After reading about the history of Jerusalem in Karen Armstrong's first four chapters, I felt very informed yet still confused. I found myself re-reading the same paragraph over and over again because I just couldn't remember all the different names, places, and events that were talked about. I really liked how Armstrong started off her chapters (especially in the Index), where she refers to Jerusalem as place that is holy and sacred to so many different people. The fact that she mentions that Israel is a "holy" place for both Israelis and for Palestinians is key. This point needs to be recognized. It's unfortunate that holy is defined completely differently to both groups, but that just goes without say. I liked that when the word holy was mentioned, it almost always pertained to god. God is the one and only that has the ability to make something Holy. Religion starts with an experience, and only after that is there an explanation. I really liked that part of the reading.
I need to go back and read the chapters over again and take notes to really make sense out of them. I am honestly overwhelmed with all the history that was provided in these four chapters. It has given me a better understanding of where we are coming from when we talk about the history of Jerusalem. While reading, it was hard to recognize who controlled what part of land at a specific time, but Karen Armstrong allows the reader to grasp onto something they hadn't known previously. To me, most of this was new information-at least from the Palestinian part. I knew only some of the references she made when she referred to the Israelis/Jews. She does a very good job of summarizing key events while still maintaining a time order so as to not confuse the reader. For me, my main problem was the enormous amount of information. It was just a little difficult to keep track of everything! Overall though, I really enjoyed immersing myself completely into Jerusalem's history and it has given me insight and reference for future information that may be thrown my way.
One thing to bear in mind--and Armstrong falls into the Eurocentric trap the same way most historians (and readers!) do--is not to think of "who controlled what part of land at [any] specific time," because the idea of a political entity controlling territory is a relatively modern, thoroughly European concept.
ReplyDeletePrior to Europe in 1648, sovereignty wasn't a territorial concept--a ruler ruled people, not land. So if, for example, the Pharaoh in Egypt "ruled" Gaza, it wasn't that there were maps & border markers that indicated Gaza was part of Egypt--it was that the ruler of Gaza was a subject of Pharaoh.
It might sound like semantics, but it will help to think of it like this: unless someone owed fealty to a ruler, where they lived wasn't "part" of anywhere else. The land wasn't controlled--which is why cities and whole regions dried up and disappeared from history for decades at a time--allegiances and sovereignty was based on people, not place.