Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Iran IRL, April 11, 2011.
URL; http://iranchamber.com/history/islamic_revolution/islamic_revolution.php This link, which comes from the Iran Chamber Society, gives an Iranian perspective about the 1979 Revolution, which took Mohammad Reza Shah out of power and replaced him with Ayatollah Khomeini, who is, according to this article, the reason why Iran didn't go into civil war, since according to it, the country would have gone into civil war due to Shi'i opposition of the policies that were bringing change. New rules were put in place in Iran, including that women had to return to very conservative and strict styles of dress. It is also important to note that there was a reversal of "progressive" measures relating to gender relations. On November 4, Americans were taken as hostages, which demonstrates the resentment that the Iranians felt toward Americans, which might in part be related to the influence that America had over Shah, and he has been considered America's puppet. Also, Khomeini came up with a new Constitution that reflected his Islamic ideals. The importance of this is that it is the Iranian perspective of what we have learned in class, and this can be seen because there is evidently a spin on the wording that makes you realize this. For instance, the article presents the history as if Khomeini prevented the country from going into civil war, as if he, and his Islamic government which followed, saved the country (an opinion that many Iranians feel). This is valuable because it gives another perspective, but cannot be used as a historical reference if you want the American perspective, although some of the dates that are mentioned are valuable and give extra background.
Iran questions. April 12, 2011.
a. Explain how Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi modernized and westernized Iran - give specific examples. Why did he do this? How did different groups benefit or suffer under the reforms? How did the people of Iran respond?
A free press flourished, allowing for criticism and open speech about the Majlis. The Plan Organization also helped modernization as well, and would maximize oil revenues. An oil consortium was formed - the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now called British Petroleum. They held 40% of the shares. He also aligned his country with the West - in 1959 they signed a bilateral defense treaty with the United States. He spent millions of dollars on US weapons. The people of Iran did not feel comfortable with so many Americans in their country (mostly businessmen). In 1963 the Shah launched the White Revolution, which consisted of six points - land reform, nationalization of forests and pastures, privatization of government-owned factories, profit sharing for industrial workers, reforms in electoral laws, and formation of Literacy Corps. These affected landlords mostly, and farmers who needed to borrow money to grow their own crops. Many now turned critical of the regime, however Iranians were reaping the benefits due to better health facilities, which allowed for a growing population.
b. impact of Western influence - how did different groups respond? what benefits and drawbacks were there?
Benefits included better health facilities, greater access to education, and increased exports which made the economy sufficiently stronger, however the westernization of Iran was resented by the traditional merchant classes whose lives were being threatened by the import of consumer goods. The other drawback was that since the population of Tehran grew from 2.9 million to 4.4 million in 1976, migrant workers were faced with poor living conditions, building roads and supplying them with electricity and water in smaller villages, now unimportant, was not achieved. Essentially, though it seemed that the Iranians had nothing to complain about, there were plenty of drawbacks as well.
c. White Revolution - who led the revolution and why did they revolt? who in society were their supporters? did they have outside help? how successful were they? were they successful or not?
The Shah led this revolution, which was another name for his reforms. These reforms were put in place in order to achieve the following; sell land from large land-owners to peasants at affordable prices, protect Iran's natural resources, selling shares of government-0wned businesses to the public, sharing of profits for industrial workers, giving women equal rights, and fixing illiteracy rates. 99% of the population was said to have voted in favor of the reforms. The outside help came mostly from the United States, as businesspeople helped to establish American (western) business ideas in Iran. They were successful, although many Iranians became critical of the regime, especially those who were negatively affected such as farmers and land-owners.
d. Explain the following -
i. religious issues - The Shah wanted to bring back memories of Iran's pre-Islamic past, such as inscribing the Pahlavi Dynasty in the historical line of Persia's ancient monarchs, which was seen as a disrespect to Iran's Islamic heritage. The insistence on Iran's pre-Islamic past upset many. The Shah also wanted to replace Iran's Islamic calendar, which was very offensive to the Muslims.
ii. gender issues - A law in 1936 forced women to dress in Western clothes, and there was an increase of women in the workplace and literacy rates rose. In 1967 the family law was reformed...The new civil code protected women as wives, divorcees, and guardians of the children.
iii. cultural issues - The issue of Iran's pre-Islamic past as opposed to the present day culture - similar to the religious issues it was also a cultural issue since the people did not find their roots in the pre-Islamic culture and could not relate to it.
iv. health care - Better access to health care, and better health services at that, caused the Iranian population to increase rapidly especially in the capital.
vi. education - Illiteracy rates declined.
vii. what else? - Economic concerns - the petrol crisis, given that Iran's primary source of revenue is through the oil industry, but following the Arab-Israeli war, there was a massive increase in the prices.
e. 1979 revolution - explain who led the revolution, why did they revolt? who in society were their supporters? did they have outside help? how successful were they? were they successful or not?
Protesters who came from all segments of life revolted - men and women alike called for changes. They revolted because they were resentful of the changes that had been taking place and the Shah. The public sector and oil industry also went on strike, in support of the revolution. They did not have outside help but they were very successful given that while the Shah and his family were gone from Iran, a mutiny among airforce technicians triggered an uprising and the people came in support of Khomeini, who was left in charge while the Shah was gone, therefore the government of Bakhtiar had fallen and the Pahlavi dynasty had ended.. the revolution was successful.
A free press flourished, allowing for criticism and open speech about the Majlis. The Plan Organization also helped modernization as well, and would maximize oil revenues. An oil consortium was formed - the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now called British Petroleum. They held 40% of the shares. He also aligned his country with the West - in 1959 they signed a bilateral defense treaty with the United States. He spent millions of dollars on US weapons. The people of Iran did not feel comfortable with so many Americans in their country (mostly businessmen). In 1963 the Shah launched the White Revolution, which consisted of six points - land reform, nationalization of forests and pastures, privatization of government-owned factories, profit sharing for industrial workers, reforms in electoral laws, and formation of Literacy Corps. These affected landlords mostly, and farmers who needed to borrow money to grow their own crops. Many now turned critical of the regime, however Iranians were reaping the benefits due to better health facilities, which allowed for a growing population.
b. impact of Western influence - how did different groups respond? what benefits and drawbacks were there?
Benefits included better health facilities, greater access to education, and increased exports which made the economy sufficiently stronger, however the westernization of Iran was resented by the traditional merchant classes whose lives were being threatened by the import of consumer goods. The other drawback was that since the population of Tehran grew from 2.9 million to 4.4 million in 1976, migrant workers were faced with poor living conditions, building roads and supplying them with electricity and water in smaller villages, now unimportant, was not achieved. Essentially, though it seemed that the Iranians had nothing to complain about, there were plenty of drawbacks as well.
c. White Revolution - who led the revolution and why did they revolt? who in society were their supporters? did they have outside help? how successful were they? were they successful or not?
The Shah led this revolution, which was another name for his reforms. These reforms were put in place in order to achieve the following; sell land from large land-owners to peasants at affordable prices, protect Iran's natural resources, selling shares of government-0wned businesses to the public, sharing of profits for industrial workers, giving women equal rights, and fixing illiteracy rates. 99% of the population was said to have voted in favor of the reforms. The outside help came mostly from the United States, as businesspeople helped to establish American (western) business ideas in Iran. They were successful, although many Iranians became critical of the regime, especially those who were negatively affected such as farmers and land-owners.
d. Explain the following -
i. religious issues - The Shah wanted to bring back memories of Iran's pre-Islamic past, such as inscribing the Pahlavi Dynasty in the historical line of Persia's ancient monarchs, which was seen as a disrespect to Iran's Islamic heritage. The insistence on Iran's pre-Islamic past upset many. The Shah also wanted to replace Iran's Islamic calendar, which was very offensive to the Muslims.
ii. gender issues - A law in 1936 forced women to dress in Western clothes, and there was an increase of women in the workplace and literacy rates rose. In 1967 the family law was reformed...The new civil code protected women as wives, divorcees, and guardians of the children.
iii. cultural issues - The issue of Iran's pre-Islamic past as opposed to the present day culture - similar to the religious issues it was also a cultural issue since the people did not find their roots in the pre-Islamic culture and could not relate to it.
iv. health care - Better access to health care, and better health services at that, caused the Iranian population to increase rapidly especially in the capital.
vi. education - Illiteracy rates declined.
vii. what else? - Economic concerns - the petrol crisis, given that Iran's primary source of revenue is through the oil industry, but following the Arab-Israeli war, there was a massive increase in the prices.
e. 1979 revolution - explain who led the revolution, why did they revolt? who in society were their supporters? did they have outside help? how successful were they? were they successful or not?
Protesters who came from all segments of life revolted - men and women alike called for changes. They revolted because they were resentful of the changes that had been taking place and the Shah. The public sector and oil industry also went on strike, in support of the revolution. They did not have outside help but they were very successful given that while the Shah and his family were gone from Iran, a mutiny among airforce technicians triggered an uprising and the people came in support of Khomeini, who was left in charge while the Shah was gone, therefore the government of Bakhtiar had fallen and the Pahlavi dynasty had ended.. the revolution was successful.
Lebanon questions. April 12, 2011.
a. Civil wars - why? Who was on each side? Who won? Did either side have outside help? What was the regional or world context when the civil war was being fought?
Why? The central government was weak and had difficulty maintaining control over its citizens; religious, ethnic, and ideological differences caused tension, and place of reference and religious affiliation turned people against each other.
Who was on each side? Muslims versus Christians.
Who won? No one won, but the war was ended with the Taif Agreement, which allowed for a balanced ratio of Christians to Muslims in terms of government seats.
Did either side have outside help? The Israelis helped the Christians.
What was the regional or world context when the war was being fought? The Lebanese Civil War began only a few years after the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, thus it gives some context as to why Israel got involved in Lebanon; mostly to secure her border, which meant to train Christian armies so that they might win the war, since there was far less hostility than between Israel and Muslim Arabs.
b. Outside interference and reconstruction.. post-civil war.. explain.
The Arab League stepped in, hoping for peace in Lebanon, hence the Taif Agreement. This suggested changes would be made to the National Pact, so that this would make the ratio of those in power between Muslims and Christians equal. Additionally, the Syrian army pulled out in 2005, although there are still border disputes. Additionally, in 1991 the Lebanese Parliament passed an amnesty law that pardoned all political crime.
c. Confessional state- explain.
This refers to the National Pact and the system that it set up, and the way in which they sought to preserve the state through compromise, that is, the ratio of the population would be frozen and proportional representation (in government) was rejected so as to "protect" every religious community... nevertheless all it did was create greater division between each group. This division also affected all areas of life, given that each group came to dominate a particular area of the country - the Christians near Mt. Lebanon and on the coast, the Sunni Muslims close to the border with Syria, the Shi'as in the south near the Israeli border. Each group was also represented by its own political party.
d. Economic tensions - why? Who benefited? Who suffered? What changes took place?
There was tension between the Palestinians who had settled Lebanon and the Shi'as due to competition for the limited number of jobs. The lives of the Shi'as were at risk due to the fact that they were targets of Israeli raids, and since there was a mass migration of the Shi'a population of southern Lebanon into Beirut to look for jobs since the Palestinians took the majority of the jobs in the south, it seems that the Palestinians benefited, the Shi'as suffered, and the mass migration of the Shi'as was the main change that took place. This all led to the instability of the demographics of Lebanon as well.
e. Growth of militias and the PLO - who joined? why? goals? successes? failures?
For the most part the PLO was joined by Palestinians and posed a threat to the Israelis. They were an extremely powerful force in the 1970s and this led to conflict because Israel retaliated against the PLO with raids in Lebanon. This violated Lebanon's sovereignty and the legitimacy of their government was undermined. The Lebanese National Movement, which consisted mostly of Druze, fought alongside the PLO was well, mostly due to the fact that both groups were Muslim. The group Amal, mostly a Shi'a group, formed in defense of the Shi'a community, and finally Hezbollah formed, whose main target was Israel. The PLO didn't succeed in Lebanon because the Israelis forced them out, and all the militias with the exception of Hezbollah, which exists today still, were disbanded.
Why? The central government was weak and had difficulty maintaining control over its citizens; religious, ethnic, and ideological differences caused tension, and place of reference and religious affiliation turned people against each other.
Who was on each side? Muslims versus Christians.
Who won? No one won, but the war was ended with the Taif Agreement, which allowed for a balanced ratio of Christians to Muslims in terms of government seats.
Did either side have outside help? The Israelis helped the Christians.
What was the regional or world context when the war was being fought? The Lebanese Civil War began only a few years after the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, thus it gives some context as to why Israel got involved in Lebanon; mostly to secure her border, which meant to train Christian armies so that they might win the war, since there was far less hostility than between Israel and Muslim Arabs.
b. Outside interference and reconstruction.. post-civil war.. explain.
The Arab League stepped in, hoping for peace in Lebanon, hence the Taif Agreement. This suggested changes would be made to the National Pact, so that this would make the ratio of those in power between Muslims and Christians equal. Additionally, the Syrian army pulled out in 2005, although there are still border disputes. Additionally, in 1991 the Lebanese Parliament passed an amnesty law that pardoned all political crime.
c. Confessional state- explain.
This refers to the National Pact and the system that it set up, and the way in which they sought to preserve the state through compromise, that is, the ratio of the population would be frozen and proportional representation (in government) was rejected so as to "protect" every religious community... nevertheless all it did was create greater division between each group. This division also affected all areas of life, given that each group came to dominate a particular area of the country - the Christians near Mt. Lebanon and on the coast, the Sunni Muslims close to the border with Syria, the Shi'as in the south near the Israeli border. Each group was also represented by its own political party.
d. Economic tensions - why? Who benefited? Who suffered? What changes took place?
There was tension between the Palestinians who had settled Lebanon and the Shi'as due to competition for the limited number of jobs. The lives of the Shi'as were at risk due to the fact that they were targets of Israeli raids, and since there was a mass migration of the Shi'a population of southern Lebanon into Beirut to look for jobs since the Palestinians took the majority of the jobs in the south, it seems that the Palestinians benefited, the Shi'as suffered, and the mass migration of the Shi'as was the main change that took place. This all led to the instability of the demographics of Lebanon as well.
e. Growth of militias and the PLO - who joined? why? goals? successes? failures?
For the most part the PLO was joined by Palestinians and posed a threat to the Israelis. They were an extremely powerful force in the 1970s and this led to conflict because Israel retaliated against the PLO with raids in Lebanon. This violated Lebanon's sovereignty and the legitimacy of their government was undermined. The Lebanese National Movement, which consisted mostly of Druze, fought alongside the PLO was well, mostly due to the fact that both groups were Muslim. The group Amal, mostly a Shi'a group, formed in defense of the Shi'a community, and finally Hezbollah formed, whose main target was Israel. The PLO didn't succeed in Lebanon because the Israelis forced them out, and all the militias with the exception of Hezbollah, which exists today still, were disbanded.
Monday, April 11, 2011
IRL - Lebanon
URL; http://www.ghazi.de/civwar.html
This goes into detail about the Lebanese Civil War, which began on April 13, 1975 essentially when gunmen killed four Phalangists during an attempt on Pierre Jumayyil's life. The assassins were believed to have been Palestinian, and then later retaliation was done when a bus full of Palestinians going through a Christian neighborhood was attacked. According to this source, which is a short essay/informative summary of the beginnings of the Civil War, "Most Beirutis stayed inside their homes during these early days of battle, and few imagined that the street fighting they were witnessing was the beginning of a war that was to devastate their city and divide the country." Also important and worth noting is that many believed the civil war to be a result of Muslim and Christian tension, which is significant because the Lebanese population is divided between these two religions. The significance of this is that it gives some information about the ability (or lack thereof) of different groups in Lebanon to be able to coexist peacefully in the past, and gives me some background knowledge about some of the issues that we will be discussing in class most likely. It also provides some information about the background of Lebanon and the effect that its religious diversity, different from its neighboring countries, has had on its recent history. The primary limitation of this source is that it is somewhat opinion-based, and therefore may not be the best source of information on its own. However, it is essentially the same information as our class text, thus I trust that in essence it is valuable.
This goes into detail about the Lebanese Civil War, which began on April 13, 1975 essentially when gunmen killed four Phalangists during an attempt on Pierre Jumayyil's life. The assassins were believed to have been Palestinian, and then later retaliation was done when a bus full of Palestinians going through a Christian neighborhood was attacked. According to this source, which is a short essay/informative summary of the beginnings of the Civil War, "Most Beirutis stayed inside their homes during these early days of battle, and few imagined that the street fighting they were witnessing was the beginning of a war that was to devastate their city and divide the country." Also important and worth noting is that many believed the civil war to be a result of Muslim and Christian tension, which is significant because the Lebanese population is divided between these two religions. The significance of this is that it gives some information about the ability (or lack thereof) of different groups in Lebanon to be able to coexist peacefully in the past, and gives me some background knowledge about some of the issues that we will be discussing in class most likely. It also provides some information about the background of Lebanon and the effect that its religious diversity, different from its neighboring countries, has had on its recent history. The primary limitation of this source is that it is somewhat opinion-based, and therefore may not be the best source of information on its own. However, it is essentially the same information as our class text, thus I trust that in essence it is valuable.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Verdicts on Nasser.
Was Nasser good for Egypt? Is he the "charismatic and dynamic president that put Egypt back on the map?"
I believe, after reading Sources A through F and looking at the image in Source G, that Nasser was the "charismatic and dynamic president that put Egypt back on the map." Charismatic is a characteristic that refers to someone's ability to influence people and attract people to them, and it is very evident from 4 of the sources. Source C (obituary headline) says that he had "Hypnotic Power" over the Egyptians, which can be seen because he was able to create a number of changes during only his 18 years of leadership. Source E (from a book by an Egyptian writer) says he "signaled to the nation and it awoke; signaled to the army and it moved.." and so on, showing his great influential ways and the fact that he had power and control and was able to achieve. This source even mentions the word charisma. Source F (by another Egyptian writer) states that he "overwhelmed us with his magic", so it's evident from all of this, plus the fact that Source F mentions that Egypt had the strongest military in the Middle East, that at least from the Egyptian perspective (and regarding the matter, their perspective matters most), Nasser was influential, great, and had turned Egypt into a notable country, given that he increased military power significantly, was able to get rid of the monarchy, and according to Source A (Amin Howeidi), loved the common man. Source D, from the Minister of Public Health, calls Nasser "considerate, frank and decisive". It doesn't appear that, although his place on the political spectrum was relatively far to the left and he was trying to align Egypt with the Communist world, that he was that detrimental and it seems, at least from the perspective of an Egyptian as well as my perspective as an outsider, that he seems to have made something out of Egypt. The only setback, and counterclaim, being what Source B refers to when it mentions that Egypt was not victorious in war in 1967 (and this statement also came from an Egyptian, Hussein Dhu'l Fiqar Sabri, who wrote to an Egyptian weekly newspaper in 1975). So Nasser did have his weaknesses as well and might have overestimated Egypt's power, even though he had made progress and he was liked overall. This is evident also in Source G, given the picture of his funeral shows that many, many people attended.
I believe, after reading Sources A through F and looking at the image in Source G, that Nasser was the "charismatic and dynamic president that put Egypt back on the map." Charismatic is a characteristic that refers to someone's ability to influence people and attract people to them, and it is very evident from 4 of the sources. Source C (obituary headline) says that he had "Hypnotic Power" over the Egyptians, which can be seen because he was able to create a number of changes during only his 18 years of leadership. Source E (from a book by an Egyptian writer) says he "signaled to the nation and it awoke; signaled to the army and it moved.." and so on, showing his great influential ways and the fact that he had power and control and was able to achieve. This source even mentions the word charisma. Source F (by another Egyptian writer) states that he "overwhelmed us with his magic", so it's evident from all of this, plus the fact that Source F mentions that Egypt had the strongest military in the Middle East, that at least from the Egyptian perspective (and regarding the matter, their perspective matters most), Nasser was influential, great, and had turned Egypt into a notable country, given that he increased military power significantly, was able to get rid of the monarchy, and according to Source A (Amin Howeidi), loved the common man. Source D, from the Minister of Public Health, calls Nasser "considerate, frank and decisive". It doesn't appear that, although his place on the political spectrum was relatively far to the left and he was trying to align Egypt with the Communist world, that he was that detrimental and it seems, at least from the perspective of an Egyptian as well as my perspective as an outsider, that he seems to have made something out of Egypt. The only setback, and counterclaim, being what Source B refers to when it mentions that Egypt was not victorious in war in 1967 (and this statement also came from an Egyptian, Hussein Dhu'l Fiqar Sabri, who wrote to an Egyptian weekly newspaper in 1975). So Nasser did have his weaknesses as well and might have overestimated Egypt's power, even though he had made progress and he was liked overall. This is evident also in Source G, given the picture of his funeral shows that many, many people attended.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Films in PostWar Britain, March 18, 2011.
Sources;
http://www.totalfilm.com/shadows-of-progress-documentary-films-in-post-war-britain-1951-77
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216205/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Williams
The Shadow of Progress, a British documentary directed and written by Derek Williams in 1970, outlines the pollution of natural resources and the misuse of technology in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. It was a multi-award winning documentary and its main focus was on environmental issues, which are directly connected with the increase of industrialization (which is what would have made the society more technologically advanced and expanded the consumer industry) as well as the need for greater energy as technology advanced. This connects back to the song "Lost in the Supermarket", by the Clash, as that song outlines the increasingly superfluous nature of the consumer industry. It is also known that with time came cars that required more fuel, bigger stores were being built, and the nature of innovation and change affected the quality of life for many people, but with this came the beginning of environmental concerns. The use of the word "progress" in the title of this documentary does represent the known progress in Britain and the negative side of industrialization, and the fact that the society was becoming more technologically advanced and innovative, which is related to the consumer industry and its changes, but the idea of the documentary is actually the OTHER side of it, as it outlines the effect that these changes had on the environment, hence the word "shadow" in the title (it was the hidden side of the progress that most were not giving as much mind to). So in a way, this documentary does demonstrate the mindset of Britain at the time, since the director of this documentary felt the need to bring to light the effects of "progress" that were taking place, giving the public the other side.
"The film exposed the consequences of industrialisation, particularly with regard to pollution, though coming prior to the identification of global warming, its focus is more on the visual impact and damage to wild-life and the lived environment. Over 1,900 copies of the film were printed and circulated in a number of languages and the film was twice shown by the BBC on prime time."
http://www.totalfilm.com/shadows-of-progress-documentary-films-in-post-war-britain-1951-77
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216205/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Williams
The Shadow of Progress, a British documentary directed and written by Derek Williams in 1970, outlines the pollution of natural resources and the misuse of technology in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. It was a multi-award winning documentary and its main focus was on environmental issues, which are directly connected with the increase of industrialization (which is what would have made the society more technologically advanced and expanded the consumer industry) as well as the need for greater energy as technology advanced. This connects back to the song "Lost in the Supermarket", by the Clash, as that song outlines the increasingly superfluous nature of the consumer industry. It is also known that with time came cars that required more fuel, bigger stores were being built, and the nature of innovation and change affected the quality of life for many people, but with this came the beginning of environmental concerns. The use of the word "progress" in the title of this documentary does represent the known progress in Britain and the negative side of industrialization, and the fact that the society was becoming more technologically advanced and innovative, which is related to the consumer industry and its changes, but the idea of the documentary is actually the OTHER side of it, as it outlines the effect that these changes had on the environment, hence the word "shadow" in the title (it was the hidden side of the progress that most were not giving as much mind to). So in a way, this documentary does demonstrate the mindset of Britain at the time, since the director of this documentary felt the need to bring to light the effects of "progress" that were taking place, giving the public the other side.
"The film exposed the consequences of industrialisation, particularly with regard to pollution, though coming prior to the identification of global warming, its focus is more on the visual impact and damage to wild-life and the lived environment. Over 1,900 copies of the film were printed and circulated in a number of languages and the film was twice shown by the BBC on prime time."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)