Seeing as I cannot fully remember the contents of the first week of class, I will devote this first backlog post to the subject (most likely boring to you all) of why I chose to take this course. Enjoy: As a history major I am always looking into the WHY's of my field. e.g. "Why is it that Burnside chose to keep sending men accross the bridge at Antietem?" While most would answer curtly that he was an egomanical jack-ass who cared nothing for his men and chose to mechanically follow orders sent to him by McClellan, I am intrigued to find out more behind that truth (especially since he was told to capture the bridge regardless of casualties).
Ever since coming to Manhattanville, transfering in from a community college with a worse than anemic history department, I have been studying the Middle East. I began by taking Professor Ashkinaze's "Wars of the Modern Middle East," thinking it would be more of a military history course than anything else (boy was I wrong). This course got me back to thinking along a vein I had previously touched on regarding how all the world's major trouble spots today were at one point under British control (my English wife loves that one), and wonder again why? What was it about the British control of these regions which differs from what the French, whose colonial regimes made the British seem more like nagging wives than brutal dictators, left behind in their wake? Albeit the former French possessions of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Syria and Lebanon have not been paragons of peace and tranquility, but compage them to India, Pakistan, Israel/ Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Iran (which the never truly controlled, but its close enough to include), Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, South Africa ... the list goes on an on. Developing this thought into a workable thesis has been somewhat difficult, but I am sure there is something there which needs expalining.
Being as my minor is Irish Studies, my interest has been continually piqued and I have been exposed to plenty of background information which has helped to inform my thinking along these lines. Chivalry in the British Isles and the History of Modern Ireland being wonderful examples of parallel courses. Adding on to them I have taken courses in the political history of the modern middle east as well as the general history. All of these courses, and my own extra curricular readings, have led me to hypothesize that the splits of these areas has led to the majority of conflict there. While Ireland provides an example, I have chosen to focus my thesis research on India and Palestine as perhaps the most clear cut examples of this syndrome.
So why this course? Because Im lazy and wanted to take a course which would help with my thesis, but also because Im interested in the whys.
