disclaimer

excuse the brief ending to the post below, the last part got deleted and will be posted later throughout the day

reaction: safe area gorazde

I'm baaaaaaaaaack! After taking a long hiatus due to the Upper School Musical, Brigadoon, I am back for good to blog about everyone's favorite topic, Globalization in our small little Scandanavian countries! But rather than taking my time on the latter topic, I've decided to write about my reaction to the Bosnian war circa 92' and Joe Sacco's comic book, "Safe Area Gorazde." First of all, Wow. Although, I was alive during the war, I really had no idea what was going on. From what I knew, I believed the war to have been another "friendly" Cold War, rather than a brutal bloodshed of neighbors in combat with one another. Interestingly enough, the start of the war? Nationalism. Bosnia was a country mixed with Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats. All three different nationalities were placed among different religious sects, Orthodox Christians, Muslim, and Catholic. Doesn't this sound like another religious war? Eventually the war turned into a genocide, clearing out and killing as many Muslims as possible. Like Rwanda, the Congo and other countries that have experienced Ethnic Cleansing, Bosnia was extremely violent and brutal. Along with brutality and rape, Serbs tried to do whatever possible in order to get rid of their “enemies.” But the question is who is the “enemy?” Believe it or not… neighbors and friends. In Sacco’s graphic novel, he emphasized that the Serbs were not just random killers, but rather had intimate relationship with whom they were killing. Most of the people knew who their killers were, whether they were close friends and neighbors, or just acquaintances’. The point is, the war was more on a personal level.

The Beginning of Little Bagdhad

MOOOOOOVIE

Response: Bin Laden and Other Thoroughly Modern Muslims

Like I have stated in my previous responses, the views on Islam and Muslims have always been one of hazy dispositions. No one really knows what to believe and think especially since the tragedies taken place on 9/11. But like I've said, there's much more to this mystique that we call Islam. In Charles Kurzman's "Bin Laden and Other Thoroughly Modern Muslims" he defends the Islamic traditions by believing that they are no longer the radical traditions established centuries long ago, but rather evolved and "westernized" even. Although Bin Laden is a "quintessential" symbol of what we perceive the muslim religion to be, Kurzman opens his argument by stating that he is a " medieval, reactionary, and eager to return the Islamic world to its seventh-century roots." Kurzman is completely correct, and backs his argument adequately by comparing the Taliban to the Islamic Republic. "While the Taliban barred girls from attending schools, the Islamic Republic of Iran more than doubled girls' education from pre-revolutionary levels. While the Taliban barred woman from working at most jobs, Iranian woman entered the labor force in unprecedented numbers, as television anchors, parliamentary deputies, government typists and sales clerks." This just goes to show that the majority of muslim countries and muslims in general are in no way shape or form intentionally trying to hold back from springing forward. Simply put "The Taliban reintroduced tradtion; Khomeini and other Islamists reinvented it." Bin Laden is just a symbolism of terror and is one of the main reasons why westerners are frustrated with Islam in general. But why haven't our views changed drastically then if we've started to see these changes? Much of Islam countries want to modernize like the West and "wish to abolish long-standing religious practices" and in fact they've succeeded. What's even funny is that the culture has become extremely tolerant, "in North America as gay convert to Islam produced a Website called Queer Jihad that espoused tolerance for homosexuality." What we see being portrayed on the media of Islam is quite different than the actual reality of it. Rather than solely focusing on the negatives we are exposed to so much, we must focus on all the good things that are coming from this considered backward culture. It truly has been making a change and all for the better. 

Response: Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

Since 9/11 especially, the view on the Muslim world has drastically changed. Although, the Islamic religion and culture has always been viewed as obscure to many Westerners, the events taken place on September 11th, 2001 had adapted a Re-Islamisation theory. In Oliver Roy's, "Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah" , Roy eloquently explains that there simply is no place suitable for Muslims and they have become the "minorities" of the world. The world has become increasingly Westernized through Globalization, and there simply is no room for radical Islam. But in order for Muslims to feel at place, Roy explains that they must adapt to the cultures surrounding them. They have to "reinvent what makes them Muslim." So basically, to exist as a Muslim there must be some Westernization concepts involved. In short "Re-Islamisation is part of a process of deculturation" and in order to fit in the religion, culture, and politics of Islam must be adapted to westerner's liking. So does that mean that the universal Islam will be changed for our century? Doesn't that seem a little unfair? Looks like Islam isn't the only "radical" concept floating about our world. 

Response: Global Fundamentalism

Along with this huge phenomena of Globalization, comes wonderful Fundamentalism. According to Frank J. Lechner author of the essay, "Global Fundamentalism," "Fundamentalism is fashionable - as a social problem for social analysis more than as a form of religious faith and activism." Is that true? Is our world more concerned on how society perceives a specific religion rather than the religion itself? For example, Lecher states that " For Islamic militants [fundamentalism] includes an obligation to spread the Islamic revolution and defeat the dominant Western satan. Rather than spreading their religious beliefs they are trying to incorporate through their religion their beliefs on society, something that has evolved global fundamentalism. Easily put, Lechner believes "fundamentalism, is inevitable contaminated by the culture it opposes." This statement is entirely true, we already have preconceived notions of others cultures many times due to their religious beliefs. But is that a sufficient reason for Globalization to cease? No, that is why there is a future for the theory of fundamentalism! Of course it must be an altered form, but ideally it would "reorder society and reassert the validity of a tradition and use it in new ways." Rather than having religion and cultures get involved in Globalization we must (cliche, yes, i know) come together and go beyond the societies we come from. 

A Status Quo Monarchy

2009 definitely is a year for an epic change in the United States, starting off with our first black President, Barack Obama. But will there be a great change across the seas in our favorite little 

European country, Sweden? Apparently not. According to www.thelocal.se, Sweden's Royal Family just isn't willing to relent. For those unaware, Sweden has been under a "constitutional monarchy" since the dinosaurs existed (I say this loosely). It appears that the Family is just for show, but obviously they think they have greater importance in the country and that is why their law of succession is "corrupt." The King, Queen, and Prince all agree that they are not ready to give up their title, but are there people out there willing to overthrow the Royal Hiennies. More news on the succession will be following!