Jennifer Trent Parker's Blog

Actually…the Sumerians mined in Afghanistan

Jennifer Parker — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:45:39 +0000

In the 1920s, Sir Leonard Wooley directed the archaeological expedition to Ur, a city-state in ancient Sumer, located in modern-day southern Iraq. He and his team excavated over one thousand graves, seventeen of which were the famous Royal Tombs. In addition to the remains of soldiers and servants, the excavation uncovered hundreds of objects buried with the royalty: a gold feeding cup from the tomb of Queen Puabi; a cow’s head made of gold and lapis lazuli; a gold dagger with a lapis lazuli handle; and a magnificent helmet in the tomb of Meskalamdug, made of electrum, a 15-carat alloy of silver and gold. They also discovered numerous vessels made out of gold, silver, copper, obsidian, lapis lazuli, alabaster, and marble. But these resources certainly didn’t come from the alluvial valley between the Tigris and Euphrates—they came from Afghanistan. 4,500 years ago the ancient Sumerians from southern Mesopotamia discovered, in Afghanistan, what we have apparently “re-discovered” in 2010.

There is a “Muslim World?”

Jennifer Parker — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:41:10 +0000

What is the “Muslim or Islamic World?” This widely accepted expression presumably implies the collection of countries whose official, dominant, or major religion is Islam. However the casual usage of “Islamic or Muslim World” implies an ignorance about the phrase’s troubling connotations, origins, and implications; and, it’s a sloppy way of denoting its objects.

The modern “Muslim World” is extraordinarily diverse—geographically, politically, ethnically, linguistically, and religiously—consisting of countries as disparate as Nigeria, Iran, Bosnia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Eritrea, and Indonesia. Therefore, the expression is also misleading, as several of these aforementioned countries (and others) are probably not meant to be included in the “Muslim World.” Islam, as practiced in the “Islamic World,” varies greatly within and among the different countries. In Iran, the vast majority of Muslims are Twelver Shi’ites, whereas Turkey is essentially a secular nationalist state. And although Islam factors significantly into many of the politics and national identities of this “World,” the term understates powerful (and often competing) non-religious affiliations. The Kurds, Palestinians, and Shi’ites probably feel stronger ties to their respective ethnolinguistic group, nationality, and religious denomination than as members of the “Muslim World.” If pan-Islamist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had achieved their political and religious goals, the “Islamic World” might be a more accurate description today. But ultimately, pan-Arabism and various nationalist movements gained more popular support.

The “Muslim World” perpetuates destructive Orientalist narratives: namely the West and the Orient are antithetical; all Oriental/Islamic societies are fundamentally similar; and there is inherent “clash” between “Western Civilization” and the “Islamic World,” as Samuel P. Huntington argued. Is the “Muslim World” fundamentally different from the non-Muslim world? No. Does Islamic theology and dogma unite this “World,” creating a cohesive unit, with singular goals and strategies? Definitely not. In the “Muslim World,” does Islam permeate all facets of life? No. Islam is a powerful, important way of life for millions of people around the world, but the “Muslim World” can not –and should not– be studied, understood, or referred to as a collective.

And doesn’t “West Asia” seem more appropriate than “Muslim World” or “Middle East?”

Interview with Spike Lee!

Jennifer Parker — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:30:39 +0000

I interviewed Spike Lee when he came to Yale in the fall of 2009. Coming soon!

Goldstone discusses war crimes in Gaza

Jennifer Parker — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:01:29 +0000

Justice Richard J. Goldstone, head of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, received both warm support and vocal criticism during his speech Wednesday.

Goldstone, former member of the South African Constitutional Court, delivered the George Herbert Walker, Jr. Lecture in International Studies, entitled “Accountability for War Crimes.” Goldstone addressed issues of proportional retaliation in wartime, demanded accountability for war crimes and expressed support for the International Criminal Court to a standing-room only crowd in the Luce Hall auditorium.

Goldstone, previously the Chief Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, has been vilified by many Israeli politicians, and prominent American Jews for the “Goldstone Report,” produced by the Fact Finding Mission, which found that both Israeli and Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity during the 2009 war in Gaza. However, majority of the blame is placed on the Israelis, who are also accused of violating international human rights and humanitarian laws. The Israeli military’s Operation Cast Lead targeted Gaza “in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population,” the report said.

“Israel claims the international laws of armed conflict should be changed to allow disproportionate military responses to attack terrorist group,” Goldstone said in the speech. “This can only be interpreted as a plea to take measures that are regarded as unlawful under present rules of international law.”

Goldstone also criticized the second Bush Administration’s attempts to avoid the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that America’s support for the court would give it more widespread credibility.

At the beginning of the question-and-answer session, the lecture was disrupted by two men carrying a long white banner. It listed the Dreyfus Affair, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (both expressions of anti-Semitism) and the Goldstone Report. Goldstone refused to continue until the protesters lowered the banner.

Goldstone also addressed recent media reports that say Israel is preparing to submit a rebuttal to the United Nations. Goldstone said that he believes it is important that Israel conduct “objective, independent” investigations into these accusations, but that “a rebuttal” is not likely to include investigations.

Goldstone also conceded “Israel is treated unfairly in my view,” in regards to the many UN Security Council resolutions passed against Israel. “It’s about politics, not morality. The issue of Palestine is very important to the non-aligned groups. South Africa used to receive this attention. But ultimately, this was an even-handed mandate that I received.”

Audience members had mixed reactions to Goldstone’s lecture — some clapped and others booed.

Ian Shapiro, Sterling Professor of Political Science, who introduced Goldstone, said in an interview that there was no resistance among Yale administrators to inviting Goldstone to speak. Shapiro also said that he disagreed with a Jan. 26 column in the News (“A different forum needed for Goldstone” by Adam Yoffie and Noah Pollak), which argued that by allowing Goldstone to deliver the address, the Yale administration was taking sides in the controversy.

Two other students interviewed said they enjoyed Goldstone’s speech.

“I was impressed with his professionalism and objectivity,” Luke Beland ’11 said.