Regarding the first week of class, I am excited for the experience of how this course will be run. I thoroughly enjoy topics of the Middle East, and certainly Israel/Jerusalem are at the center of issues of that subject. The web based curriculum is different than what I am used to, I am usually a textbook and pencils kind of person; however, I want to continue my education in the future, and that capacity will probably be through the internet. So this class should be of certain value, for me, in that regard.
As for the readings, I will be candid, I really expected to delve into the issue of Jerusalem. I am excited to start studying the history of that ancient city, but I felt that these articles are probably a lead up to when we start the more interesting stuff. I realize that we have to have a basis on where this course came from, like all of the stuff that took place in Washington D.C., the Smithsonian and the different culture societies, however I would like to get into the interesting material. I have little experience with folklore, so the material on that was kind of wasted on me. As I said I feel like all four of these articles are a wind up, for what is to come.
Certainly, the readings were informative; I feel like they mostly explain where this class came from and whose ideas developed it.
I thought that Saud Amiry had it right, when she mentions the varying fields in Jersualem. As she mentions the rituals, music, archaeology, food, crafts, and so on, she is setting the stage for further explanation of the city. She also, is giving a backdrop or almost a picture of where this city comes from. So I suppose that those examples and the other mentions of folklore are probably reasonable at the beginning of this course.
What I take away from these pieces, is that Jerusalem is multi-cultural, with Armenians, Arabs, Jews, Christians and Bedouins. Basically, in my opinion, all of the authors say that that city is filled with mixture.
2 comments:
I agree with the hope of delving right into the Jerusalem conflict. I do think the articles portrayed the intensity of the conflict because of the different issues they took into consideration when planning for the festival. However, I was expecting to dive right in.
I'd say that one thing to bear in mind is that everyone perceives the conflict differently, based upon their own subject position--their personal histories, experiences, education, etc. And so before you can really dive into the who/what/where of the conflict, you've got to get a feel for how people approach it, and what kinds of pitfalls there are if you're not paying attention.
Post a Comment