I guess I don't really think my life has too many identity symbols. There are not very many material possessions I have that I believe define me. I know that sounds a little presumptuous, but things have never really been important to me. The few materials things that might define me are definitely books. I love books. They are every where in my life. There isn't any particular favorites, I just love to have them around me. I guess, if I had to choose three they would be, the dictionary,
"Candide" by Voltaire, and "The World According to Garp" by John Irving.
Art-wise, there are a lot of reminders of where I come from and where I want to go. Literally. There travel related and family photos all around me.
Religion definitely doesn't have a very big role in my everyday life. Sure I go to church every once and a while, but you probably would not be able to tell by looking around my home.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Week 1 Reading Response
Overall, the four articles seemed very similar to me. They all detailed the plan, research and problems associated with the Jerusalem portion of the Smithosian folklore festival. Each highlighted several key points.
The article written by Prof. Horowitz posed several questions. It was very clear that she was concerned with the festival not becoming to Disney-like. But I don't feel like this was ever qualified. Disney has the ability to grab our attention, and create awareness on the broader topic. This, to me at least, appears to be the most important aspect of a potential festival. Ensuring that people understand the goal seems like a more attainable goal than portraying an entire multi-cultural, multi-ethnic city in its entirity without offending those in charge. Maybe sensationalizing isn't always bad, but should be utilized as a tool to create awareness, used in moderation. Attempting to create the exact city itself seems like an idea bordering on Disney. Had the organizers embraced this, it might have been an opportunity to expand the scope of the project and ensure completion and funding.
The interview and article by Suad Amiry seemed to address similar points. Amiry's tone in the interview seemed rather pesimestic about the entire process. It was a bit disappointing to hear someone so involved in the process of peace become almost disenchanted with the process. I do greatly appreciate the respect she has for the diversity of Jerusalem. It is refreshing to see somebody admire the multiplicity of an area such as Jerusalem. It did feel that her analysis was overcomplicated. I know this is not a simple thing to do, but it seems like the team was overthinking it and making the process even more difficult. By defining the scope a bit more, the project would have become more manageable and less improbable.
The language of Hasan-Rokem's article seems rather disjointed. It also got me thinking that the approach of the project was a bit off. Had they decided for focus on one or two particular areas, then the team would be better able to give a complete picture of life in that area. Maybe the National Mall is not the best place to completely describe the entire city of Jerusalem. Changing the scope of the project would have helped it to become more successful.
These articles have definitely peaked my interest in the project. All those involved seem to be very intelligent, insightful and idealistic. These are all characteristics which I believe can change the world. Hopefully, given the correct circumstances, they will be able to.
The article written by Prof. Horowitz posed several questions. It was very clear that she was concerned with the festival not becoming to Disney-like. But I don't feel like this was ever qualified. Disney has the ability to grab our attention, and create awareness on the broader topic. This, to me at least, appears to be the most important aspect of a potential festival. Ensuring that people understand the goal seems like a more attainable goal than portraying an entire multi-cultural, multi-ethnic city in its entirity without offending those in charge. Maybe sensationalizing isn't always bad, but should be utilized as a tool to create awareness, used in moderation. Attempting to create the exact city itself seems like an idea bordering on Disney. Had the organizers embraced this, it might have been an opportunity to expand the scope of the project and ensure completion and funding.
The interview and article by Suad Amiry seemed to address similar points. Amiry's tone in the interview seemed rather pesimestic about the entire process. It was a bit disappointing to hear someone so involved in the process of peace become almost disenchanted with the process. I do greatly appreciate the respect she has for the diversity of Jerusalem. It is refreshing to see somebody admire the multiplicity of an area such as Jerusalem. It did feel that her analysis was overcomplicated. I know this is not a simple thing to do, but it seems like the team was overthinking it and making the process even more difficult. By defining the scope a bit more, the project would have become more manageable and less improbable.
The language of Hasan-Rokem's article seems rather disjointed. It also got me thinking that the approach of the project was a bit off. Had they decided for focus on one or two particular areas, then the team would be better able to give a complete picture of life in that area. Maybe the National Mall is not the best place to completely describe the entire city of Jerusalem. Changing the scope of the project would have helped it to become more successful.
These articles have definitely peaked my interest in the project. All those involved seem to be very intelligent, insightful and idealistic. These are all characteristics which I believe can change the world. Hopefully, given the correct circumstances, they will be able to.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A bit about me...
Hey guys! I'm very excited to be taking this class. The issue of Jerusalem is one that has always interested me, yet there aren't many forums where young people can express their views in a neutral environment. My motivation for taking this class is better understand why people, who appear to have things in common, can be so divided.
I have never been able to understand why there are such extreme positions on the issue. It's probably because I don't have a very strong religious background. My family is very tolerant, liberal and multi-religious. For example: We celebrated my sisters bat mitzvah two weekends we had a wonderful Easter celebration. My mom jokes that if I marry a Muslim man we will have completed the set of world religions.
From this background, violence over sacred ground seems unnecessary.
I have never been able to understand why there are such extreme positions on the issue. It's probably because I don't have a very strong religious background. My family is very tolerant, liberal and multi-religious. For example: We celebrated my sisters bat mitzvah two weekends we had a wonderful Easter celebration. My mom jokes that if I marry a Muslim man we will have completed the set of world religions.
From this background, violence over sacred ground seems unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
