In “Back to Napoleon?” Dror Zeevi explores the notion that it was not simply one event, like Napoleon invading Egypt in 1798 that sparked the process of modernization in the Middle Eastern region, but rather it was the result of many internal and external processes interacting together, such as colonialism, that led to the modern Middle East. Throughout his piece, as we discussed in lecture, Zeevi suggests that modernization stems from changes in both epistemology and institution, concluding that we must reconsider why 1798 is the beginning of modernity by instead regarding it as the beginning of the colonial encounter (Class). History is not nearly as simple or as smooth as the Napoleon argument suggests. Frederick Anscombe builds on Zeevi’s
The French occupation is a confrontation between exported modernity and an old regime: the French revolutionaries and their dominance over the Ottoman social order that is markedly different in contrast; and, al-Jabarti reports on how it transfers cross-culturally. Levels of contestation, open and/or secretive acceptances give way to losses and gains driven by high emotion – even for this writer. He “describes very carefully every step in the negotiation of the organization of society, from administration to inheritance, from property to charity or from justice to deliberation.”
An Historiography Review of Napoleon failed invasion of Russia using Clausewitz and Theodore Evault Dodge books
Washington University, author Marc Lynch pens a work he titled The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East to dispel thoughts and misconceptions that unrest in the Middle East, particularly in the areas of political and social mobilizations, are in fact a new phenomenon. Utilizing his wealth of experience within the Middle East and topics pertaining to it, Lynch choose to analyze what lead to the downfall of four of the Middle East’s regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria along with the unfolding of events leading up to the “Arab Spring,” along with the results and aftermath of aforementioned events. The “Arab Awakening” or the “Arab Spring,” as ordained by westernized news outlets, was a series of both non-violent
While some of the enormous discrepancies between Babur’s Islam and James Scurry’s Islam can be ascribed to differences in age and role, the strongest cause of such dissimilarities is a very similar political instability. Admittedly, Babur’s position as conqueror and Scurry’s status as prisoner are the obvious differences that inform their vastly different experiences. Although centuries lay between Babur’s victories and Scurry’s capture, both times were dominated by insecurity and warfare. Local rulers in both eras turned to Islam as a justifying cornerstone of their regimes, and as a tool and rallying cry against their enemies. It is this particular guise of Islam, as political instrument, that ultimately gives us Babur’s privileged piety and Scurry’s painful conversion.
Gelvin, James L. The Modern Middle East: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Yapp, Malcolm. The Near East since the First World War: A History to 1995. London: Longman, 1996. Print.
Simmons, Melinda and Amanda Price. “British Imperialism of Egypt.” British Imperialism of Egypt and the Sudan. 4 March 1998. 29 January 2010. .
Lewis, Bernard. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. New York: Scribner,
For hundreds of years before European intervention, the Ottoman Empire had controlled or annexed most of the Arabic people. However; few states did exist, mostly on the Saudi Arabian peninsula, they possessed minimal forms of government and rule, existing in small tribal states. Despite the immense territorial possessions of the Ottoman Empire, it began to decline with a series of military defeats beginning in the 16th century. Most of their fleet was wiped with a loss of 210 ships and 30,000 men killed1, and the event is often cited by Historians as the ‘end of Turkish supremacy in the Mediterranean’2, and the turning point of Ottoman conquest and rule. It wasn’t until the end of the 19th century that the Ottoman Empire became the ‘sick man’ of Europe. The dynasty had long suffered from corruption, inflation, and its territorial possessions began to reject Ottoman rule. One area where this is most relevant is in the Arabic peninsula. Following nationalist trends in Europe, and especially the Ottoman Empire, Arab nationalism grew in the beginning of the 20th century. The ideology believed ‘that nations from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula are united by their common linguistic, cultural and historical heritage.’3 The growing anti-Ottoman rule sentiment grew,
Gardner provided an in depth account of the American involvement and foreign policy as it relates to post World War II Middle Eastern relations. I thoroughly enjoyed the comparisons to previous occupations of Middle Eastern countries by Russia and England that had previously gone poorly, and the perspective provided by Gardner that tied in directly to our class, involving the Arab Israeli war. Everything discussed on the war by Gardner was backed up by our discussions in class, therefore I believe he is certainly qualified to write about Middle Eastern politics and foreign relations. The American influence in the Middle East was not all negative witch is refreshing based on current relations with countries in the Middle East and the public perception on our involvement. Even with the positives discussed in this book I hope we can take the advice of Gardner and take care of our own relations before we try to “help others” I do not believe we are currently in a position to do so therefore we no longer have the luxury to stay. In closing remarks Gardner discusses the game of chess between super powers or as they are discussed in the text “the Three Kings” for domination of the world. I view this as an irresponsible habit that needs to end immediately, this can only result in a negative way, as history has shown unnecessary involvement in foreign affairs results in a
The Arab Spring was an event which became known throughout the world. According to Jason Brownlee, Tarek Masoud and Andrew Reynolds (2013), the Arab Spring started at the end of 2010 in a Middle Eastern country identified as Tunisia (p.29). This shows that a Middle Eastern country had ejaculated a force of civil motivations of activism in the Arab Spring, and this played an important role for the oppressed Arab citizens to demand equality and human rights. Yakub Halabi (2014) claims that a majority of Arab nations have ‘authoritarian’ systems of government with a lack of a unified community (p.100-101). This shows that democracy is lacking in many Arab nations in the Middle East while the citizens of those countries are vulnerable to conflict because of the social circumstances surrounding Arab nations. In addition, Brownlee, Masoud and Reynolds (2013) elaborates on the idea that subsequent to Tunisia’s Arab Spring, Egypt, Libya and Yemen had participated in the Arab Spring, and this caused the risk of civil, political and social unrest being extremely high in 2013 (p.29). This is relevant evidence that Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen are in a worse position than they were before the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring was portrayed as a stride for Middle Eastern states to become an equal democratic utopia. However, an unstable economy, foreign intervention and paid terrorists were some of the reasons of the Arab Spring being unsuccessful for inserting democracy into the channels of politics in several Middle Eastern countries.
In his book Orientalism, Dr. Edward Said wrote about the influence of material culture – journalism, literature, art – on how people perceive the “Other”. Specifically, he focused on the way that people from the “West” view the “Orient.” He wrote, “The phenomenon of Orientalism as I study it here deals… with the internal consistency of Orientalism and its ideas about the Orient… despite or beyond any correspondence, or lack thereof, with a real “Orient” (Said 71). Dr. Said wrote about how Orientalism, through material culture, encouraged, legitimized and even enabled the British domination of great portions of the East by emphasizing, exaggerating and distorting differences between Arab peoples and the cultures of the North America and Europe (Said 69). Orientalism often portrays Arab culture as mysterious, exotic, backward, uncivilized, or dangerous, creating stereotypes that have been reinforced throughout recorded history.
This has caused an absence of a core state for the Islamic world. There have been individual revolutions in several countries such as Omar Al Mukhtar in Libya, the Million Martyrs Revolution in Algeria…against Western colonization but the strategic centre of gravity had already shifted.
Political uprisings in the Middle East, especially in Muslim nation states have placed Arabian politics back on the focus point of international politics. Political events in certain Arab countries had an excessive impact on the political development of other neighboring states. Resistances and anxieties within different Arab countries triggered unpredictable actions, sometimes sorely to observe and believe. The authoritarian governments of Arabian countries led from various dictators have created a precarious situation for their people, especially in providing national security and maintaining peace in the region. Jack Goldstone argues that the degree of a sultan’s weakness has been often only visible in retrospect; due in part to the nature of the military-security complex common across Middle East states (Goldstone 1). In addition, the existence of various statesmen with political affiliation is concerned in faithfulness of its armed forces. Usually, the armed national forces of several states, mainly those in Arab countries are loyal and closely affiliated to their leaders, which have a major role in state regimes. Arab uprisings in their early spreading appeared legally responsible and with concrete demands from representatives’ peoples, calling for a more open democratic system and reasonable governance. Even though, the system in which popular frustration with government imposes alters considerably from one state to another. These public revolts against different authoritative governments didn’t halt just in Arab states, but they sustained also in the Far East and in the Eastern Europe. Can we say that the popular uprisings in Arab countries could be attributed to the term of globalization? In fact, globalization is a multi...
The book “Understanding the Arab Awakening” was written by Kenneth Pollack and his colleagues following the events in the Middle East in order to discuss the causes of the massive uprisings, why the results of revolution varied from country to country and what kind of conclusions they help draw for the international observers in general and the United States in its policy towards the region in particular. With the introduction section of the book being taken as the point of analysis, the following paper supports the argument proposed by Kenneth Pollack that the Arab Spring mainly happened due to social unrest caused by poor economic situation across the entire Middle East which was enabled by the ruling regimes, the majority of which mostly shared the authoritarian, generally unstable, character. He critically considered the role of the US, deeming its clear distinction between short-term and long-term interests taken before invalid and required to change. However, there are some grey areas in his work that could possibly undermine his end-of-section recommendations, mainly the degree of importance attributed to the US actions for regulating the situation in the Middle East and the lack of evidence of how exactly the US would pursue its aims. The careful consideration of the article will follow the chronological order Pollack himself chose to persuasively present his case.