Lepers and what not

I enjoyed Dr. Tamari's article. It highlighted an area of the battle over Jerusalem that is not often discussed, and shed new light on the people associated with the modern beginnings of the conflict.

I have never personally been a fan of nativism. It has always sounded like a crappy counter to colonialism. This was reaffirmed on page four when he quotes Mehrzad, "resurgence and reinstatement of native or indigenous cultural customs...privileging one's own 'authentic identity.'" Earlier Tamari pointed out that in the US nativism was used by non natives to argue against new immigrants. When we look at this construct, it seems clear to me that nativism is a bad idea used in a reactionary manner by angry people who feel they have little choice. They feel threatened, and consider this the best way to respond. I believe it is possible to advance as a society, while maintaining the traditional culture of a society. That many believe the two are mutually exclusive is worrisome to me.

It also seemed like Dr. Tamari was framing the origins of nativism in Jerusalem as an excuse to claim exclusive rights to the land (pg.8).

Tawfiq Canaan and his group of intellectuals also came off as condescending. These are well educated, intelligent scholars, who, according to the article, are all members of the Jerusalem community, who are glorifying the life of the peasant. They don't actually live the life of the peasant. Grant the culture associated with peasants may carry much mystique, but don't attempt to glorify their lifestyle if you yourself are unwilling to live it. This is compounded by the fact that they mostly wrote in English and German.