Ethnic Conflict in Yugoslavia

It’s oftentimes forgotten that not all was well in Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In fact, as ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union began to gain independence in 1991, this resulted in the pot being stirred in the powder keg of Europe—the Balkan Peninsula. In the 1990s, this region, a region divided by religion in three directions (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim) and ethnically in several (Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Macedonians, Slovenes, Montenegrins) erupted in chaos, ironically at around the same time that Rwanda was in the middle of genocidal chaos. Bosnia saw the worst fighting in 1994 (the real center of division in the Balkan Peninsula) as Serb president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, launched a campaign of “ethnic cleansing” aimed at wiping all Muslims out of Yugoslavia. In the end, 110,000 were killed, and 1.8 million people were displaced. Although a deal was brokered in 1995 and the whole region split apart, by the late 90s, Milosevic re-launched his campaign of “ethnic cleansing,” this time in Kosovo (an area of Serbia that is home to mostly Muslim Albanians but the site of some of the holiest sites in the Serbian Orthodox Church). That round of violence resulted in NATO action (the first time that the organization’s military power had ever been used in fact) in 1999, another 10,000 were killed, another 1 million people were displaced, Milosevic was ousted in 2000, tried for war crimes at an International War Crimes Tribunal, and finally he died in prison in 2006. As for Kosovo, it is one of the newest sovereign states on the planet, gaining independence on February 17, 2008. The events in Yugoslavia served as a stark reminder that ethnic tension in Europe would continue after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The BBC as some EXCELLENT coverage of these events, and you can explore a timeline of events in Yugoslavia by clicking here. A more in-depth timeline regarding Milosevic himself can be explored by clicking here. For more specific information on the center of the fighting in 1994 in Bosnia, please click here. For more specific information on the situation in Kosovo in the late 1990s, please click here. And finally, for more information on Yugoslavia post-Milosevic, click here. Sadly, there have been few films made on the subject of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. However, there is one film that stands out and for my money is still one of the best films of this decade. That film is Bosnian filmmaker Danis Tanovic’s 2001 masterpiece No Man’s Land. You can view the trailer by clicking below.

The Series Finale is Here

The Season 5 Film Festival Continues With Hubert Sauper's "Darwin's Nightmare" on Wednesday, April 22nd

Folks, YOU DO NOT WANT TO MISS THIS ONE! This is a film that is truly horrifying and must be seen to believe. It is honestly one of the scariest films I've ever seen because, unlike your ridiculously contrived Hollywood blockbuster horror films, this is REAL. You do not truly understand Africa until you see Hubert Sauper's 2004 documentary feature Darwin's Nightmare. The less you know about this film going into it, the better. Just prepare to be absolutely stunned. Even if you have seen films like Hotel Rwanda, you've never truly experienced Africa in the 21st century until you see this film. The runtime for Darwin's Nightmare is 107 minutes. If this one fills up quickly, I would be willing to host an encore presentation. The trailer can be viewed below.

21st Century Sub-Saharan Africa Issues on Film

In the past few years there has been an absolute explosion of quality films dealing with issues currently plaguing sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century. In thinking about the AIDS epidemic in Africa, I am constantly reminded by the scandalous behavior of Western pharmaceutical companies in general in the African continent. No other film that I know of takes on the subject of pharmaceutical company corruption in sub-Saharan Africa with such tenacity as does Fernando Mierelles’ 2005 shocker The Constant Gardener. When it comes to constant warfare, Edward Zwick made a basic understanding of recent events in Sierra Leone accessible while at the same time highlighting the dirty game of diamond trade with his 2006 film Blood Diamond. Finally, although few films deal with the issues centering on the lives of displaced individuals as a result of war, Christopher Dillon Quinn and Tommy Walker do an excellent job with taking on the subject of refugees fleeing from Sudan to the United States as a result of that crisis in their 2006 documentary feature God Grew Tired of Us. Sean Fine and Andrea Nix take us right into a refugee camp housing displaced peoples in northern Uganda in their absolutely fascinating 2007 documentary feature War Dance. I highly recommend all of these films, and you can check out the trailers for all of them below.

AIDS in Africa

One of the most tragic current events of the late 20th- and early 21st century is the growing AIDS epidemic in Africa. The fact of the matter is that disease has wiped out entire civilizations in the past, and sub-Saharan Africa is poised to be the next victim of a reality with historical precedence if the world does not band together to make a cure readily available. The numbers and realities involving AIDS in Africa is absolutely shocking in every way, as you saw today in class. Even more shocking is the general ignorance and indifference on the part of Westerners on the subject. In order to not fall victim to the ignorance epidemic in the West, check out the EXCELLENT coverage of the issue of AIDS in Africa on the BBC’s website by clicking here. An even more recent article from the BBC can be read by clicking here. Additionally, the South African film Yesterday directed by Darrell Roodt in 2004 is one that I highly recommend for the honesty and care it takes with a very personal story. You can view the trailer for the film below.

Lessons from Rwanda

The genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, while South Africa was in the middle of trying to solve its problems, left a real scar on the 1990s. As the first officially declared genocide since the Holocaust, the violence in Rwanda is absolutely shocking in its precision, its scope, and its simplicity (most murders were carried out with simple machetes). The BBC has an EXCELLENT history of events of 1994 in Rwanda in commemoration of the 10th anniversary in 2004. You can click here to enlighten yourself more on the events. Although most Westerners chose to ignore the atrocities of Rwanda in 1994, Terry George brought the conflict to everyone’s attention with much boldness with his 2004 film Hotel Rwanda. If you have not yet seen this film, now is the time to watch it. You can view the trailer for it below.

Democracy and the End of Apartheid in South Africa

By 1990 the government of South Africa, under President F. W. de Klerk, leader of the National Party, resolved to try to end both internal and external tensions by discussing sweeping democratic reforms. It released the leader of the African National Congress, Nelson Mandela, from prison, and launched a process of negotiation. The goal soon became the ending of the longstanding system of apartheid, that had denied the vote to the black majority of the country and had enforced segregated spaces, jobs and facilities, amid often brutal police repression; and installing in its place a democratic system. Amid some division and reluctance, the National Party which particularly represented the Boers, or South Africans of Dutch descent, went along with the process, as did the African National Congress which for decades had struggled against apartheid.

The negotiations and resultant transition proceeded rapidly. At the same time, these were important issues and tensions during the process. Democratic elections were ultimately conducted which selected Mandela as the first president of the new South Africa, and he took office in 1994.

The documents that I would like you to read (President F.W. de Klerk, Address to the South African Parliament, Feburary 2, 1990; Nelson Mandela's Address on his Release from Prison, February 11, 1990; F.W. de Klerk at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, December, 1991; and the Response by Nelson Mandela) from de Klerk and Mandela as they begin negotiation and from both men again, a year later, as they wrestled with some unresolved tensions, deal with several aspects of this historic change. They suggest the principles on which agreement was ultimately reached, and that would underlie the country’s new constitution. They suggest the kinds of disagreements that were almost inevitable after a long period of struggle, which finally of course were resolved. And they suggest some of the key causes that propelled the process of change, including the qualities of key individuals.

Fundamental reform in South Africa occurred as part of a strong global movement toward greater democracy. The movement began with democratic reform in southern Europe and parts of Latin America, in the late 1970s; it extended to the ending of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. The South African process allows some consideration of this larger global development. Incidentally, South Africa is having MAJOR elections tomorrow, in what most are calling the biggest election since 1994. To add an additional dynamic, this is the first election in South Africa where we see a new generation of voters participating that do not remember apartheid. The BBC is doing an excellent job covering this, and you can read the latest stories by clicking here.

After reading the documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What do the documents suggest about the causes of the ending of apartheid and democratization of South Africa? What were the main problems and issues in the negotiations that led to South African democracy? How did specific issues encountered in 1991 relate to more fundamental problems? What were the principles on which agreement was finally reached? What aspects of race relations in South Africa were most successfully handled during the negotiations? What aspects were either unresolved or incompletely resolved? To what extent was democratization a global movement in the late 20th century? What caused the global dimensions to the phenomenon? Why was democratization more successful in South Africa than in some other parts of the world in this period? How has democracy fared in South Africa in the years since the basic change? What is the state of democracy in other parts of Africa? Your thoughts…

Changes in African Culture and Society

New forces continued to have an impact on the traditional culture of sub-Saharan Africa throughout the 20th century. Conversions both to Islam and to Christianity gained ground, although a polytheist minority remained. Whereas in 1900 80% of all sub-Saharan Africans adhered to traditional religions, by 1990 80% were either Muslim or Christian. Conversion brought more than new beliefs about the deity; it also attacked family traditions (such as polygamy, for Christians) and traditional ideas of harmony with nature. Some African conservatives blamed the new religions for Africans’ willingness to attack animals and forest with a new vigor that threatened ecological balance, for the monotheistic religions held humans to be above nature. Education spread, and with it not only literacy but, often, knowledge of a European language—another force for change.

The documents that I would like you to read (you can read them all by clicking here) deal with missionary activity, urbanization, and changes in family roles as sources of change and tension in 20th-century African society. European missionary activity, both Catholic and Protestant, increased rapidly from 1890 onward, as various Western teachers and medical personnel worked hard to modify or undermine traditional African religious values, property concepts, and family practices. African reactions to missionary efforts ranged from stark rejection to a combination effort to outright acceptance. (It is important to remember that Islam was also spreading rapidly in the 19th and 20th centuries; Christians were not the only missionaries, and Muslims might be preferred precisely because they were not European).

Urban growth was another framework for cultural change. African cities, once small, grew rapidly both under colonial administration and with independence. About a quarter of all sub-Saharan Africans lived in cities by the 1970s, and the rate increases steadily. Urban Africans, though often poor, were more often educated than their rural counterparts, and they enjoyed the excitement of city life. But they were also confusingly torn from traditional community customs.

The documents you will read are divided into two parts: the first two documents deal with successive waves of cultural change affecting parts of Nigeria; they are drawn from the work of a perceptive Nigerian novelist who chronicled what he saw as major and in some ways tragic cultural disruption. The third and fourth documents involve reactions of African women, drawn to change themselves but with various specific qualifications and hesitations.

The first document, by Chinua Achebe, reflects deep awareness of the complex balance of gain and loss brought by changes away from tradition. Discussing British missionary activity around 1900, Achebe conveys the different types of Africans and different kinds of motives involved in at least partial religious conversion, and at the same time the reasons for resistance (and its failure). The document is fictional and written after the fact, but it conveys ongoing intellectual issues in Africa. The document ends with a resistance meeting, centered on the strong traditionalist figure of Okonkwo (whose son had converted) and the arrival and death of a messenger sent by the British colonial administration to prevent disorder.

The second document comes from another Achebe novel, this one involving Okonkwo’s grandson, now an urbanite, after World War II but before independence. Obi Okonkwo is the first village member to receive higher education in British-run schools. He goes to Lagos, the growing Nigerian capital, to take a civil-service job. He finds the glitter of city life there, but also a consumerist culture and a pleasure-seeking sexual ethic both influenced by Western standards. These at first shock and then beguile him so that he cannot respond to village customs in the old way, for example, to a tragedy such as his mother’s death. The combination of stimulation and confusion give this Achebe novel its title, No Longer at Ease.

The third document focuses less on confusion, more on new aspirations and opportunities. Many African women found new roles as they moved to cities and gained education. Even rural women had new power when their men left to take urban jobs; willy-nilly, they had to run their families and often support themselves. Thus African family bonds, which once gave women security while holding them subordinate, loosened rapidly. The passages come from a series of interviews done by a Western anthropologist with women in Kenya, including one group organized in a cooperative to try to compensate for new uncertainties about family ties and support from men.

Cultural change, including some expressions striking for their resemblance to modern Western movements such as feminism, is clearly a major factor in contemporary Africa. In the fourth document, the African feminist Ifi Amadiume discusses gender relations between African men and women, although in terms that challenge Western feminism as well as current African realities.

All these cultural changes and reactions express Africa’s growing international contacts, but also new uncertainties as older institutions unravel. As in the West in previous periods, greater individualism can be both exhilarating and damaging. Africans themselves disagree over whether new opportunity or the erosion of vital traditions should receive the main emphasis. Not surprisingly, important traditional emphases, such as family solidarity, persist as well, as Africans create their own cultural amalgams.

After reading the documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What were the main disputes over Christianity in the Nigerian region Achebe describes? What kinds of people were most drawn to this religion? Why? What kinds of people most resisted? Given the novel’s title, Things Fall Apart, does Achebe suggest that it would be best to go back to traditional values? What are the value dilemmas in the excerpt from No Longer at Ease? What are the dominant features of the urban culture of Lagos? How do they relate to traditional culture? What are the main aspirations of the Kenyan women interviewed in the third selection? What is new about them? In what ways do they clearly seek to defend older cultural and social traditions? What problems of interpretation do novels raise in trying to get at historical conditions? What kinds of problems do interviews raise, even one conducted by a skilled Western scholar? On what bases does Ifi Amadiume criticize the evaluations of African women by Western feminists and anthropologists? What, in her view, were the three main strengths, for women, of traditional Igbo language, family structure, and economy? By implication, what goals should modern Igbo women have? Would the Kenyan women interviewed in the third selection agree or disagree with Amadiume’s prescriptions for the most part? Are they reacting to changes in ways Amadiume would approve of? Do Achebe and Madiume agree on the nature of African gender traditions? Do they agree on what combination of change and tradition is desirable for contemporary Africa? How do the cultural changes discussed in these documents compare with African nationalist goals and reactions? Would nationalism help deal with some of the cultural issues raised by Achebe, Amadiume, and the Kenyan women? Your thoughts…

Understanding Modern Latin America Through Film

Unfortunately, the number of quality films dealing with subject of Latin American identity and struggles in the 20th and 21st centuries are slim. However, there are a few gems that do exist. When it comes to the subject of attempting to discover the true identity of Latin America, no film does a better job, in my opinion than Walter Salles' 2004 film The Motorcycle Diaries. Unfortunately, there are also few films that to a candid and honestly look into the world of the drug trade, and attempts to investigate answers as to the nature of the trade and who's involved in it. One film that does do a masterful job of this, however, is Joshua Marston's 2004 revelation Maria Full of Grace. For my money, Maria Full of Grace is the best film of the decade dealing with Latin American themes of struggle. You can view both trailers below.

Latin American Catholicism and the Theology of Liberation

When some 600 bishops gathered in Puebla, Mexico, in 1979 for the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate, they sensed that the Latin American Church, with 35 percent of the world’s Catholics, was at a crossroads. In the 1960s reformist and even revolutionary currents had emerged among the clergy. This was in part a response to the liberal atmosphere in the broader church after the Second Vatican Council of 1962 and in part an expression of the conviction that the Church’s indifference to social injustice distorted Christ’s teachings and threatened to lose the masses to Marxism or religious apathy. During the 1960s bishops spoke out in favor of land reform; young priests went into urban slums to establish clinics, schools, and self-help organizations; and Catholic intellectuals developed a new “theology of liberation,” which centered the Church’s mission on ministering to the poor. Their efforts culminated in decisions made at the second conference of Latin American bishops in Medellin, Colombia, in 1968, by which bishops committed the Church to the task of liberating Latin America’s poor from economic and social injustice.

This leftward shift generated a counter-reaction in the 1970s. Conservative bishops denounced reformers as more Marxist than Christian, and many Catholics expressed reservations about the clergy’s political activism. Conservatives hoped to regain control of the Church at the third Catholic bishops’ conference in Puebla in 1979. Well-known liberation theologians were excluded, and conservative bishops drafted a policy statement that, if accepted, would have endorsed capitalism and reflected the clergy’s involvement in politics. Remarks by Pope John Paul II, who addressed the opening of the conference, seemed to support the progressives, however, and after two weeks of discussion, the delegates approved a generally progressive statement from which the excerpts that I would like you to read are drawn (you can read them by clicking here).

After Puebla, the Latin American Church remained divided. Churchmen in Chile and Brazil continued to speak out against military regimes, and clergy in Central America were still in the forefront of the struggle for social change. Overall, however, conservatives made gains, especially in Argentina and Colombia. This trend was supported by an increasingly cautious Pope John Paul II, who named conservatives as bishops and approved the disciplining of Leonardo Boff, the Brazilian liberation theologian, in the mid 1980s. While the Catholic Church struggled to clarify its mission, more Latin Americans abandoned religion or joined one of the many Pentecostal Protestant sects spreading through the region.

After reading the excerpts, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What is the document’s overall assessment of the economic and political state of Latin America? What can be gleaned from the document about the bishop’s views of the underlying causes of Latin American poverty? Why, according to the Puebla statement, should Latin American Catholics find widespread poverty intolerable? What statements in the document seem to confirm the view that it was a compromise between progressives and conservatives? Critics of the Puebla statement contend that it was essentially worthless because it lacked concrete proposals to deal with Latin America’s problems. Do you agree with such criticisms? Your thoughts…

Latin America’s Social Crisis in the 20th Century

Latin America is presently undergoing a social crisis of vast proportions. Population has increased dramatically during the 20th century. For example, Mexico’s population has increased from 13.6 million in 1900 to 94.3 million in 1997; Brazil’s from 18 million to 163.7 million; and Peru’s from 3 million to 24.4 million over the same period. Cities have grown disproportionately faster than rural areas, resulting in the appearance of mega-cities such as Mexico City with 20 million residents and São Paulo, Brazil with 15 million. Poverty, landlessness, and lack of jobs have driven the rural poor to the cities. But job creation in Latin America’s industrial cities has not nearly kept pace with population growth. Industrial development has led to the expansion of an urban middle class, but these same zones attracted millions of slum dwellers. They live a precarious, insecure life, surviving in the “informal economy.” Many of the poor either pick up odd jobs day by day, or sell small items or beg. They have no security; no access to a system of social services. Although population growth rates have declined in the 1990s because of birth control campaigns, problems of poverty, insecurity, and sporadic bouts of despair persist. They are encountered both in the city and the countryside. The first document I would like you to read (you can read both documents by clicking here) describes the lives of struggling workers in the urban slum of Chorillos in Lima, Peru. The second is an oral history of a mother in the impoverished rural sugar-producing zone of Pernambuco in Northeastern Brazil.

After reading the documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What was the slum dweller’s relationship to the state? What types of events produced insecurity? What was the purpose of the Leasehold Association? What was the attitude of the Leasehold Association toward people outside its area? Describe the political attitudes of the poor in Chorillos. What did they expect from politicians? What were the mother’s attitudes toward marriage, childbearing, and death of children in Bom Jesus da Mata? Identify the coping mechanisms of the poor. What do these mechanisms suggest about the political culture of the poor? Your thoughts…

Searching for the Soul of the Latin American Experience

Essayists and novelists have struggled to capture the uniqueness of Latin America. Although their descriptions are set in specific countries and locations, they tend toward common themes. For example, the Mexican essayist Octavio Paz, in search of his identity as well as that of his nation, wrote about the “labyrinth of solitude.” The Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez examined the experiences of a family and a town through “one hundred years of solitude.” The common theme of solitude becomes for these two men the chief vehicle for understanding Latin American civilization.

Gabriel García Márquez was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1982. In his acceptance speech, “The Solitude of Latin America,” he explained the source of that solitude (you can read the speech by clicking here). To García Márquez, Latin Americans lacked a conventional means of believing their past. Rather, they lived in a world of illusion that produced separation and solitude. This “fantasy reality” could not be understood by outsiders, who were equipped only with their own cultural tools. Europeans, for example, accepted Latin American literature. They, however, ridiculed the Latin Americans’ attempts at social change. Latin Americans were accepted not as distinct whole, but as an incomplete Western form. García Márquez asserts that Latin America is distinct. Latin Americans will invent their own solutions and utopias. They will affirm their own reality, illusory or not.

The concern about identity in Latin America reflects an important facet of Latin American culture, but this is not unique. Other 20th-century civilizations worry about identity issues; these Latin American reflections can thus be compared with the issues of identity in societies such as sub-Saharan Africa.

After reading the speech, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What occurrences in Latin American history led García Márquez to conclude that the reality of Latin America was “unearthly,” “outsized,” and “unbridled?” What is the source of “solitude” in Latin America? According to García Márquez, in what ways should Europeans view Latin America? Just like the Latin Americans, sub-Saharan Africans also worry about identity issues. Why does the theme of defining identity echo in both African and Latin American civilizations? Is it in effect the same theme? Your thoughts…

IMPORTANT GATEWAY REMINDERS

Ladies and gents, as you all know, Gateway Exams for Social Studies are on Monday. As AP students, you have plenty practice in writing a DBQ, and I'm sure you all will do very well. That being said, here are just a few reminders...

1) Gateway is a simple DBQ. However, please do not enter the exam with a feeling of arrogance that this is so simple you don't even need to try. Write the best DBQ you've ever written!

2) The scoring for Gateway is different from DBQs, but it is very simple and user friendly. For social studies, you are scored in 3 categories: Focus & Development (did you answer the ENTIRE question? do you have a good thesis statement to develop? did you stay on topic?), Analysis & Interpretation (how effective are you in analyzing and interpreting the DOCUMENTS provided?), and Knowledge (PK, PK, PK, PK! Exhibit as much PRIOR KNOWLEDGE on the subject as possible!) All three categories are scored on the scale of 1 to 6, one being "what in the world!?!?" and 6 being "wow, this is obviously an AP World History student!" Try to aim for the 6 in each category.

3) Unlike DBQ, in which you only have 10 minutes to read all the documents and 40 minutes to write, you will have 125 minutes to write your Gateway. With that in mind, TAKE YOUR TIME AND WRITE SOMETHING PHENOMENAL!

4) Unlike DBQ, in which you don't have a choice as to what you are going to write, with Gateway you get to choose one of two topics. Pick the one you feel most comfortable with. Don't choose immediately however. Brainstorm BOTH topics, and then make your decision accordingly.

5) All things considered, you guys are 100% prepared to tackle this assignment. Approach it, though, not with arrogance, both with confidence modified by humility. And just think, the topics are easier, and you have double the time and double the choices! Heck, have fun with it!

All the best...

The Series Finale is only less than a week away...

"Persepolis" Discussion Board

Wow! All I can say is wow! This is my third time seeing the film and i still find it completely riveting and emotional. For me, the methods that were used in telling this story were absolutely effective. And how great was it to get some background on the situation in Iran going into the film? It was good to see so a large group to see it on a Friday. So tell me, what are your reactions to Persepolis? Your thoughts...

What Is the Current US Situation With Iran and Iraq?

Two things are very uncertain going into the next few years regarding US relations with both Iran and Iraq. Will the United States allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear technology? If not, that will be the US plan to stop Iran? Further economic sanctions? Military strikes? What is the United States trying to do now to avoid a confrontation? Since 1979 we have refused to have so much as a conversation with the top head of state in the Iranian government. We're begining to see an obvious shift though under current US President Barack Obama. In fact, just a few weeks ago, President Obama sent a video message to Iran regarding a "new beginning" in relations with Iran. You can read the BBC analysis of that message and watch the actual message by clicking here. Just yesterday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad announced a "nuclear package" deal that he wants to discuss with the West (you can read about that by clicking here. There probably will be no agreement reached because Ahmadinejad has already said that this deal will not end Iran's nuclear program. The dialogue is interesting to watch however.

Then there is the ungoing Iraq situation. Will stability finally be achieved there? What is the US government's current plan for withdrawal? Would US withdrawal leave an unstable mess behind? Should the US withdraw anyway? What does victory even look like in Iraq? Those questions and MANY more can be explored by navigating through the BBC News' on-going Special Report "The Struggle for Iraq" which you can access by clicking here.

What are your feelings about current US relations with Iran and Iraq? What are your predictions regarding the future of US relations with both countries? Your thoughts...

Coming to an Understanding of 21st Century Iraq Through Film

I always find it odd that, although we have been at war in Iraq since 2003, and since we have been at odds with Iraq since 1990, most Americans have a very thin understanding of Iraqi culture. Additionally, Americans tend to have a very thin understanding of the current situation on the ground in Iraq, along with having a general lack of understanding of the dynamics of the American occupation of Iraq and the exact reasons for the occupation. Thankfully, there have been some EXCELLENT films that have been released in recent years that tackle those exact topics. In fact, I would like to share with you what I consider to be the ultimate Iraq trilogy. The first film is James Longley's 2006 documentary feature Iraq in Fragments. This film really gets to the heart of the reason for instability in Iraq--the deep divisions between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. A second important film is Laura Poitras' 2006 documentary feature My Country, My Country. This film explores the challenges and difficulties of introducing the democratic process in Iraq, a country with no previous tradition of democracy. The film explores this topic by highlighting the campaign of an Iraqi politician in the first elections in that country's history. The third film is perhaps the most powerful of three, and that is Charles Ferguson's 2007 documentary feature No End in Sight. I will put it this way: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT IRAQ WAR UNTIL YOU SEE THIS FILM! The trailers for all three films can be viewed below. I do hope that many of you will take the time to see these films. A responsible citizen would want to be fully informed about conflicts his country is engaged in and would want to understand fully the culture of countries the US is in conflict with.

Understanding Iran Through Iranian Film

Because of the current nature of US relations with Iran, Americans tend to have a very blurred and unrealistic view of Iranian culture as a whole. Taking the time to actually explore the arts of Iran can help to subside that however. For me, some of the most beautiful and thought provoking films to be released recently have been Iranian films. The elegance in which Iranian directors are taking on societal issues is truly remarkable. While the number of quality Iranian films are too numerous to list here, I do have two major recommendations in helping one to (1) come to an appreciation of the greatness of Iranian film and (2) come to a greater understanding of Iranian culture as a whole. Perhaps the Iranian director that is most respected and the most highly regarded in the film community is Abbas Kiarostami, and perhaps his most critically acclaimed film is his 1997 masterpiece Taste of Cherry. The characters that emerge throughout the film are truly symbolic of a very multi-faceted Iranian society. The topic of gender issues in Iran has been a controversial topic since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For me, Jafar Pahani's 2006 film Offside does an excellent job of tackling this issue in a very creative way, through the world of football (soccer). Trailers for both films can be viewed below.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis

Since the early 1950s, the United States had supported the shah of Iran’s government, mainly as a supplier of oil and as a check on the Soviet Union’s influence in the Middle East. By the late 1970s, the shah had become increasingly unpopular in Iran because of his repressive control and his efforts to westernize the country. When public demonstrations broke out in early 1979, the shah fled Iran, and a powerful fundamentalist Islamic revolution, led by exiled religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, swept the country. Days after President Jimmy Carter permitted the shah to enter the United States for medical treatment, militant Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy and took Americans hostage. The students demanded the return of the shah to Iran in exchange for the hostages’ freedom. To complicate matters, the Soviet Union invaded neighboring Afghanistan just a few weeks after the hostages were seized. President Carter tried unsuccessfully to negotiate the release of the hostages and even ordered a secret military rescue mission that failed. Finally, the hostages were released after 444 days in captivity. The document that I would like you to read comes from a congressional hearing on the Iranian crisis, where former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie and deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher testified on behalf of the Carter administration (you can read it by clicking here).

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are the central issues of this hearing? What was the impact of the hostage crisis on the United States? How does Secretary of State Muskie defend the American position? Why was the hostage crisis significant? Your thoughts…

Islamic Law in the Modern World

Ruhollah Khomeini, whose name is synonymous with Islamic fundamentalism and Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979, was born in 1902 in Khumayn, an Iranian village some sixty miles southwest of Tehran. Following the example of his father and grandfather, he became a religious scholar, and by the late 1930s was director of the prestigious school of Islamic studies in Qum, a pilgrimage site and the spiritual center for Iran’s Shia Muslims. In the late 1950s he became a vocal critic of Iran’s reigning monarch, Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, attacking him for his pro-U.S. policies, dictatorial rule, and efforts to diminish Islam’s role in Iranian life. In 1963, the arrest and imprisonment of Khomeini led to nationwide anti-government demonstrations and rioting, which were suppressed by army troops at the cost of thousands of lives. Released from prison and sent into exile in 1964, Khomeini continued to denounce the shah, whose secularism, heavy-handed rule, corrupt government, and ill-conceived economic policies continued to cause widespread discontent. In January 1978 rioting again broke out in Qum, this time sparked by Khomeini and other religious leaders, took to the streets chanting “death to the shah.” In early 1979 events moved quickly. In January the shah left the country; in February Khomeini returned from exile; and in March a national referendum approved the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran’s new government was a republic in name only. Although it had an elected parliament and president, it was dominated by Khomeini and a small circle of like-minded Islamic clerics. During the 1980s they purged the shah’s supporters from government, suppressed political opponents, instituted religious courts to enforce Islamic law, and used the army and schools as instruments of religious indoctrination. Although Khomeini had promised to address the problems of poverty and social inequality, his efforts foundered in the face of war with Iraq, inflation, and population growth at the rate of 4 percent a year. Nonetheless, by the time of his death in 1989 millions of Muslims in Iran and elsewhere venerated Khomeini as a heroic defender of their religion against the forces of secularism and imperialism, and his austere, uncompromising version of Islam had become a major force in world politics.

The document I would like you to read is an excerpt from Islamic Government, Khomeini’s best-known work (you can read it by clicking here). The book was based on a series of lectures he delivered in 1970 while in exile to students at a religious school in the Iraqi city of Najaf. It is not a complete exposition of Islamic political philosophy; nor does it provide a detailed outline of what an Islamic state would be like. Khomeini’s goal was to inspire his student listeners to work for the establishment of an Islamic state and to assume executive and judicial positions within it.

After you have read the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: Whom does Khomeini identify as the enemies of Islam? What are these enemies’ goals? How, according to Khomeini, do the enemies of Islam distort Islamic doctrine and practice? How does he counter their arguments? How does Khomeini characterize the relationship between Islam and modern science and technology? What are the shortcomings of existing governments in the Islamic world according to Khomeini? What benefits will accrue to society if Islamic laws are rigorously enforced? What is the meaning of the term jihad as used by Khomeini in this treatise? What similarities and differences do you see between Khomeini’s ideas and those of the Muslim Brotherhood? Your thoughts…

The Resurgence of Islam

One of the most important trends in recent decades has been the renaissance of faith among Muslims. Often referred to as the “resurgence of Islam,” this development began in the Middle East and North Africa and subsequently spread in all directions, reaching countries such as Indonesia and Nigeria as well as numerous cities in Europe and the Americas. For the past quarter-century or so mosque attendance has been increasing, traditional Islamic dress for women has been in favor, Muslim men have been growing their beards long, and the appeal of Islamic grassroots organizations (including those located at universities) has surged.

Muslims have also made a dramatic impact on political life. In 1979 Shiite clerics in Iran, led by the charismatic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, rode to power on a massive wave of popular discontent, replacing the rule of the secularist Pahlavi shahs with a republican regime based on Islamic law. Two years later Muslim extremists in the Egyptian army assassinated Anwar el-Sadat, the Egyptian leader who had earlier normalized relations with Israel. During the 1980s and 1990s in Sudan, the largest country in Africa, a series of authoritarian governments led by Sunni Muslims imposed the shari’a. In 1996 the Taliban, an insurgent army of fundamentalist Muslims seized control of most of Afghanistan and began enforcing an unusually narrow version of Islamic teachings. For Americans, of course, the most shocking examples of Islamic political activism were the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

In many Muslim countries nongovernmental Islamic organizations that sponsor schools and social services have become increasingly popular. Such organizations are descendants of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fraternal order founded in 1928 by Egyptian schoolteacher Hasan al-Banna. Banna believed that by establishing Islamic schools, nurseries, summer camps, and low-cost health clinics, the Brotherhood could gradually persuade Muslims to incorporate the shari’a into their daily lives. He thought once people had absorbed Islamic teachings, political change would naturally follow. Banna was assassinated in 1949, probably by the Egyptian secret police, and during the next two decades the secular nationalist government of Gamal Abdel Nasser harshly repressed the Brotherhood. Despite the crackdown, the organization became increasingly influential in Egyptian life. In present-day Egypt, the Brotherhood’s vast network of schools, social service agencies, and professional associations makes it a most serious worry of the government of Hosni Mubarak. Similar organizations, some of them offshoots of the Brotherhood, flourish in Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan, the Palestinian Occupied Territories, and in numerous other Muslim countries.

In the first document I would like you to read (you can read them both by clicking here), Banna explains the thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood during its formative period and enables us to see how the Islamic revival was initially shaped by developments in the 1920s through the 1940s. The second document is a speech given in March of 1980 by Ayatollah Khomeini. His address, which was given on the Iranian New Year, provides insight into the ideas of one of the most important leaders of the Islamic resurgence.

After reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: How do the documents help us put recent developments in Islam into historical context? How did Banna explain the resurgence of Islam? What aspects of the West did he oppose? What did he see as the strengths of Islam? What was his view of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism? What are Khomeini’s main themes in his New Year’s address? What are his chief worries? What can you infer about the stability of his regime at the time of the speech? What types of changes—political, economic, social, or religious—did he seem to be advocating? How do the ideas of Banna and Khomeini compare? Do you see any differences? How do the ideas of Banna and Khomeini compare with the thinking of Ziya Gokalp and Mustafa Kemal? How do you explain the differences? What are the advantages and disadvantages of separating political authority from religious authority? What are the similarities and differences between the Iranian revolution and the leftist revolutions in Russia, China, and Cuba? Are any of these revolutions likely to be emulated in the future? Your thoughts…