Today's discussion of the Karen Armstrong reading really provoked me to think about the perception of history depending on who's reading it. We usually think of history as something that's proven based on documents and evidence. The ancient history of Jerusalem is not nearly as objective as other parts of history. It isn't like studying World War II or the formation of the state of Ohio. Jerusalem is such a vastly different type of discussion, which is key in understanding the roots of conflict over the city. We must remember that we don't have all the facts and more than likely never will. However, this does not stop people from having opinions about the history--perceived "truths" that lead them to believe what they believe should be the fate of the city, who should occupy it, etc.
Hearing other people's perspectives based on their backgrounds was interesting to me. I have always had a specific perception about the history of Jerusalem based on what my religion taught me, as well as what I had learned in school. Others also had backgrounds in learning the history of Jerusalem, yet we all believed pretty much the same things about the history. I think that makes for a fantastic starting point for the rest of our discussions.
I was also very impressed by how much everyone had clearly thought about the reading. Everyone had something to say, which is usually not the case in most classes (making for an awkward class period). I look forward to discussing the rest of Armstrong's chapters next week with you all.
I couldn't agree with you anymore. I think the historiography, or examination of how and why history is written the way it is, can be critical. This is especially the case with Jerusalem and I think Karen Armstrong does a great job of explaining why history may have been documented the way it was, and what significance it meant for the people of Jerusalem.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with what you have written. I find the complications of the history of Jerusalem, as I read about them in the Armstrong book, to be somewhat overwhelming. Your comparison between the history of Ohio and the history of Jerusalem was thought-provoking for me. As you suggest, the history of Ohio is much more clear--based on facts which lead to little if any dispute. The history of Jerusalem, however, is so much more complex and involves a variety of views, perspectives, beliefs and ideologies. I feel grateful for the simplicity of Ohio's history, as I am beginning to understand the heartache and turmoil which can spring from disputed understanding of history.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly interested in hearing about the tension between the "facts" presented in the Armstrong book and the varying religious beliefs those in our class had been brought up with. Before taking this class I had very little previous knowledge about the class, and to see people so far removed from the place itself with such developed opinions furthers the notion of just how delicate and deep the past of Jerusalem is.
ReplyDelete