Call At: +919779121071   |       Email:adminanytimehelp@gmail.com
Question & Answers
Home > Q/A
It is not a large shock that the Industrial Revolution began in England. It was in a state of hegemony, meaning that it globally was able to exert influence on both the
Posted On: Nov. 17, 2017
Author: Shipra


It is not a large shock that the Industrial Revolution began in England. It was in a state of hegemony, meaning that it globally was able to exert influence on both the economic and political level. (Getz & Brooke, 2012) It was during the half century at the end of the Napoleonic wars that they were able to distinguish themselves as a power to be reckoned with. In looking at what we learned about the Enlightenment and the spread of ideas in mathematics and science it is little wonder that the focus of these fields would turn to inventing something to make peoples lives easier and to make products that could be bought and sold. One of the reasons that England was such a hotbed of activity during this time is that they had easy access to coal which was used to power the industrial machines. This meant that they needed the people to dig for the coal and workers in the factories. This effectively created a larger middle class and brought in economic and raw material revenue to the country allowing their coffers to be filled. Unfortunately the machines that were built were made more for coal and steam power as opposed to the animal, person or wind power that had been known to power the inventions during this time. Another unfortunate moment was that not all countries had access to the coal needed and had to improvise with what they had available. Take Egypt for instance. While they did manage to grow it was not at the exponentially large or furiously fast rate of England. The inventions that they were able to get their hands on had to be powered with people or animal. However, on the bright side they were able to export cotton which helped their economy quite a bit as the lands that they had available were conducive to the growth of this crop. Getz, T.R., & Brooke, J.E. (2012). World History: The Human Experience from 1500 Ans: Jennifer, my classmate, I am agreed with your view regarding the Industrial Revolution. You are right that it began from England as it has the power of coal which the state used for its prosperity. The Enlightenment helped them in inventing the new techniques for making their lives easier and comfortable. But some of the countries did not have enough coal to raise their economy.



VIEW FILE
The first man-made plastic was made by Alexander Parkes in 1862 in London
Posted On: Nov. 13, 2017
Author: Shipra


HISTORY OF PLASTICS The first man-made plastic was made by Alexander Parkes in 1862 in London known as Parkesine. This is an organic material which can be molded when heated and regain its shape when it is cooled. Then cellulose was invented by John Wesley Hyatt in 1870 as a substitute of the ivory in billiard balls. After cellulose, formaldehyde (bakelite) was the next advancement in plastic around 1897. Below is the further advancement in plastics: Material Year Discovered by NATURAL RUBBER 1839 GOODYEAR VULCANITE 1843 HANCOCK GUTTA-PERCHA 1843 MONTGOMERIE SHELLAC 1856 CRITCHLOW BOIS DURCI 1856 LEPAGE PARKESINE 1862 PARKES XYLONITE 1869 SPILL CELLULOID 1870 HYATT CELLULOID PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM 1889 GOODWIN VISCOSE 1892 CROSS, BEVAN & BEADLE CELLULOSE ACETATE 1894 CROSS & BEVAN CASEIN 1903 KUNTH BAKELITE 1907 BAEKELAND DAMARD LACQUER 1910 SWINBURNE POLYVINYL ACETATE 1913 KLATTE UREA FORMALDEHYDE 1918 JOHN POLYACRYLATES 1927 ROHM & HAAS BEETLE THIOUREA 1928 ROSSITER POLYSTYRENE 1929 IG FARBEN NEOPRENE 1930 CAROTHERS POLYESTERS & POLYAMIDES 1930 CAROTHERS POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE 1932 CRAWFORD - I C I MELAMINE 1933 HENKEL POLYVINYLCHLORIDE 1933 SEMON - B. F. GOODRICH POLYESTER RESIN 1933 CARLTON ELLIS Material Year Discovered by POLYETHYLENE (LOW DENSITY) 1933 GIBSON & FAWCETT- ICI POLYVINYLIDENE CHLORIDE 1933 WILEY - DOW NYLON 66 1935 HILL - DU PONT NYLON 6 1938 SCHLACK PTFE 1938 PLUNKETT- DU PONT POLYURETHANE 1939 BAYER - IG FARBEN EPOXIDE RESIN 1939 CASTAN POLYACRYLONITRILE 1940 DU PONT POLY(ETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE) 1941 WHINFIELD AND DICKSON SILICONES 1943 KIPPING POLYETHYLENE (HIGH DENSITY) 1953 ZIEGLER POLYPROPYLENE 1954 NATTA POLYCARBONATE 1958 FOX POLYFORMALDEHYDE 1959 McDONALD ETHYLENE VINYL ACETATE (EVA) 1960 DU PONT POLYIMIDE 1962 DU PONT POLYPHENYLENE OXIDE (PPO) 1964 GENERAL ELECTRIC POLYSULPHONE 1965 UNION CARBIDE 5



VIEW FILE
If I was the manager of a marketing department of a collegiate university I would
Posted On: Nov. 11, 2017
Author: Shipra


If I was the manager of a marketing department of a collegiate university I would constantly be promoting in our local area. I believe that public relations are key in marketing and a local college is actually pretty easy to market to a community. It's already part of the community and many local citizens will be affiliated with the school as either a student, alumni or faculty worker. Involving athletes, coaches and members of the athletic department in volunteering and being visible in local high school and youth sports can go a long way in developing a brand loyalty with those in the local community. As long as a college has a backing within it's local community it can have a strong base and therefore be able to branch out. Finding ways to get sports teams on national television is very important but more important is taking advantage of the attention with commercials and branding within the game. Having an excellent crowd that is involved in the game can help develop a reputation as well as making sure the team is exciting and displays a winning attitude. I would constantly be looking for opportunities to play in pre-season tournaments or games that would be televised nationally. Emphasizing local traditions can also help establish an identity for fans outside the local community to grasp onto. Being creative and recognizing what your team and local community do well and marketing it can be keys to successfully operating a strong, well-know sports program. Public relations play a very important role in brand building. This is especially true when we are trying to promote ourselves in a local area or community. The visibility of the team is improved as there are chances that as part of the community some citizens may have been associated with the college at one time or other a student, teacher, or parent. Public relations, coupled with standard methods of promotion would help in building a suitable marketing strategy for the university.



VIEW FILE
Personally, I would argue that language affects our thoughts and behaviors. I would
Posted On: Nov. 11, 2017
Author: Shipra


Personally, I would argue that language affects our thoughts and behaviors. I would agree with Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As a teacher I try to eliminate all offensive language in my vocabulary, I beat myself up over it if I catch myself using it. It’s best to get into the practices of not using it because if you use it in your home life and then try not to use it in your profession, you are bound to slip up at some point. How we speak is a representation of ourselves. We use language to express ourselves, we speak how we feel and that is our thoughts and actions. Now if we mix it up and watch what we say, carefully avoiding inappropriate comments and language then we are presenting ourselves better therefore our demeanor changes from negative to positive. This isn’t always the case and in some ways by become more aware of inappropriate comments we can still keep language that we are speaking, but avoid the harmful comments. We don’t have to change by tweaking our languages. I don’t think that efforts to be more politically sensitive have gone too far personally. I think that it needs to be a little more wide spread then what it is now. I think that efforts could be made a little more in less educated parts, but for the most part I think that more people need to be more aware and understanding on others emotions. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me? Scientists have found that the sting of rejection fires up the same neural pathways as the pain from a burn or bruise (Raffensperger, 2012). Words hurt and sometimes they can be so painful that it causes heartache. I remember when I was in middle school, I went to a school where I was the minority and I remember having this girl in P.E that used to pick on me and call me names just because of my skin color. I would go home and cry. Word can hurt so badly that kids turn to suicide and drugs. Luckily I told my father whom didn’t take to kindly to the situation and got ahold of the dean and the issue was taken care of. References Raffensperger, L. (2012). Words can never hurt me?(emotional pain and hurt feelings after heart breaks)(Viewpoint essay). New Scientist, (2893), 32. How we chose our words and use them in conversation really matters as has been beautifully explained by the above writer in the end of the discussion. We must try to control our language and make sure that the words we chose are polite and not hurting others. For this a conscious attempt has to be made both at home and in our professional life as well. We cannot take two different stands and speak one language at home and other in our work life. Sooner or later how we talk at home will definitely get manifested in our work life also. And in the process, we might hurt others feelings and cause a negative impression of ours on their mind.



VIEW FILE
The rise of Islam The period 622-1500 C.E witnessed expansion of Muslim civilization right out of
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion The rise of Islam The period 622-1500 C.E witnessed expansion of Muslim civilization right out of Arabian Desert to different parts of Asia, Africa and certain sections of Western and Eastern Europe. In this period Safavid and the Ottoman Empires adopted questionable strategies to dominate these parts of the world from the seventh century right up to the sixteenth century. It all started after unsuccessful invasion of Mongols in the 1200s. Turks and Mongolian tribes started migrating and adopted the Persian customs and language whole heartedly. A century later, Ilkhanids, a dynasty founded by the grandson of Genghis Khan proved to be a powerful factor in Persia. These were disorderly times, and the Persians sought solace in Islamic devotion and Sufism. Another reason for the spread of Safavid was the revenue reform that was attempted by reviving religious tenet. Safavids were of militant Islamic Sufi order. They survived the onslaught of Timur in that region of Iran, where they stayed up to late 13th century. Safavids were followers of Shi’a branch of Islam and used military power for spreading Shi’sm. Their devotion to their religious leader was unchallenged and they looked upon him as the ideal guide and military commander. They followed patriarchal society norms, where power was supposed to be passed on from father to son. This was the tradition of Shi’as. The uncompromising belief of the Shi’as in their righteousness, led to dissent and spread of Ottoman empire. They also ruled diligently and brought about a lot of reforms in the administration. All this resulted in the spread of domain of Safavid and Ottoman empire in the period mentioned. Reference Savory R. (1980) Iran under the Safavids Cambridge University Press xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Eastern Question (1500-1900) Week 1 discussion 2 It has been claimed by the historians that modern and pre- modern times are clearly separated by the year 1500. The reason for the same is that European nations contributed their might to create huge empires across the globe. However, when viewed from geographical perspective, it is clear that Muslim states had great influence in the above period. For example, Ottoman Empire was moving westward, the influence of Safavid dynasty was booming and the several strong Muslim Khanates ruled Central and Southern part of Asia. However, it is evident from the turn of events of that century that Muslim empires lost their shine and power. The reason for the same can be explained by examining Ottoman Empire. Several internal and external factors were responsible for the decline of Ottoman Empire. Death of Suleiman, who was energetic and influential, was one of the major internal factors. On top of that, the Ottoman Empire failed to produce capable and active leaders. The sultans were spending their time more at the court and worldly pleasures. In the absence of a strong leader at the helm, corruption was rampant and became a major issue. The practice of son following the father in gaining all the rights of the religious leader and military chieftain, converted the empire into a hereditary class virtually turning lazy and soft. Since the size of the empire grew, leading the army by the sultan became difficult. this caused loss of motivation and morale among the army. It became difficult to conquer new states. Due to the fact that it took a long time for the army to reach the frontier, Turks could not conquer new lands and thus lost the opportunity to gain additional revenues. Traditionally, Turks had an upper hand in the spice trade. But this economic factor hurt the Ottoman Empire as Portuguese found a new route circumventing Africa to reach India for a new spice route to Asia. It resulted in Turks losing out their dominance on the spice trade with Europe. Spanish Empire brought a huge amount of gold and silver from the Americas to Europe thus causing inflation during the 1500s. its effect was also felt in the Ottoman Empire. It caused deep root erosion to its revenues, resulting into economic decline. This economic decline hurt the empire militarily as it could not gain an edge or superiority in their battle. on the other hand, European armies were continuously upgrading their artillery which resulted in better and superior striking power. Turks had to spend a lot of money to safeguard their frontiers that took its toll to draining of its coffers. Europeans were focusing more on imparting the concept of discipline to their armies, something which Turks failed to do and thus found them inferior to the European armies. Economic decay was followed by political void. The World War I was the ultimate shocker that destroyed the Ottoman Empire completely. reference Palmer A. (2011) The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire Faber & Faber



VIEW FILE
Week 2 discussion 1 Domestic reformation(s) of the Ottoman and Persian Empires: 1800-1914
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion Week 2 discussion 1 Domestic reformation(s) of the Ottoman and Persian Empires: 1800-1914 Before the start of the world war I, the Ottoman Empire was referred to as the ‘sick man of Europe’, a term disputed by several historians. While Russia and Great Britain tried to broaden their influences during 19th and early 20th century, research has indicated that several internal reforms were carried out by both Ottoman and Persian Empires. This initiative was taken to keep pace with Europeans influence and modernize the administration etc. in accordance with European practices. Whether these reforms were successful or not is a debatable point. It was Wahabis, who brought a big change in the administration and religious thinking. Ibn’Abd al’Wahab lectured that all innovations had to be within the teachings of Qur’an or accepted haadith. All other actions were sin. This was supported by Hanbali legal doctrine. He was a critic of magic, sorcery, fortune-telling, invocations, amulets, talismans. He even opposed the shrines of local saints. His teachings were modern and practical as he denounced greed and usury. He considered poor as blessed children of God. Al-Wahhab was a firm believer of equality and took strong objection to servile hand –kissing. His ethical values found favors with many as they were elementary and easy to understand e.g. keeping promises, being patient, not lying, not slandering, not gossiping, not being indiscreet and helping the blind. He hated meanness, envy, perjury, and cowardice. His biggest flaw was intolerance of Muslims who did not subscribe to his line of thinking and considered them infidels. His thoughts prompted his followers to destroy the gravestones and monuments of saints, going to the extent of burning the books of the adversaries. He encouraged pilgrimages to the Ka’ba in Mecca and banned all others. He promoted Arabian nationalism and rejected the Hanafi doctrine of the Ottoman Sunnis. This included banning use of tobacco, hashish, rosaries, music and dancing that was practiced by the Sufis. It was Ibrahim Muteferrika, who promoted military reform and European science. He questioned as to why Europeans were flourishing the Muslim nations. It was the antiquated practices followed by the Turkish military that put the Ottoman Empire in danger. The tolerance to laziness and the indifference toward corruption led to decline of success achieved by the reforms carried out during the regime. Failure to adopt the new methods of western military technology led to the decline of the empire. Reference Strayer R.W. (2012) Ways of the World: A Brief Global History Bedford/St. Martin's Week 2 discussion 2 European ambitions and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire The end of World War I witnessed the partition of the Ottoman Empire that split it into individual small parts. These were administered by the League of Nations. This resulted into the dominance of Great Britain and France ruling the erstwhile countries of the Middle East. The conflict of World War I affected the Middle East the most. The Ottoman Empire, after almost four centuries of continuous rule collapsed and thus created a void. This led to tensions amongst the locals and outsiders who had an interest in the affairs of the Middle East. While Ottoman Empire retained its neutrality for quite some time, refusing to join the warring parties, it adopted the policy of aggressiveness later on by declaring military war against France, Russia and Great Britain. Its rulers were motivated by the German industrial and military power and dreamed big to capture its past glory that was lost in the setbacks in Libya and the Balkans. The Ottoman/Turkish army was huge that consisted of 600,000 troops with an unknown quality. But combined with the Germans as allies, it posed a grave threat to the British Empire. As a pre-emptive action, Britain deployed their force at Basra near the estuary of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. The objective was to safeguard the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline, which was vital to the British navy. It was also a show of strength of the British to the Persians. However, this attempt was defeated by a surprise attack against Britain’s life line, the Suez Canal. The attackers however could not succeed and incurred heavy losses. It was the lure of bags of gold, promise of Arab independence and the diplomatic efforts that encouraged an Arab rebellion in 1916 against the Turks. Ultimately the Arabs ended up having considerable independent territory; a lot of them felt that the British failed to honor their pledges of independence. They felt that western powers, especially British acted with conceit and left the Arab nations with borders that were unacceptable to them. It created nations the creation of which was done with total disregard to the sentiments of the local inhabitants. The result of the same is there for us to see, where we are mute witness to the conflict between Arab nations and the Palestine as well as dispute between Shia and Sunni streams of Muslims. Reference Karsh E. & Inari Karsh (1999) Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923 Harvard University Press



VIEW FILE
The origins of the Israeli –Palestinian dispute Week 3 discussion 1 The Arab Israeli conflict involves various entities and players. The conflict started as
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion The origins of the Israeli –Palestinian dispute Week 3 discussion 1 The Arab Israeli conflict involves various entities and players. The conflict started as a regional one between the Jews and the Palestinians, and spread to Israel and Arab States. It took the shape of International conflict that started with Ottoman Empire and Britain & France , that later spread to conflict between USSR and US. The conflict is basically over land, religion and nations states. One can also view it as a conflict between Jews and Muslims. It deals with the issue of self defense versus self determination. There is a competition between nationalism and fundamentalism. Imperialist rivalry led to interference that led to proxy war between competing superpowers. The major issue was that of “Oil” that has fuelled the dispute with interference of Britain and Americans in the region. Historically the first settlement in Palestine was at Jericho and later on by Egyptians around 15th century BC. Moses escaped from Egypt and then returned to the Promised Land. Subsequently Israeli king David conquered Jerusalem in 1000 BC. Later on Romans conquered Palestine and ruled it for almost 700 years. Islamic empire gained prominence in the 8th Century AD. Zionism is the belief in the restoration of Eretz Yisrael –Jewish homeland in Palestine to protect Jews from persecution. It gained importance amongst European Jews. The idea was officially adopted in Zionist World Conference held in 1897. It was in response to the reaction against anti-Semitism in Europe. Russians forced Jews to live separately which amounted to apartheid. A number of Jews migrated to Europe and Palestine. Publication of an article Der Judensaat in 1896 by Theodore Herzl led to idea of uniting the Diaspora( dispersal of Jewish communities around the world) . Zionist Jews believed that God had chosen them to carry His message . Centuries of persecution of Jews had created a strong national sentiment and a longing for peace and security of the home land of their own. Anti –Semitism , which is a special kind of hatred of the Jews , which has its origin in the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Jews were seen as root of all evil, corrupt and satanic. For centuries, they were made scapegoats. Impact of World War I led to collapse of Ottoman Empire. Both France and Britain had significant interests in the Middle East. British and French controlled the Middle East between them the former held Palestine and Iraq and the later Syria and Lebanon. Britain needed support of Arabs to help defeat Turks. They encouraged a revolt against Ottoman rulers in exchange of independence and land. Palestine was an important and strategic area for Allies during World War II as it provided access to Mediterranean and oil fields. British gave in to the demands of Arabs to restrict jewfish immigration. Strong resistance against British due to appeasement of Arabs, led Zionist leaders turn to USA for support. US supported the call for Jewish state in the western Palestine and unlimited immigration. Arabs saw British and French as common enemy. The rulers collaborated with the Germans and helped organize a revolt against the British in Iraq. Amin al-Husseini called for a holy war against the British. However, due to support of the moderate Arabs in the British war, thousands of Palestinians joined the British Army. In 1945, Arab League consisting of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia , Yemen, Syria , Lebanon and Trans Jordan was formed . It maintained its opposition to Israel and immigration of Jews after the holocaust. Britain wanted to maintain control in region and now threatened by the Soviet Union’s growing influence (later to become the Cold War 1948-1990). USA under President Truman took on cause of Jewish displaced persons. US also had rival interests to Soviet Union in region and attempted to block them. The US supported partitioning Palestine but Britain rejected this idea and referred the problem to the newly formed United Nations in 1947. By now the conflict had grown from a local one to regional clash between Jews and the surrounding Arab nations (Arab League). Balfour Declaration Nov 2 1917 British PM David Lloyd George favoured Jewish homeland in1916. He hoped the large Jewish populations in US and Russia would influence their Governments in WW1. Members of British Govt. thought a Jewish homeland would help Great Britain control Palestine post-war era. They preferred this to the Sykes-Picot Agreement which ceded land to Arabs and French sphere of influence. Zionist leader Dr ChaimWeizmann lobbied British Govfor Eretz Yisrael through 1917.on 2 Nov 1917 Britain issued statement called BalfourDeclaration (named after the British Foreign Secretary Alfred Balfour). Declaration was approved by France and US. This declaration regarded as a victory by Zionists. Arabs condemned it because land was promised to them in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence.



VIEW FILE
REVOLUTIONARY NATIONALISM AND THE MIDDLE EAST Nationalism and revolution are interlinked. Nationalism invariably leads to revolution
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History REVOLUTIONARY NATIONALISM AND THE MIDDLE EAST Nationalism and revolution are interlinked. Nationalism invariably leads to revolution in a country. However, it is not just confined to insurrection but has a much broader meaning attached to it. According to our text, Gelvin (2011) observes that “All nationalists believe that nations can be identified by certain characteristics that all its citizens hold in common. These characteristics include the linguistic, ethnic, religious, or historical traditions that make a nation distinctive. All nationalists…are linked across time by [a common] language, literary tradition, and history” (Gelvin, page 209). The period of early nineteenth century was a crucial time in the Middle East, when nationalism was at its peak. It is the geographic, linguistic, and religious heterogeneity of the region that has acted as catalyst and fuelled several nationalist movements. The influence of the European environment where nationalism was becoming a referral for collective identity acted as an inspiration for the inhabitants of the Middle East. Their religious distinctiveness took shape and led to revolution. It gained momentum, first with Christian minorities that was later on adopted by the Muslim majority. The most well known among these were the Maronites of Mount Lebanon and the Armenians of eastern Anatolia. These were the ones who focused on having separate identity and right to political autonomy. Assistance of Europeans helped Lebanon gain autonomous status within the Ottoman Empire by the 1860s. However, Armenia was not so lucky in this aspect where the active nationalist movement of the people met with conflict with the Ottoman state and the predominance of Turkish and Kurdish population in that region(Choueiri 2000). The net result was that the fear of nationalism resulted into mass expulsion and massacre of the Armenians by the Ottoman government in the early twentieth century. Egypt and Iran had their individual geographical areas that existed as autonomous bodies. These had their separate ruling composition. Iran had it since the sixteenth century and Egypt had it later since the start of the nineteenth century. These influenced the westernized population of both Egypt and Iran to emphasize their individual existence of that being unique nations during the later part of the century. The nationalism of Egyptians was witnessed when its elite population demanded greater control over the original ruling Ottoman family as well as the financial domination of the Europeans. This was the result of the extravagance of the dynastic ruling family. This led to the nationalist slogan "Egypt for the Egyptians". It clearly showed the powerful push towards the nationalist movement. The nationalist activity in Iran took shape from the 1890s that was a result of the combined effect of dynastic ineptitude and the penetration of foreign economic force. This resulted in a movement that changed the constitution of Iran at the start of the twentieth century. The same was true for the Turks of Anatolia and the Arabs of the Fertile Crescent. These were under the rule of Ottoman during the nineteenth century and in these countries also the factors that led to nationalist movement were the same (Urian et al 1999). What made the uprising different here was the presence of ethnic identity for modern Turkish and Arab nationalism. The discovery of pre- Islamic history of the Turkic – speaking people in Central Asia and beyond cultivated a bond with the Muslim community, which was different from the multiethnic Ottoman Empire (Watenpaugh 2006). In the case of Arabs, the process was termed as the “Arab Awakening”, which turned out to be flourishing of the Arabic literature and awareness of the glorious history that made its presence felt in middle of nineteenth century. Simultaneously, increased elite contact with the Europeans left a profound impact about the presence of European way of thinking, which in turn, played a key role in the development and spread of nationalism in the Middle East. Nationalism is a concept worth “stealing” by those who are fascinated by what transpired in European nations. It was the course of actions taken by the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century that were instrumental in bringing together and creating an ethnic bond into Turkish and Arab nationalist movements. The rulers of the Ottoman Empire saw it crumbling and the dominance of African nations and falling into the hands of the Europeans was a troubling sight for the nationalists. Simultaneously, the nationalist saw Balkans gaining independence, which propelled the thought of a similar dismemberment and search for a feasible alternative as a separate community (Karsh 2000). The Ottoman government was creating a sort of hindrance as the educated and elite Arabs and Turks were being influenced by the values of individual liberty and participatory politics of their European mentors. The nationalism movement of the Turkish and Arabs gained prominence in the early twentieth century. The establishment of Turkish Society, Turkish Health Clubs with help from the media acted as a force to enjoin and unite all Turkish – speaking people in an ethnically based common state, where their voice was heard. The efforts of the government in increased centralization also affected the gaining of supremacy of Turkish as a primary language of the state. Sometimes Turks were given preference by the state, which, to some extent, acted in favor of gaining nationalist movement. Similar types of trends at organizational and intellectual level also took place in the Arabic –speaking provinces of the Fertile Crescent. All this gave rise to the emergence of new Arab societies with their own political agenda. Demand for Arab autonomy gained momentum by wide publicity in the press, which led to declaration of promotion Ottoman decentralization, during the meeting of the Arab Congress held in 1913 in Paris. Close to the end of World War I, several well-known individuals and secret societies started raising their voice to claim for Arab independence. They saw this as the only alternative to avoid subjugation to the Turkish state. Compared to that, the Jewish nationalism did not felt the need for a distinctive nationalism. They already exhibited a sense of collectiveness and solidarity. This was shared by all Jews, irrespective of the place of their stay, be it in Europe or the US or any other country. It was the common language (Hebrew), the rich and distinctive customs and the isolation as well as discrimination suffered from time to time that prompted a feeling of solidarity amongst them(Khalidi 2013). The nationalist movement of the active Jews was based on a sense of uniqueness. This was the direct result of the process of emancipation and absorption of experiences by Jews in several parts of Europe during the nineteenth century. This historical change brought about acceptance of modern nationalist concepts. The anti- Semitism of the European led to them questioning their existence and future especially where they were being considered as alien (Karsh2007). The rising anti-Semitism in the Russian Empire in the 1880s, led to emergence of Zionist societies in Eastern Europe. Subsequently they started organizing en masse immigration to Ottoman Palestine. Establishment of the international organization of Jews, by the name the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in the year 1897, led to founding of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine that was sanctioned by the public law. WZO worked systematically to encourage Jewish migration and develop distinctive Jewish national institution in the Palestine itself. References Choueiri Y.M. (2000) Arab Nationalism: A History Nation and State in the Arab World Wiley Watenpaugh K.D. (2006) Being Modern in the Middle East: Revolution, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Arab Middle Class Princeton University Press, Khalidi R. (2013) Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness Columbia University Press Karsh E. (2000) Israel: Israel's transition from community to state Taylor & Francis Urian D., Efraim Karsh(1999) In Search of Identity: Jewish Aspects in Israeli Culture Frank Cass Karsh( E.2007) Islamic Imperialism: A History Yale University Press



VIEW FILE
According to Gelvin (2011, p. 33) all of the imperial governments during the
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion According to Gelvin (2011, p. 33) all of the imperial governments during the seventeenth century were faced with the inability to maintain authority over their territory. In fact, the seventeenth century was such a turbulent period it was dubbed ‘crisis of the seventeenth’. “The Safavid Empire was so weakened by numerous calamities that in 1722 it became easy prey for invaders from the north” (Gelvin, 2011, p. 33). The Safavid Empire was established in 1501 under the rule of Shah Isma’il who would use religion to validate his ruling of the empire. Most of the empires began to wane in many areas but none more prevalent than economically. "Beginning about 1500, the system of world empires began to change into what is called the 'modern world system' or 'modern world economy'" (Gelvin, 2011, p. 37). Although politically divided, the world empires were united economically. However, inflation would become the object behind the crisis the seventeenth century. Historians believed this is probably due to the rapid expansion of territory and a dependency on cash (Gelvin, 2011, p. 33). The Safavid Empire was a huge part of the stability and expansion of the Middle East economy which was primarily due its ability to monopolize the trade industry between East Indies and Europe along with the Ottoman Empire. Of course, this would not last once the European merchants began to seek alternative routes that would take them around both the Ottoman and Safavid Empire. The European Merchants would instead choose to travel entirely by sea traveling south around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope (Gelvin, 2011, p. 38). By the end of the seventeenth century Europe would control most of the Safavid Empire’s trade industry. With the Ottoman’s constantly encroaching on their territory, the Safavid Empire sought protection from Great Britain. The Safavid Empire would remain in political distress throughout most its existence impartially due to internecine issues; however, they would continue to change socially. Gelvin, J. L. (2011). The modern middle east (Third ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. With passage of time, it became obvious that religion cannot act as a common bond to unite people. Moreover, the influence of Europeans was another factor that led to the change in mindset of people. When they saw cash and prosperity, they were also attracted towards it. The inflation was another cause of the downfall of the two empires. This was coupled with capturing of trade by the Europeans that game them superiority over others. The political void and inability to sustain influence by the rulers was the pinnacle of their failure.



VIEW FILE
Explain, using specific examples, how the Safavid and the Ottoman Empires
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion Explain, using specific examples, how the Safavid and the Ottoman Empires managed their multifaceted dominions. To explain how each empire ruled I believe it is important to understand how they were first formed. Ottoman. Taken from the name Osman, chosen as the divine leader of the warriors ghazis, the Ottoman Empire became united as Osman territories were closer to the Byzantine Empire which meant better plunder on raids which attracted many more warrior. As the concentration of warriors grew so did the means necessary to support central government (Gelvin, 2011, p. 22). Peasants moved onto the land to escape the oppressive Byzantines, they would eventually provide the means to support the region agriculturally by working the lands and providing for merchants and trade. Civilization was taking root from violence and adopted many customs and traditions, which included Islam. James Gelvin (2011) states that, “At its height, the Ottaman Empire governed a huge expanse of territory, not only in the Middle East, but in North Africa and Southeastern Europe – Greece, Hungary, the Balkans, Romania, Bulgaria” (p. 10). Descendants of Osman, Sultans would rule the Ottoman Empire until the end of the First World War, roughly 400 years. Safavid. As missionaries spread word throughout the regions (which I believe would be strategically important to gain support of the population) Turkish pastoralists in Persia gave their alliance to a 14 year old Safavid leader Isma’il who claimed descendent from Safi al-Din, whom the Safavid dynasty in named (Gelvin, 2011, p. 24). Seen as divine rule, Safi al-Din would begin conquering vast areas to claim as his Empire. James Gelvin (2011) would relate that while the Safavid Dynasty rule lasted half that of the Ottoman’s it was, “Centered in Persia but at its height included territories that stretched from the Caucasus Mountains in the north to eastern Iraq” (p. 10). Descendants of Isma’il, Shahs would rule the Safavid Empire for two hundred years until defeated by Afgans in 1722. Prior to the 16th century the middle east was ruled by loose bands and tribes that lacked a central government without any means to maintain a lasting authority over time, rather the tribal territories would be the region around wherever their armies were at that time and each tribes ability to rule was different and often boarders where defined by who won the latest battle or conflict in the region. At the beginning of the 16th century two distinct states would emerge, the Safavid and Ottaman Empire (Gelvin, 2011, p. 23). To determine how they managed their dominions as the discussion post requires us, I think the post is best answered as how they came about and maintained their governmental authority. So why were the Ottoman and Safavid Empires so different from the tribal chieftains? There are several distinct reasons: 1.) They had gunpowder which they used furiously and efficiently. The weaker less advanced tribes fell victim to the stronger, thus gave more territories and more wealth for their Empires. The first to harness gunpowder were the Ottomans (Gelvin, 2011, p. 26). 2.) They would used a newer more stable military-patron model by using a political bureaucracy and militarized slaves for the most part which enabled them to control government. This allowed them to collect revenue in the form of taxes on agricultural produced from lands and trade goods. Specifically, they used tax farming and agricultural monopolies (such as cereals, wood, and silk) for revenues (Gelvin, 2011, p. 28-30). 3.) Probably the most important reason, they had religion as a means to legitimate their rule (Gelvin, 2011, p. 30). The Ottoman and Safavid became threatened by each other which resulted in war; interestingly the war would create the boarders between the two nation states that would become the border between Iran and Turkey (Gelvin, 2011, p. 24). References The common thread between the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire was religion. It invariably binds communities as people can easily identify themselves with it. Another common bond between the two was that they rulers wanted to expand their territory and did their best by fair and unfair means. It is a question of the survival of the fittest, and weaker tribes, those that could not defend themselves were the victims of onslaught. With the increase in number of warriors, to support them and feed them, it was necessary to conquer more territories. That was another reason as to why the rulers tried to expand in different areas.



VIEW FILE
According to Galvin, the Islamic history began in 622 A.D. when the prophet
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion According to Galvin, the Islamic history began in 622 A.D. when the prophet Muhammad fled to western Arabia; in the town of Medina from his home in Mecca (Galvin, 2011). Muhammad was a merchant, but according to Muslims he recieved revelations for God's angle Gabriel and from being persecuted in Mecca, he started the first Islamic community in Medina (Galvin, 2011). Over the next ten years the community grew and with that growth this first community would stretch across the Arabian peninsula (Galvin, 2011). After Muhammad's death the Isalmic society went through a rapid expansion that would reach Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Levant (Galvin, 2011). The Islamic expansion pushed back the Byzantine Empire and would reach North Africa and the Mediterranean as they moved into Spain (Galvin, 2011). By the tnth century 70 to 80 percent of the Persian population was Muslim and their adopted language was Arabic (Galvin, 2011). Muhammad was adopted as God's prophet and religious question were left bup to religious scholars called, ulama (Galvin, 2011). The Safavid and the Ottoman Empires were called the "Gunpowder Empires" as theybrought a more militaristic rule to to the state of Islam (Galvin, 2011).These empires laid clam to the most important economic resource, which was the aquiring of land as their predecessors did before them (Galvin, 2011). The Ottoman's was one of two empires that adopted the use of gunpowder and would use those type of weapons against the Safavids at the Battle of Chaldiran (Galvin, 2011). Smarting from the battle, the Safavid adopted the use of gunpowder themselves (Galvin, 2011). These two military empires rule by Sultans and used this militaristic rule to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors (Galvin, 2011). Their decline came from a shift in attitudes toward military leadership and Sultans were replaced by Shahs (Gaslvin, 2011). Galvin, James L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A history (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. The Safavid and the Ottoman Empires used gunpowder and martial rule and were popularly known as the “Gunpowder Empires.” They did not want to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. However their strategy of ruling did not last long as influence of Europeans caught up with the inhabitants. as the requirement of resources grew with the expansion of territorial rule , religion no longer worked as a binding force.



VIEW FILE
History discussion According to Galvin, the Islamic history began in 622 A.D. when the prophet
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion According to Galvin, the Islamic history began in 622 A.D. when the prophet Muhammad fled to western Arabia; in the town of Medina from his home in Mecca (Galvin, 2011). Muhammad was a merchant, but according to Muslims he recieved revelations for God's angle Gabriel and from being persecuted in Mecca, he started the first Islamic community in Medina (Galvin, 2011). Over the next ten years the community grew and with that growth this first community would stretch across the Arabian peninsula (Galvin, 2011). After Muhammad's death the Isalmic society went through a rapid expansion that would reach Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Levant (Galvin, 2011). The Islamic expansion pushed back the Byzantine Empire and would reach North Africa and the Mediterranean as they moved into Spain (Galvin, 2011). By the tnth century 70 to 80 percent of the Persian population was Muslim and their adopted language was Arabic (Galvin, 2011). Muhammad was adopted as God's prophet and religious question were left bup to religious scholars called, ulama (Galvin, 2011). The Safavid and the Ottoman Empires were called the "Gunpowder Empires" as theybrought a more militaristic rule to to the state of Islam (Galvin, 2011).These empires laid clam to the most important economic resource, which was the aquiring of land as their predecessors did before them (Galvin, 2011). The Ottoman's was one of two empires that adopted the use of gunpowder and would use those type of weapons against the Safavids at the Battle of Chaldiran (Galvin, 2011). Smarting from the battle, the Safavid adopted the use of gunpowder themselves (Galvin, 2011). These two military empires rule by Sultans and used this militaristic rule to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors (Galvin, 2011). Their decline came from a shift in attitudes toward military leadership and Sultans were replaced by Shahs (Gaslvin, 2011). Galvin, James L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A history (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. The Safavid and the Ottoman Empires used gunpowder and martial rule and were popularly known as the “Gunpowder Empires.” They did not want to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. However their strategy of ruling did not last long as influence of Europeans caught up with the inhabitants. as the requirement of resources grew with the expansion of territorial rule , religion no longer worked as a binding force.



VIEW FILE
History discussion Week 2 discussion 1 Inayah Abdul-Matin 6/19/2014 11:59:10 AM "During the seventeenth century the nature of Ottoman-European relations
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion Week 2 discussion 1 Inayah Abdul-Matin 6/19/2014 11:59:10 AM "During the seventeenth century the nature of Ottoman-European relations began to change"(Gelvin, 2011). They were no longer undefeatable. This was the beginning of many changes for both empires. The Ottoman were forced out of various lands that they once controlled, the loss of many wars and economic issues pushing the Ottomans into defensive mode. The defensive development is also known as military reform. In order to make things less severe the Ottomans and Persians received help from the European states to help with recruitment, organization, technology, tactics and disciplinary issues. However the empire kept facing opposition from Europe because the Ottomans did not meet the needs of European state (Gelvin, 2011). Defensive Developmentalism was one way in which the Ottoman and Persian Empires tried to mitigate the European influence. Their first step was military reformation (reform) as their armies were becoming weaker with the times of change. These reforms helped the countries and empires to become more modernized. The defensive development and the Persian experience was somewhat similar, however this empire was built on the Safavid's empire. The biggest issues with the Safavid's was some of what the Ottomans experienced but more so internal issues of power. Beyond the capitals they were powerless. The Qajar Dynasty overthrew the Safavids in Iran. The Qajars kept position by keeping the balance through the society in tribes, regions, prices and products. Great Britain and Europe both wanted to influence Persia in attempt to inspire the tariffs imposed on export goods and control of the waterways to the South (Gelvin, 2011). They used various methods to alleviate the issues that contributed to their downfall that at the end of everything they were still unsuccessful. Gelvin, J. (2011). The Modern Middle East. Third Edition. New York, NY Thomas Hardy 6/19/2014 5:27:09 PM The Ottoman Empire during the crisis of the 17th century was weakened due to several factors. One of which was the influence of power of middle-management supervisors such as Ottoman sultans. The goal of the sultans was to centralized their state and increase power. "process of fragmentation and to centralize and expand their authority" (Gelvin 71).To start sultans reformed the military to mimic the European military which were more disciplined and organized then the Ottomans. A more disciplined military, a more European military assisted sultans with tax collection. Taxs also changed towards a more European style. Cash crops were the norm, however middle eastern lands lacked the fertile grounds that the European lands have and the cash crop theory backfired. Sultans mortgaged their future for a get rich quick scheme. A third way the Ottomans became more like the Europeans was in government. Citizens of the Ottoman empire wanted more power and say in the government. Citizens wanted a more constitutional style government. "In a series of revolts in an attempt to gain access to the corridors of power. Sometimes these revolts were led by civilians who demanded a greater role in governance. " (Gelvin 73). These revolts were very typical of their European counterparts. Gelvin, James L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Week 2 discussion 2 Marie Spicer 6/19/2014 1:55:09 PM According to Gelvin, the Ottoman Empire joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers (Gelvin, 2005) Russia was on the other side. “Even though the war had just become and had a long way to go the Allied Powers were looking toward carving up the Ottoman Empire after the war, ambitions that would change the political identity of the Middle East should it come under European colonialism”(Gelvin, 2005). “Russia wanted a port in the Turkish straits since Russia's are frozen in the winter months, and Russia also had its eyes on Palestine because of religion practices”(Gelvin, 2005). Then came The Sykes-Picot Agreement, the mandate period, was a "polite disguise for what a couple of decades earlier had been unabashedly called colonialism."(Kamrava, 2005). With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the the Middle East went through big and challenging changes. Mandates given to Great Britain and France by the League of Nations that drew contemporary borders also drew contemporary problems, such as Jordan's resource problem, and brought questions of national identities to places such as multi-ethnic Iraq. World War I was one of the most significant events in the history of the Middle East because of its effects, whether mandated by the League of Nations or otherwise(DeNovo, 1963). DeNovo, American Interests and Policies in the Middle East (University of Minnesota Press, 1963), 122 James Gelvin, History of the Modern Middle East (Oxford University Press, 2005), 173 Kamrava, The Modern Middle East (University of California Press, 2005), 36 Nicholas Fusari 6/19/2014 8:40:48 PM As we have noted earlier, the power of the Ottoman Empire had been shaky for some time when World War I rolled around. The fact that it was made up of such a diverse group of people was not an insignificant factor. So when World War I came to an end and it came time for the victors to take their spoils they carved up the empire and made official what had been happening for a while. The main beneficiaries were Britain and France because they were the ones on the winning side who were in the war from beginning to end so they had the most moral authority to decide on post war issues. Wilson had a little input with his Fourteen Points, but they were largely ignored in practice, including in the US. The division of lands in the Middle East that had once been under Ottoman rule were made based on the advantage it would have to their "mandates" rather than to their residents. Gelvin says that, "starting in 1915 the entent powers bgan negotiating secret treaties that pledged mutual support for the territorial claims made by themselves" (Gelvin, 2001, pg. 186). This process continued, largely without the consultation of the actual nations themselves, until the Paris Peace Conference when everything was somewhat finalized. A good example of the division not serving the needs or wants of the people is the creation of Iraq. Gelvin says, "On paper, Iraq appeared to be a good idea" (Gelvin, 2011, pg. 192). It's true, if there were no other factors involved in creating a nation this would have been a good one. But, alas, this was not the case. Whether or not it was known to the British at the time, I don't know, but the religious nature of the people involved has to be taken into account, and it wasn't. We can still see the result today. Gelvin, J. L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.



VIEW FILE
History discussion Off subject: I came across this article on Yahoo today while surfing the net instead
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion Off subject: I came across this article on Yahoo today while surfing the net instead of starting on our homework assignment. I had read and of course seen the move Lawrence of Arabia, but never heard of Gertrude of Arabia. The article is written very well and touches on the political history of Iraq and how Persia was defined and borders. It probably has to do with Post 2 more than this one, but I will not do the second post for this week until tomorrow. Here is the link: http://news.yahoo.com/woman-invented-iraq-094500726--politics.html Ok, back on track. James Gelvin (2011) states, “all would agree that the Middle East underwent widespread social, economic, and cultural changes during the 19th century and these changes propelled Middle East societies in an entirely new direction” (p. 70). So I guess our question is what was the catalyst to these changes? To do so I believe it is important to understand the term defensive developmentalism as a necessary shift in policies to strengthen their governments and make them more proficient in managing populations and resources as the threats of internal and external forces to mitigate influences of European powers (Gelvin, 2011, p. 71-72). 1. The first reform undertaken by the Ottoman and Persian Empires was to reform their militaries. The Ottoman and Qajar Empires fashioned their military after European nations to promote their independence, project power internally to protect for foreign aggression whereas, Mehmet Ali in Egypt sought military reform as a means to protect his country from not only Europe, but more importantly the Ottoman Empire while strengthening Egypt’s power in the region (Gelvin, 2011, p. 72). Military reform was a double edges sword (nun intended) as it created a system that produced a newer class of professional soldiers that were better educated, equipped, and would later demand roles in government throughout the Ottoman Empires. 2. The Second reform to be undertaken was economic and supported by the new military. Tax/revenue reform and elimination of tax farming would be the next step towards modernization. Empires sought tax reforms as a means to promote and control populations which they felt would create stability. Through government programs such as cash crops, standard education, standard legal codes, and coordinated economic planning the Empires created a new professional class of intellectuals and bureaucrats (Gelvin, 2011, p. 72 -73). The 1858 Ottoman Land Code would put landownership out of reach for peasants and enabled families and ambitious individuals with money to invest to gain access to rural property and would create large estates that directly impacted social development (Gelvin, 2011, p. 102). This also created many problems as you can imagine as people became more educated they became more aware of their circumstances and demanded a larger role for themselves in their societies. Many would demand a Constitutional government. These reform policies would also cause significant problems n the Empire economies as import and export trade treaties were forced upon them by Russia and European nations. All who were afraid that if the Ottoman and Persian Empires had monopolies they would set prices and/or flood Europe and Russia with the cheaper good creating an industrial recession. Europe and Russia made moved to keep the Empire from economic development that would revival their own. Specifically, “1828 the Russians forced Persians to agree to a ridiculously low five percent tariff on goods imported from Russia while Persian merchants were paying upward of 20 percent to export the same products” and “1838, the British forced the Ottomans to sign a treaty to abolishing monopolies in their territories and setting the same ridiculously low – five percent tariffs on British imports” (Gelvin, 2011, p. 74). Ultimately this caused the Empires to pay more for their goods than Europe/Russia was at the time causing significant inflation. In 1905, sugar merchants were beaten after they were accused of price gouging despite the fact that foreign merchants would sale the same goods at a significantly lower price than the local merchants (Gelvin, 2011, p. 150). To through salt on the wound, to support these reforms the Empires were borrowing more money than they were bringing in. Egypt would fare a deal better during this period than Ottoman and Persia. Ali Mehmet established monopolies on cash crops (cotton) then moved his armies across Egypt into Sudan which gave him access to raw materials then assisted Ottoman’s to put down a revolt in Greece that gave them access to Syria with better access to ports and the foreign trade routes (Gelvin, 2011, p. 75). Cotton would fuel an economic boom that helped build the Suez Canal and an opera house in Cairo, but riding high on the prices of cotton during the American Civil War the Egyptians could not see the forth coming collapse in prices (Gelvin, 2011, p. 76). This too would come to with a tremendous cost as the Empire became more industrial the traditional family unit was disrupted and Egypt falling into serious recession eventually declared bankruptcy. Ultimately all the Empires economies collapsed and they would continue to fuel the European and Russian markets with little in return and would continue to foster the role of colonial Imperialism. Imperialism was another significant contributor to the modernization of the Middle East with the main goal to integrate target societies into the modern world market (Gelvin, 2011, p. 87). Colonial governments or administrative zones would be just as modern as the nation they supported. The world was becoming increasingly a global society fueled by a global market. Additionally, we cannot ignore that with modernization culture and society was becoming more intelligent and as discussed previously with more educated classes there would be challenges to authority. As the Empires developed there would be various social and religious reforms that would take place and shape that period and region. I particularly like this passage from the text (Gelvin, 2011) to describe how modern social developed, “the modern state is far more capable of harnessing the social power of its citizens than any of its precursors, and so any political movement that wants to survive has to adapt to the ways of the modern world, not matter what language it uses to justify its policies” (p. 135). Also, we should look at how modernization impacted Islam. Islam would be tested as the Islamic teachings of the Qur’an did not include new social issues faced by an advanced society. Page 136 of the text (Gelvin, 2011) confronts a few of the new problems faced by Muslims in the modern society and argues they ultimately had to make a choice. Specifically, Gelvin (2011) states, “Muslims faced two choices: restrict the domain of Islamic law to those issues that corresponded to the issues faced by the first community (pious ancestors), or somehow expand the range of issues Islamic law might deal with” (p. 136). Many communities were split on which approach to make, just as Shari law is established in some communities today and other rebut it. One thing is for certain, this was a huge topic that can be continuously debated. Wish you all the best of luck with the reading and post. References Gelvin, J. L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History. (3rd ed.) Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc The reforms took place in stages. The first one was focused on bringing about changes in the military and making it more powerful. The empires followed the trend of the European nations and made sure that their armies are well equipped to handle internal as well as external strife. This system produced soldiers who were professional and educated and equipped to handle all kinds of emergencies. The only snag was that they ended up demanding more roles in running the government in the Ottoman Empire. After completion of military reforms, the next step was to carry out economic reforms. It was clear to the rulers that unless economic reforms are carried out, they won’t be able to survive the onslaught of the European nations. These reforms were also necessary to support the augmentation of military. The flip side of reforms was that several treaties were imposed upon the empire by Russians and European nations, which were not beneficial to the empire. Egypt was the only country that fared better than others. However, in the end , all these countries helped European nations to prosper and gave them a chance to spread colonization and imperialism.



VIEW FILE
Beginning with the Constantinople Agreement followed by The Treaty of London
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion Beginning with the Constantinople Agreement followed by The Treaty of London, Treaty of Saint-Jean de Maurine and Sykes-Picot Agreement at conclusion of the First World War multiple secret treaties would carve out the Ottoman Empire and Middle East under stipulation that for fighting the victories had rights to territories as compensation (Gelvin, 2011, p. 186 – 187). The problem with these secret agreements is that everyone has a different view of what they mean and how they were to be implemented. The focus of our post is the Sykes-Picot Agreement which would ultimately divide the Middle East into Syria and Lebanon for the French; Israel, Palestinian, Jordon, and Iraq for the British, thus creating new nations. These new nations were at odds from the beginning as the new borders were drawn throughout the Arabic regions without the knowledge or approval of the local tribes, cities, or nations (Gelvin, 2011, p. 191). Additionally, the boarders cut into tribal territories which ignored ethnic, religious, and cultural beliefs in those regions. More importantly the Sykes-Picot Agreement ignored other secret treaties and caused serious animosities and mistrust between the new nations and those set out to establish control over them. Most notable of these secret treaties was between the British government and Amir Faysal who they had promised Syria to. At the end of the First World War France would have control of Syria and Faysal would be dismissed from Syria. In return his son Abdallah sought out to take control which caused the British two problems as illustrated by Gelvin (2011), first what to do with their war time alley, Faysal, and second what to do about Abdallah, who was threatening to make war on their more important war time alley” (p. 192). Ultimately the British solution was to appease Abdallah (at least this went better than their attempts to appease Hitler) by giving the son territories around Amman across the Jordan river which would create what would be today’s Jordan and Palestine. Faysal would move into control in Iraq (Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul) with descendants remaining in power until 1958 (Gelvin, 2011, p. 192). While the League of Nations had trusted Britain and France with the task of preparing the new nations for self governance neither truly made policies that created economic or political stability that favored any country other than themselves. From my post yesterday: I came across this article on Yahoo. I had read and of course seen the move Lawrence of Arabia, but never heard of Gertrude of Arabia. The article is written very well and touches on the political history of Iraq and how Persia was defined and new borders were written (Sykes-Picot Agreement). Here is the link: http://news.yahoo.com/woman-invented-iraq-094500726--politics.html References Gelvin, J. L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History. (3rd ed.) Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc The division of Middle East into different parts led to the ultimate fall of the empire. Control of Syria and Lebanon by the French; and Israel, Palestinian, Jordon, and Iraq by the Britain were done without the knowledge of concurrence of the local tribes. Ethnic, religious, and cultural beliefs in those regions were totally ignored, that led to acrimony amongst people. Both Britain and French failed to make policies that would help and create political and economic stability in the region.



VIEW FILE
Defensive developmentalism was a change for the Ottoman and Persian Empires
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


Defensive developmentalism was a change for the Ottoman and Persian Empires because up until the 18th and 19th centuries, they hads always had the offensive mentallity when they were stronger before European imperialization (Gelvin, 2011). The Ottoman Empire was not capable of swimming with the European sharks and due to the defensive developmentalists could not keep the central government in control of trading and therefore more power was allowed to the local leadership within the region (Gelvin, 2011). Also in the 19th century the Ottomans were in to military reform to match western forms of drills and armament (Gelvin, 2011). As European imperialism started to to take shape throughout the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire backed away from earlier free trade policy to better develope their own economy within the Empire, but some of the government policies failed miserably (Gelvin, 2011). Their attempts to estabolish state-run factories failed because of the lack of skilled workers and therefore they could not compete with their European counterparts (Gelvin, 2011). The Ottomans also attempted to attract foreign investers by offering concessions for building telegraph lines, railroads, and tramways to expand port facilities in Istanbul and Beirut (Gelvin, 2011). Also with the empire so widespread it was difficult for their central governments to radiate out to the provinces; even with 19th century technologies (Gelvin, 2011). The cost of defensive developmentalism combined with the international depression of 1873 eventually lead to bankruptcy for the Ottomans and their finances would fall under European supervision (Gelvin, 2011). Ultimately defensive developmentalism meant centralization, and centralization threatened pivotal role in more local networks could be influenced by the Ottoman's European counterparts (Gelvin, 2011). The Persians economic problems stemmed for a succession of canceled conceesions with Russia and Great Britain that would cost them up to 500,000 pounds in penalities that would hurt them in their tobacco and tobacco products (Gelvin, 2011). The effects of defensive developmentalism on the Ottoman Empire and Persia had to do more with the growing influence of the European way of doing things (Gelvin, 2011). The defensive effort was supposed to keep this influence from spreading, but would end up failing for both empires (Gelvin, 2011). Great Britain and Russia conspired to divide Persia to penetrate their economic structure (Gelvin, 2011). In the end western imperialist began to control these once great empires, such as the Ottomans, by economics because these great empires were built through military strength and may have not been built for the long term effect that later economic change presented to their population. Gelvin, James L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Defensive developmentalism on the Ottoman Empire and was more to do with the influence of European way of carrying out tasks. The objective was to keep a check on their influence but it ultimately led to the downfall of the empires. It was the secret conspiracy between Britain and Russia then divided Persia and created havoc with the economic structure of the country. the net result was that western imperialists gained control of the two flourishing empires. The Ottoman foolishly offered concession to build infrastructure in their country , of which undue advantage was taken by the Europeans.



VIEW FILE
Week 4 discussion 1 THE OIL REVOLUTION It is a well known fact that a lot of wealth was created with oil exploration, extraction
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion Week 4 discussion 1 THE OIL REVOLUTION It is a well known fact that a lot of wealth was created with oil exploration, extraction and its sale to prospects, especially in the Middle East. However all countries were not benefitted by the oil revolution. The discovery of oil and its multi-purpose use has had substantial impact on the economic development of the Middle East region, more particularly oil-rich countries. The entire Middle East region was economically backward prior to discovery of oil. It had very little agricultural economy and the business was limited to caravan trade. The situation took a dramatic turn once the oil was discovered and its extraction and utilization began in the first half of the twentieth century. Just the royalties itself from oil exploration concessions and its subsequent sale has provided a steady flow of revenue to the rulers of Kuwait, Bahrain , Qatar , Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. Even Dubai and sharjah were not excluded. In the next couple of decades, oil was the major factor of the growth of these states’ economies. The states transformed from agricultural to rentier economies. As a result, these oil rich countries have experienced considerable growth of the oil revenues and the GDP of these states has increased substantially. Together with the increase in GDP, the government expenditure has been growing swiftly. During this period, the economic modernization in the oil-rich countries and Middle East took place. Massive investments took place in infrastructure, health and education and a number of state-owned enterprises took shape. These steps gave a boost to industrialization and underused capacities were utilized to their fullest possible extent. This economic growth was witnessed in terms of improved housing conditions of citizens and the development of tourism. Till today, oil-rich countries have maintained high revenues and high GDP. Middle East countries have become more attractive for business and for tourism leading to several companies opening up their offices with a view to enter the Middle East markets and develop their business. Dubai has earned a name in luxury holiday resort offering unique attractions to tourists. The economic modernization in the Middle East does not guarantee a stable and long term economic development in the region. The manufacturing sector is weak and economy is relaying only on vast reserves of oil. There is a lack of democracy, existence of corruption and reluctance to carry out reforms and move with times are some of the problem areas of the region. Depending solely on a single commodity may serve as a hindrance for the long term economic development. Oil does generate revenue, but the fact is it is finite, non- renewable and non- sustainable natural resource. It is not going to last forever. Income or wealth is not invested to produce higher value .the price and demand are highly fluctuating and depend on overall situation in the world, ranging from inflation, natural disasters, and other unseen situations. The discovery of oil has left a significant impact on the political climate of the region. There is lack of democracy, and authoritarian regimes are prevalent in the area, leading to stagnation. There is also reluctance to political reforms. Gender inequality exists in abundance, leading to skewed ratio of population and non- utilization of skills. Lack of accountability in many Middle East countries is a major cause of political failure. Due to abundant revenue flow, the taxes are nil or limited and people are used to lethargy and unaccountability. Reference B Milton-Edwards, Contemporary politics in the Middle East (Cambridge: Polity, 2006) Week 4 discussion 2 THE AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI AND THE 1979 IRANIAN REVOLUTION The revolution of 1979 was basically a revolt of oppressed members of the Iranian society against the stringent policies of the state. The definition did not fall under strict conditions of the western revolutions. The reason was that the state was an absolute and arbitrary system without political mandate and the social class that was affected was spread across the entire society. This so called revolution was a matter of riddle to the western thinkers. It led to disappointment and disillusionment in the first few years of its triumph. Some even believed that Americans and to some extent, British were behind the revolution in order to keep in check Shah pushing for higher oil prices. Prior to the fall of Shah’s regime, people could not understand the real meaning behind the Iranian revolution. The phenomena of Ayatollah Khomeini were so magical that every one of his words was heard and mesmerized the great majority of Iranians. The obvious contrast between the Iranian and western revolution was that conventionally, it is the underprivileged classes that revolt against the privileged class. In both the traditional and the modern Iranian revolutions, the whole society, that included the rich and the poor revolted against the state. All political ideologies, put together were determined to bring down the Shah and overthrowing the state. Any suggestion of a compromise was looked at as betrayal. Several modernists, who participated in the revolution of February 1979, regretted later, especially when the outcome was against their expectations and hopes. However, no amount of persuasion or cajoling woujld has made them withdraw from the struggle. Reference Ali R.J. (2008) the Iranian Revolution of 1979: Theoretical Approaches and Economic Causes ProQuest,



VIEW FILE
The dispute between the state of Israel and and the Palestinians has been over
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion The dispute between the state of Israel and and the Palestinians has been over real estate for over sixty years and it has pitted Jewish Zionists and Arab Palestinians against each other in what has been a bloody conflict at times in this dispute (Gelvin, 2011). The most important figures in the early Zionism was Theodor Herzl who was the son of a Hungarian merchant who turned to Zionism as the result of the Dreyfus Affair in 1894 (Gelvin, 2011). Alfred Dreyfus was had been found guilty for being a successful Jew in Germany and because of the circumstances of this affair, Herzl believed that because of anti-Semitism could not be secure anywhere and thus they needed a homeland (Gelvin, 2011). In Herzl's: A Solution of the Jewish Question, Herzl advocates that the Jews needed their own sovereignty and Palestine was their historic homeland (Gelvin, 2011). He also argues that the Jewish Question still exist and it would be foolish to deny it because without a homeland Jews would be persecuted in any other countries (Gelvin, 2011). When Britain issued the Balfour Declaration that would allow Jewish Zionist to migrate to Palestine and after the second and third "aliyot" that took place in 1904-1914 and 1918-1923 (Gelvin, 2011). Since Palestine was part of the old Ottoman Empire, the British deemed that Palestine was a land without people and therefore gave Zionist the opportunity to migrate to the region (Gelvin, 2011). There was Palestinian resistance before World War I as the Zionist began to inhabit Palestine, but there was never any national Palestinian movement to keep their land from Israeli control (Gelvin, 2011). The political elites in Palestine never accepted the Balfour Declaration because they were Arab and did not like the way wages were being drove down by these new settlers in Palestine (Gelvin, 2011). The Arabs in Palestine never accepted British forced policies and from the beginning the real estate dispute between Jews and Palestinians is a religious based land war where Jews feel that they are entitled to the land because of God given right and Palestinians that believe they were there first and the Jews have no right to Palestine (Gelvin, 2011). Gelvin, James L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. the issue is not about the real estate but the conflict about a place for Jews, who had established an identity for themselves, but had nowhere to go. The problem became grave after Hitler gained prominence and started executing Jews in Germany and other countries. The role of Theodor Herzl in fighting the case for the Jews gained importance after he got support from the British. However when Britain issued the Balfour Declaration that would allow Jewish Zionist to migrate to Palestine, there was disagreement among Arabs who refused to accept this diktat. The issue is still not resolved as we can see the conflict being raised from time to time between Palestine and the Jews. Each side is a staunch believer in the religion of their own and interprets in a way that suits them. Jews and Palestine believe that they have same right to the place that has been occupied. Form a humanitarian perspective, the problem needs to be solved, but the sad part is that there is no workable solution in sight, even after more than 60 years of dispute.



VIEW FILE
Zionism is a major player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as Palestinian
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discussion Discussion I Zionism is a major player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as Palestinian nationalism. “In the early history of Zionism was a Viennese journalist, Theodor Herzl. Herzl’s turn toward Zionism came as a result of the Dreyfus Affair. The Dreyfus Affair demonstrated to Herzl that if France could play host to virulent anti-Semitism, Jews could not be secure anywhere. What the Jews needed was a homeland of their own” (Gelvin 218-219). Herzl searched throughout to find a place for the Jewish to call their homeland. He had a few different ideas for locations, but they did not work. Herzl started a Zionist program and with the help of the effort and those involved Herzl was able to find a homeland for the Jews. Since the Jewish people have history with Palestine Herzl was able to make Palestine the homeland for the Jewish people. “The Zionist movement achieved its first real success in 1917 when the British issued the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration stated, in part, ‘His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object…’” (Gelvin 219). The British government helped the Jewish people along with the Zionist program and Herzl to establish a place to call their own. Over the next twenty years the Jewish people moved to Israel in different movements. Over time issues between the two peoples began to rise and in the 1930’s war between the two broke out and lasted for years. Many people died Palestinians and Zionist. Over time an area was set aside for the Palestinians, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Even to this day the conflict between the two still exists. Gelvin, J. L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. The Israeli – Palestinian conflict is between two communities who are equally keen to have their say in how they claim a place of residence. It was Herzl, who took the lead and started a movement to find a place for Jews, who were hounded from everywhere. The British government helped the Jewish people along with the Zionist program and Herzl to establish a place to call their own. The disputed place of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is being claimed as religious according to Palestine and thus settlement of Jews over there, is not acceptable to them. In spite of best efforts put in by western forces, the conflict between the two is still not resolved. Jews have been very forceful in protecting their identity and there exists a strong ethnic bond among this community to safeguard them at any cost.



VIEW FILE
History discusssion By 1900 Russia was the world's largest oil nproducer in the
Posted On: Nov. 9, 2017
Author: Shipra


History discusssion By 1900 Russia was the world's largest oil nproducer in the world, as well as US, Mexico, and Romania had also been the leaders of oil production in the world (Gelvin, 2011). In fact oil had not been discovered in Saudi-Arabia until 1931 and production wasn't even started there until seven years later (Gelvin, 2011). Most historians trace the history of oil exploration inthe Middle East from the d'Arcy concession of 1901 that underscoredcthe importance of sharing risks in the oil business (Gelvin, 2011). Throughout the first half of the 20th century a consortia came out of the d'Arcy concessions and all other concessions afterward that gave oil producing states, along with oil companies, such as the Anglo-Persain Oil Company to control operations connected to the oil industry (Gelvin, 2011). The oil revolution culminated in the 1970's where oil-producing countries won the right to haggle with major oil companies on oil prices (Gelvin, 2011). When the governments of Kawait, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, and Iraq formed the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) as a result of dissagreements with the government of Venezuela over drilling and profit sharing; the OPEC countries were able to control their own interest (Gelvin, 2011). OPEC begin to flex their mussles in the late 60's and early 70's and force oil companies to accept rising oil prices set by them (Gelvin, 2011). The US have come to rely on Middle Eastern oil to the point that we as a country do business with oil people who are our political combants (Gelvin, 2011). Oil has made the region a strategically to outside powers, like the US and Britain, but particularly the US (Gelvin, 2011). To make his point Gelvin uses the example of Liberia to drive his point of how Middle Eastern oil can make strange bedfellows out of countries (Gelvin, 2011). Liberia is a country formed by freed salves from America in 1822 and have resembled an American colony, but when theywere involved in a bloody civil war that killed quarter of a million of it's own people between 1989, 1996, and 1999; we as a country involvement was tepid at best (Gelvin, 2011). On the other hand, because of oil interest only; we as a country brought troops in Kawait to liberate them from an invading Iraq and have kept a miltary presence in the area since the firsat Gulf War 1991 (Gelvin, 2011). The oil revolution gave power to countries that in reality have no business deciding economic policies in the US, but as a small business man; my plumbing company relies on gas to perform our job. For my company the biggest reason that we have not done as well since 9/11 is that gas prices have stayed high and because of this alot of our profits have gone towards oil products that keeps our company moving day to day. We are at war with terroris, but we also ndo business with terrorist and we are controlled by oil and major oil companies that do business with Middle Eastern countries. The oil revolution gave countries like Iraq and Saudi-Arabia the power to affect the US economy and keep us in the the middle of religious disputes that we have no business in. Gelvin, James L. (2011). The Modern Middle East: A History (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. The oil producing companies gained upper hand due to monopoly of the gas reserves that they hold. The present situation is that there are a whole lot of terrorists in that regions but still U. S, is forced to do business with them as they cannot afford to lose control on the oil. It is the base of their economy. It is for this reason that Americans defended Kuwait when it was attacked by Iraqi forces. U.S. is forced to keep its nose in the middle of religious disputes that are prevalent in that region.



VIEW FILE