pope did not" (p. 249). Gilles Veinstein wrote the chapter on religious institutions and policies. "Many Christians and Jews must have found conversion a tempting prospect, for by accepting Islam they both improved their social status and lightened their tax load. Apart from the adolescents drafted for service in the army and the sultan's court (devşirme), the Ottoman government thus saw no need to resort to forced conversions" (p. 323). "No Ottoman sultan ever visited Mecca," (p.351) although many funds were given to helping maintain the kabaa and other structures. I found the chronicling of various cults and heresies within Islam to be interesting, including a popular one in 1527 which claimed the superiority of Jesus over Muhammad (p. 341). As Turkish became the preferred language, religious works and legal rulings had to be translated into Turkish. Battles with Iran were partly over Sunni-Shia conflict and partly over imperial pride. Religion was basically complicated. "(T)he Ottoman world view remained essentially theo-centric, continuing to attribute ultimate agency and causation to God alone, who had created the world and continued to create the links of cause and ef ect within each of its parts as well as between them. Such theocentrism oftentimes supposedly denotes a pre-modern, and in particular pre-Enlighten-ment, outlook, as opposed to a modern view which takes human experience and reason as the ultimate means for the comprehension of the universe; the latter view is therefore called anthropocentric. However, the Ottoman world view was anthropocentric in a different way, as it viewed all intellectual activity, all human knowledge, as serving the ultimate goal of individual or collective salvation. Outside of ascetic world rejection, a path open only to a select few, the proper understanding and manipulation of phenomena within the created world were important as means to this end" (p. 456). There is a chapter on the visual arts and architecture, if you like that sort of thing. I always find the research into population estimates to be interesting. "According to Barkan, in 1520–35 Rumeli and the sultans' capital, Istanbul, supposedly had a population of almost six million, while Anatolia and certain territories called 'Arab', probably more or less equivalent to Greater Syria, were home to about 5.7 million. By this count, the Ottoman central provinces had a population of about 11–12 million people, with Istanbul, the largest city, amounting to about 400,000 inhabitants...Ankara was home to a population of approximately 25,000 men and women; the city's principal crafts involved the weaving, dyeing and finishing of angora wool" (p. 375-376). Selim S. Kuru pens the final chapter on the literature of Rum (western Anatolia and the European territories). The poets of Rum, according to their biographers, were Muslim poets who composed in the constantly developing medium of the language of Rum, a particular form of Anatolian Turkish. It was a fresh language given voice through the pens of the poets of Rum and, from the last decades of the fifteenth century onwards, it was establishing itself as one of the most extensively used literary languages of the world. For the poets themselves, it was a source of pride and often of great material wealth "(p. 591-592). Some of the Sultans fancied themselves as poets. What I found most interesting, and disturbing, was the prevalence of pederasty in the literary works of the period (p. 573-575). Pederasty was a feature of male Greek culture (see Charles Freeman's Egypt, Greece, and Rome), is found throughout Central Asia (think The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan), and is a well-hidden part of Turkish culture today. One example: "A poet from Baghdad with the pen-name Halili (1407–85) told his own love story in a verse narrative entitled Fürkatname (The Book of Separation) (composed in 1461), in which he finds a true love of God during his trip to Rum through a worldly passion he had for a boy" (p. 573). I wonder if the roots are in Greek influence (exported eastward through Central Asia by Alexander the Great) and then brought westward again by the migration of Turks from the Central Asian steppe. In all, I give the work 4 stars out of 5. It does a poor job of showing every day life of a Turkish citizen, be he farmer, herder, shopkeeper, or slave. Women, particularly those in the palace, are almost completely ignored. Some of the sources quoted that might also contain information about these things were quoted for their other uses-- like explaining trade with the Ottomans and such. Still, it is a must-read for anyone seriously interested about Turkey and its history. I look forward to reading Vol. III in 2016 before moving on to contemporary histories. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 22, 2015
|
Dec 23, 2015
|
May 22, 2015
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 1565856708
| 9781565856707
| 1565856708
| unknown
| 4.18
| 246
| 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
| 4,350
| 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
| ||||||||||||||
| 038553292X
| 9780385532921
| 038553292X
| 4.08
| 16,099
| Aug 06, 2013
| Aug 06, 2013
|
it was amazing
|
Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East. Only 10 of the almost 1000 reviews on Amazon are one-star, an Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East. Only 10 of the almost 1000 reviews on Amazon are one-star, and some of those appear to be erroneously awarded. The magic of this book is that Scott Anderson chronicles the tales of multiple characters whose paths occasionally cross, all of whom influenced the outcome of World War I, shaped the lasting imprint of the West on the Middle East, and were party to the establishment of an eventually independent Jewish state in Palestine. While much of the book focuses on T.E. Lawrence as seen through his own memoir, biographers, and contemporaries, Anderson also tells the lesser-known accounts of Aaron Aarohnson, William Yale, Curt Prüfer, Ahmed Djemal Pasha, King Faisal and Mark Sykes. The book is important in retelling the history of the Levant during World War I. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recently referenced T.E. Lawrence and the current crisis in Syria as the result of the West's failed policies in the Middle East after WWI, so this book is quite relevant. Aaron Aaronsohn was a Romanian Jew whose parents emigrated to Palestine to farm. The settlements were usually sponsored by rich Jewish benefactors who dictated how the colony was to be run. It's important to remember that "Zionists" were not a united group-- some just wanted to moderately repopulate Palestine with Jews, some wanted to live under Ottoman rule and not displace the Arab majority, others wanted to live under protection of England and the West, while others wanted an independent Jewish state. When war broke out, many of the Jews in Palestine remained loyal to the Ottomans and could not support the Entente powers which included Russia, from which many of the Jews had fled during decades of of pogroms. Agricultural output of the Jewish colonies was poor, and Aaronsohn was selected and sponsored by a Rothschild to study agronomy in Europe and later returned to Palestine and started revolutionary practices that greatly increased farming output. He became famous worldwide for discovering and re-discovering various species of plants. Operating on his own, Aaronsohn eventually embraced the Zionist cause and developed a network of spies called Nili. After World War I began, he was instrumental in spreading pro-Jewish propaganda through telegrams and travels to the West. When Djemal Pasha evacuated Palestine ahead of battle with the English, Aaronsohn spread exaggerated claims of pogroms and lynchings of Jews, even though history records no such evils occurred. The world was already aware of atrocities committed when the Ottomans deported its Armenian and foreign populations, and atrocities against Jews was seen as a step too far. These telegrams reached influential Americans such as Chief Justice Louis Brandeis and swayed public sentiment toward Palestine. When the spy network was uncovered, Aaronsohn's sister--a leader in the group with wide European connections-- was tortured and executed. The exposure of the network was partly the result of bungling by the British. William Yale was an American employee of Standard Oil who traveled in the Middle East, under false pretenses, searching for oil and opportunity. Standard Oil was hoping to make money selling oil to both the Turks and the Allies after war broke out. After the U.S. entered the war, Yale's documentation of Middle Eastern geography and political affairs proved valuable to the U.S. State Department who enlisted him as an intelligence agent. Yale was the forerunner of American espionage through its private sector, particularly oil. Yale later published an account of his time in the Middle East that I'd like to read. Curt Prüfer was a German diplomat stationed in Cairo who shared with many Germans a vision of a pan-Islamic revolt against the Allies supported by Germany. He was an advisor both to the German government and Djemal Pasha. Germany was crucial in building the railways and other infrastructure inside the Ottoman empire, as well as supplying academics to Turkish universities and doing much of the early archaeology on various ancient sites. Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted greater German Eurasian influence, a dream that seems silly in retrospect today. Prüfer developed his own spy ring, putting him in direct competition with Aaronsohn. Obviously, Prüfer was on the losing side so you see him managing both shrinking territory and the increasing disconnect of the German government from reality on the ground. Djemal Pasha's full biographyis not given by Anderson but he served as the governor of the Syrian region, including over Palestine. He was one of three generals to wrest control of the Ottoman government before the war. After a locust swarm of biblical proportions wiped out crops in the region in 1915, Djemal enlisted the help of the agronomist Aaronsohn, allowing Aaronsohn to gain favor and intelligence as he worked. Anderson writes of conflicting histories regarding Pasha. On the one hand, he oversaw harsh crackdowns on Arabs during the Arab Revolt. He is blamed (and was later assassinated) for many atrocities against Armenians, but Anderson writes that Pasha was intially disgusted by their treatment and disgreed with the powers in Istanbul who initiated the forced deportations. The atrocities were committed after the failed British-led attack on Gallipoli and convinced many Ottoman Jews to flee for fear that they could be next. the pasha's legacy here is mixed; Djemal supposedly forbid harsh treatment or the killing of Armenians but later forbid even photgraphing them, presumably while atrocities were being committed. Of course, the greatest amount of the book is devoted to T.E. Lawrence. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom (my review) is a prerequisite for Anderson's book along with the classic Lawrence of Arabia film, as Anderson quotes extensively from Lawrence's work while also critiquing it based on accounts by Lawrence's contemporaries, along with letters and journal entries by Lawrence. Lawrence's early endavors and fascination with Ottoman Syria gave him unique insights that served him well. Before fighting there with Arabs, he had hiked thousands of miles in Syria and done archaeological work. He is alleged to have fallen in love with Dahoum aka Salim Ahmed, a young waterboy he hired in Syria, whose well-being supposedly motivated him to push for Syrian Arab independence (Dahoum died of typhus in 1916, much to Lawrence's dismay). Lawrence's path crosses with that of the other characters, including Mark Sykes of the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement that effectively betrayed the Arabs and surprised the British command in Cairo. Lawrence generally disagrees vehemently with the others and remains contemptuous. Interestingly, Lawrence betrays the secret of Sykes-Picot early on to Faisal Ali, who he fought alongside. This was an interesting act of treason by Lawrence that Anderson notes gets overlooked by biographers-- after only 4 months in Arabia, Lawrence was so invested in the Arab cause that he was willing to risk everything in disclosing this secret. Lawrence is particularly glad he did so after the 1917 Balfour Declaration by the British that made it official state policy to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. This monumental move was partly the result of fervor stirred by Aaronsohn and served to enrage many Arabs fighting alongside the West. Had Lawrence not already disclosed Sykes-Picot the dual revelations may have led to a bloody revolt. As a footnote to the history, the Wuhabbist Muslims led by al Saud were most incensed by the declaration and King Faisal's cooperation with the West in allowing it. Lawrence advised the British commanders to bypass a bloody war for Palestine and invade Syria instead. His commanders ignore him, and 50,000 lives are lost "liberating" Palestine from the Arabs. Lawrence's academic expertise in medieval warfare gave him insights into how the war could be fought with Faisal's camel-mounted troops. The capture of Aqaba as well as the varying accounts of what happened to Lawrence when captured in Daraa are examined pretty thoroughly by the author. The West's promises and reneging to the Arabs, whose help they desperately needed, are also well chronicled by Anderson. Faisal was in position to receive overtures both from the British and the Ottomans, who began to promise more independence to the Arabs in an attempt to wrest them away from the British. The British, in turn made last-minute promises of greater independence upon hearing false rumors of an Arab-Ottoman deal. Several of these characters attend the peace conference at Versailles, and all of them leave disgusted at the outcomes. How this later played out in world affairs is documented briefly by Anderson at the end. I recommend Paul Ehrlich's recent book Inside Syria (my review) for an abbreviated look at this time period in Syrian history as well. I give this book 5 stars out of 5. Fantastic, very informative, and very entertaining read if you are interested in Middle Eastern or World War I history. It's very relevant to today's battles in Syria and I suspect the book will remain relevant for decades to come. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Oct 30, 2014
|
Nov 03, 2014
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0465030564
| 9780465030569
| 0465030564
| 4.22
| 1,468
| 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
| ||||||||||||||
| 1616149485
| 9781616149482
| 1616149485
| 3.62
| 370
| Jan 01, 2014
| Oct 07, 2014
|
really liked it
|
I received an uncorrected, advance reading copy of this book as part of a GoodReads giveaway. As such, there may be some changes between my copy and t
I received an uncorrected, advance reading copy of this book as part of a GoodReads giveaway. As such, there may be some changes between my copy and the final version. (My copy did not have an index which is sorely needed.) Reese Erlich has done his best to chronicle his interactions with the complicated web of groups fighting it out in Syria and supply a timeline of how we got where we are today. I was excited to read this book as it's one of the first complete looks at the Syria's civil war to come out of it. Erlich doesn't rely solely on his own years of front-line journalism (he even has a one-on-one with Bashar Al Assad), he also supplies plenty of documentation from other printed sources. The State Department reached out to Erlich in 2012 (Chapter 11) at which time he learned how naive and unprepared U.S. policy really was. Even so, even this recent work does not forecast the vast conquering of territory by ISIS and their incursions into Iraq seen just months after completion. He just cursorily notes that Saudi Arabia channeled funds and thousands of fighters into Syria, fighters that eventually formed the Islamic Front and other extremists group, but condemned both Al Nusrah and the Muslim Brotherhood in 2014. One wonders that the coalition of countries that helped create the monster of ISIS are now bombing it. The book has a helpful timeline and glossary. The foreward by Noam Chomsky is a clue that this isn't the type of book Erlich really wanted to write. While he tries to keep an unbiased documentary-style look at events on the ground, he often lets his own opinions and criticism of both U.S. and Israeli foreign policies come out, particularly towards the end when he advocates the U.S. stay out of the crisis altogether. In some places, his opinion seems inappropriate commentary next to the facts he is outlining (perhaps this will be edited more in the final version). Like any book that relies on first-hand interviews conducted through translators, "consider the source" is a good caveat. At times, Erlich relies perhaps too much on the opinion of one expert or witness, particularly in cultural matters. A prerequisite for reading this book is to read T.E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom and to watch the movie Lawrence of Arabia. Erlich spends early chapters recounting the Arab politics shaped by World War I and the West's quest for oil and colonialism in the Middle East. He critiques the movie and uses scenes to illustrate points. Those in the West ignorant of history may not appreciate that Syrians resent the involvement of France in their current struggle, as they fought bloody battles for independence from the colonialist French during World War II (p. 54-55). There are some contradictions in these early chapters. For example, Erlich criticizes "ignorant" stereoptying in the West-- that Arabs simply squabble amongst themselves and cannot peacefully govern their own destiny--while later quoting Sunni scholars that in the 1920s Sunni tribes were constantly feuding which made them easy to divide and conquer. Erlich also makes the U.S. out to be imperialist in its post WWI ambitions while later pointing out the strong isolationism that followed WWI. The more modern history of Syria under Hafez Al Assad and his son Bashar is quite complicated. Erlich never spells out what an Alawite is, exactly, and why it's important. He does illustrate that many Iranians who have been supportive of Assad because they think he is a Shiite have no clue what an Alawite is. Erlich explains the history of the creation of the Baath Party in 1946 and the anti-Israeli pan-Arabism that was strong in the 20th century (p. 57-59). As Baathists became politically stronger in Syria it put them at odds with Nasser-led Egypt and led to secession from a once united Egypt and Syria. The Baathists, led by Hafez Al Assad, came to power through a coup in 1970, an eventual result after the humiliation and occupation experienced after the 1967 Six Day War with Israel (p. 62). Syria's poor treatment of Palestinian refugees and Assad's attempt to co-opt the PLO indirectly created Fatah and fostered the animosity that exists today-- polls show that Palestinian are overwhelmingly opposed to Assad. The political manoeuvring of Assad in moving from support of ethnic Christians in Lebanon to later relying on Hezbollah and even sending troops to help the U.S. led coalition to oppose Saddam Hussein in 1991 is fascinating. Erlich takes the time to examine exactly how secular Syria was under a supposedly secular Baathist regime. He records the plight of homosexuals within the protest movement (85-87). Life will not bode well for them legally or culturally no matter how the war ends up. The author does a good job explaining how peaceful demonstrations were eventually met with violence and how violent protestors co-opted the movement, escalating a pro-democracy movement into a civil war. The Assad regime made things worse by surprisingly granting citizenship to thousands of Kurds and intentionally freeing Muslim extremists from jail, essentially creating a war between multiple parties of Sunnis, Kurds, and other Arabs as trust broke down. "To the pious go the guns" (p. 15) - In the early days of the rebellion it was hard to separate "moderate" from "extremist." Moderate rebels met with Saudi handlers in Turkey to acquire weapons and had to prove their piety by growing beards, fasting, etc. Erlich does a good job explaining the diversity of groups and how the West had such a hard time cobbling a coalition together. When a State Department official is asked by Erlich to identify which group in the Syrian National Council "actually provided a democratic alternative to Assad," the official demurs: "'It's a work in progress'" (p. 209). Erlich explains the desperate measures used by the Assad regime, particularly its use of civilians trained by Iran to be agitators and local militia (the Shabiba, p. 137). Erlich was in Iran during the "Green Revolution" and saw first hand the tactics perfected by Iran's own civilian militias. The government has no control over the Shabiba as they perpetrate mass-killings and crimes that have simply increased the ethnic hatred. The author does a good job of explaining the complicated nature of Iran's role in the conflict. Forgotten by the West is that Iran faced a "major dilemma" of either abandoning its ally (Assad) or discrediting itself on the Arab street and with Palestinians (p. 146-147). Tehran reportedly supported free and fair elections, encouraging Assad that if he lost the Baathists would still have its constitutional authority and would still be the major player-- an idea Assad rejected. The events in Egypt and Palestine during the Arab Spring further exacerbated the problem. Damascus and Iran supported Hamas against Fatah. Iran used to spend $20 million a month to keep the lights on in Gaza, but quit in 2013 when Hamas backed the rebellion against Assad. This, combined with the military overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt inflamed the economic tensions and violence that led to the Israeli invasion of Gaza in 2014. Qatar now supports Hamas and Gaza (against Assad) while Iran and Hezbollah assist Assad (p. 203-208). Late in the book, Erlich identifies himself is an American-born Jew who has become critical of Israel's policies. (It is not stated outright, but I imagine he kept his ethnic identity a secret in traveling through 10 Middle Eastern countries in the course of his work.) Erlich writes that Israel has secretly been training the Free Syrian Army and witnesses the ambulances carting FSA and civilian wounded from the Syrian border, careful not to assist Al Nusrah. Israel was not eager to see Assad go as he'd kept things quiet in the Golan Heights but it wants neither to see Muslim radicals come to power nor a regime even more beholden to Iran. Israel essentially benefits from a stalemate that "keeps Arab minds off of Israel." Most helpful to understanding recent events in Syria, Erlich explains that there are roughly 16 different Kurdish groups with competing interests ranging from Iraq to Turkey. Some are united in fighting both Assad and ISIS but others, such as the Kurdish Islamic Front are radicalized and fight alongside ISIS against other Kurds. The Kurdish groups have made pacts, split up, made pacts again, and the infighting continues (p. 171-185). Erlich lays out the timeline of U.S. involvement, beginning with the CIA's covert arming and training of rebels beginning in 2013 (p. 210). The State Department reportedly has long-favored a no-fly zone (something demanded by Turkey), while the Joint Chiefs estimated in August 2013 that such an action would require 70,000 American troops (p. 217). Erlich points out that U.S. decisions in 2011-2013 may have been influenced by Assad's rejection of a proposed natural gas pipeline from Qatar to Syria in favor of an Iranian pipeline instead. Erlich examines arguments for and against U.S. intervention in Syria made by characters ranging from Sarah Palin to Thomas Friedman. In the end, Erlich rejects the argument of armed "humanitarian intervention" as practically impossible (p. 221-223). "I oppose all outside interference in Syria," writes Erlich, arguing that aid should be increased to Syrian refugees instead. If Lebanon can be considered a model, Erlich offers it for consideration-- its civil war eventually ended and its population learned to live relatively at peace. The book ends rather abruptly and awkwardly, as it should given the seemingly endless fight. A must-read to anyone who wants to follow the conflict. Some of the analytical contradictions, awkward opinionating, and interesting editing choices take some of the shine off to result in a rating of four stars out of five. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 24, 2014
|
Oct 06, 2014
|
Aug 25, 2014
|
Hardcover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.00
|
it was amazing
|
Nov 03, 2021
|
Dec 03, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 4.43
|
really liked it
|
Jul 07, 2021
|
Aug 08, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 2.67
|
it was ok
|
Jun 15, 2021
|
Jul 05, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 3.00
|
liked it
|
Feb 28, 2021
|
Jan 09, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 3.60
|
really liked it
|
May 20, 2020
|
Aug 06, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 3.95
|
really liked it
|
May 07, 2020
|
Jan 06, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 4.08
|
really liked it
|
Feb 07, 2020
|
Jan 06, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 3.84
|
it was amazing
|
Jan 15, 2017
|
Feb 09, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 3.33
|
really liked it
|
Dec 03, 2016
|
Dec 13, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.12
|
liked it
|
Aug 13, 2016
|
May 20, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.89
|
really liked it
|
Feb 2016
|
Apr 26, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.83
|
liked it
|
Apr 2016
|
Apr 21, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.82
|
it was ok
|
Jan 30, 2016
|
Feb 10, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.67
|
it was amazing
|
Jul 19, 2015
|
Jun 08, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.15
|
really liked it
|
Dec 23, 2015
|
May 22, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.18
|
liked it
|
Apr 21, 2015
|
Apr 21, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.87
|
really liked it
|
Apr 16, 2015
|
Apr 18, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.08
|
it was amazing
|
Oct 30, 2014
|
Nov 03, 2014
|
|||||
|
| 4.22
|
it was amazing
|
Dec 31, 2020
|
Sep 22, 2014
|
|||||
|
| 3.62
|
really liked it
|
Oct 06, 2014
|
Aug 25, 2014
|
Loading...
