Jerusalem and Unity
From the video that we watched, one of the main aspects that caught my attention was how the old city of Jerusalem was set up. It was set up in four quarters, but it was interesting to hear that many of the people never ventured into the other quarters. It also mentioned that the size of the city was less than a square mile, which made it even more shocking that many of the people in the quarters do not know how the others live. The fact that Jerusalem has such an important meaning for so many different people of different faiths makes me wonder why unity between them is not as common as one might think. Especially with the Israeli and Palestinian conflict being such a pertinent issue however, it does make sense that different groups are not aware of the ways that others live. I think that if they took the time to understand their differences, the conflict could potentially be less pertinent. This concept applies not to just Jews and Muslims, but to all of the different groups that argue over religious significance in Jerusalem. The video mentioned that the reason that Jerusalem became a prominent city was because of the access to water, despite the poor nature of the town. This need for water is a unifying one, seeing as all people of different backgrounds need water. With this trait in mind, I think that Jerusalem can signify unity between all of the people that call it home. From the reading, there is a line that explains that historians do not discover the past, but rather they "create it" (Howell and Prevenier 2001, 1). This can be applied within the context of the city of Jerusalem and how it is perceived. If historians choose to depict the city in a way that promotes unity and positivity, it could help to prevent or lessen the blow of conflicts between the different types of people who hold Jerusalem sacred. It could help to promote growth and create understanding throughout different audiences. I think that Jerusalem being a city that is as sacred as it is to so many people should not be a reason for division or conflict, but rather a source of understanding.
Nice post that discusses the movie and brings in ideas from the article as well. Question: I like how you bring in the idea about history being created. I also like your idea about trying to promote unity and positivity. With this in mind, if historians find evidence to support that conflict has taken place, do you think they should ignore or downplay it when creating their histories?
ReplyDeleteOne big suggestion: for future blog posts, try and break up your post into a few paragraphs. You brought in a few different ideas and having separate paragraphs for each would have helped communicate those different ideas to your audience.