Engaging with Previous Students

Each student will write blog comments on the three blog summaries linked below, written by students enrolled in the course when it was first offered at UCM in 2016. In your comments (3-4 sentences each), consider how these students’ ideas and interpretations contribute to the discussions we’ve had in our current class. Do these summaries provide a different perspective on the main ideas and questions raised in your own blog summary? How so?

After completing the comments, discuss them in groups of three of four.

1. https://transnationalencounterswithislam.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/how-audiences-effect-the-writing-blog-summary-ideas/

2. https://transnationalencounterswithislam.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/blog-summary-2-draft/

3. https://transnationalencounterswithislam.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/privilege-and-affect-complicating-the-evidence/

Sell Out

Abu Taleb Khan does not shy away from expressing his attraction to British women. He spends so much time, even writes a terrible poem about how much he loves women, trying to prove he is a womanizer. He does this to show he’s fit to be part of British society. He expresses admiration for the minister Mr.Pitt who governed with Western influence, and his ability to trick people he to believe he is trustworthy. On page 182, “Mr.Pitt was enabled, by his great abilities and wonderful powers of persuasion, to obtain always a large majority in his favour; and might be said to have governed, for seventeen years, with despotic sway”. Khan is admiring the way Mr.Pitt used deception to persuade people to his favor. It is no surprise then that Khan takes inspiration and writes in a way that makes him seem like a less threatening muslim. One of the way he proves he is non-threatening is by being a misogynist womanizer just like any other high ranking English man.

On page 173 Khan explains women are so lewd and temptemted by their desires,, like Eve, that they must be kept busy with work. He then says that he understands their struggles because he too is tempted by unholy desires to resist temptation. He does so by explaining how he picks up women in bakery shops, “This I can speak from my own experience; for I scarcely ever passed the pastry-cook’s shop at the corner of Newman-street in Oxford-road, that I did not go in and spend money for the pleasure of talking to a beautiful young woman who kept it”. He is ‘sympathetic” to these women who have unholy desires, because there is he does not remember a time when he did not go to the bakery shop just to score a beautiful women. That is something a lot of British man can relate to making Khan “trustworthy” in the eyes of the British like Mr.Pitt.

Abu Taleb Khan did become someone important in English society, however Khan did not gain what he hoped. In the beginning I mentioned Khan wanted to make himself seem more British to gain their trust/respect. Due to his relationship with these British women he gained fame, but his new found fame did not ensure his trustworthiness. Just because he was popular did not make him liked (especially by British man). Many people like Duke did not like Taleb and openly critiqued him. As explained in Travels Of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, “But in Abu Talib’s eyes, this lack of respect is exacerbated by the Duke’s seeming acceptance of his position vis-a-vis the ladies. Abu Taleb argues that both the external insult and the self-abnegation Of the Duke are symptomatic of a society “fascinated” or entranced by female beauty… Abu Talib seems to suggest that the sensual attractions of women hold the nation’s most powerful personages in thrall. And such a reversal of “normative” power relations is explicitly linked at various moments in the text to the unstable future of the British empire”. Although Taleb was misogynist he added some much needed cultural change in England. English women are now putting man like Taleb before Englishman further normalizing the acceptance of Eastern people. Being more popular than English man did not make Taleb blend into the culture easier or be more respected as people did not appreciate the symbol of change he presented.

Temptation

Abu Taleb Khan does not shy away from expressing his attraction to British women. He spends so much time, even writes a terrible poem about how much he loves women, trying to prove he is a womanizer. He does this to show he’s fit to be part of British society. He expresses admiration for the minister Mr.Pitt who governed with Western influence, and his ability to trick people he to believe he is trustworthy. On page 182, “Mr.Pitt was enabled, by his great abilities and wonderful powers of persuasion, to obtain always a large majority in his favour; and might be said to have governed, for seventeen years, with despotic sway”. Khan is admiring the way Mr.Pitt used deception to persuade people to his favor. It is no surprise then that Khan takes inspiration and writes in a way that makes him seem like a less threatening muslim. One of the way he proves he is non-threatening is by being a misogynist womanizer just like any other high ranking English man.

On page 173 Khan explains women are so lewd and temptemted by their desires,, like Eve, that they must be kept busy with work. He then says that he understands their struggles because he too is tempted by unholy desires to resist temptation. He does so by explaining how he picks up women in bakery shops, “This I can speak from my own experience; for I scarcely ever passed the pastry-cook’s shop at the corner of Newman-street in Oxford-road, that I did not go in and spend money for the pleasure of talking to a beautiful young woman who kept it”. He is ‘sympathetic” to these women who have unholy desires, because there is he does not remember a time when he did not go to the bakery shop just to score a beautiful women. That is something a lot of British man can relate to making Khan “trustworthy” in the eyes of the British like Mr.Pitt.

Blog Post Competition

Students will discuss in groups the following question:

Which ONE of the following three student blog posts provides the best example of close reading?

1. Liliana: https://transnationalencounterswithislam.wordpress.com/2022/04/13/reversing-the-oriental-gaze-whos-laughing-now/

2. Arlyne: https://transnationalencounterswithislam.wordpress.com/2022/04/12/temptation-has-a-price/

3. Will: https://transnationalencounterswithislam.wordpress.com/2022/04/14/ode-to-london-not-an-ode-and-not-about-london/

After the group discussion, each group member will write comments for their selected blog post in the “reply box.” In 3-4 sentences, describe why the close reading was effective. Each student commentator should focus on specific parts of their chosen blog post.

Keep in mind the 5 close reading guidelines:

1. Note key words or phrases that repeat in that passage.

2. Look for irony, paradox, ambiguity, and tension.

3. Note those words or phrases that seem odd or out-of-place.

4. Note any important symbols, motifs, and themes.

5.  Is there anything missing from the text that should be there?

Oasis of Green

I feel like this painting “Coaduwar Gaut.” Plate 14 in Twenty Four Landscapes. Views in Hindoostan. Drawn and engraved by Thomas & William Daniell.  London, 1807 is most suitable for understanding Mohamets description of India. There were many parts of his text that talk about being in an area that is highly accessible to water, also constantly talks about islands which means the main form of transportation is by ship. The land is abundant but distant. Like in the photo, the mountains seem spaced out as if there is more than just forestry distancing them. Letter XIX we can see- “The country and climate of Alahabad, are very delightful; when the rains are over, not a cloud is to be seen in the azure Heavens, and the heat of torrid suns is frequently tempered by the breath of fanning gales, which Providence occasionally permits to pant, on the bosom of the sultry air.” The rich tall trees resemble that of the amazon rain forest, which is inhabited and surrounded by many bodies of water; not a cloud can be seen over the horizon. The smell of water and sea can be distinct depending on what part of the island you are standing on. For produce to grow, there needs to be a body of water nearby to water crops. And in the photo there seems to be modified land for growth (the lines by the trees do not seem to be natural, pointing at land that’s been spaced out for different seeds). In these letters from Mahomet, he describes the land as being potent with life but separated enough that travel is required. Different people occupy this land with different jobs yet are spread but grouped together by occupation; we can see this in his Letter VII “…About a mile hence is a long row of low, obscure huts (such as the common natives inhabit in several parts of India) occupied by a class of people who prepare raw silk…”. The class of people occupying space is different from their status, yet they all work together to make common goods. From the text, I can infer that the land is bountiful for enough to go around, in the photo you can see people enjoying time together out in the sun with others are sitting underneath the tree next to what looks like working karts. A hut and several buildings occupy the space between the trees, as nature is abundant.

Pleasing the Rich

Dean Mahomet changed the dynamic that beautiful landscapes can only be found in England by capatalizing on the fetization of the Orient. Mahomet knew there was money in brining parts of the Orient to Europe. Mahomet tries to attract Europeans to his story, and then uses the Garden of Eden to make their greed seem good and morally justified because “really they’re just going on an adventure!” and not exploiting the place (makes them not feel guilty). Mahomet was appealing to European greed and then making it seem pretty by calling it a righteous and holy place. What you’ve got now is what we’ve talked about in class, and he’s more worried about originality than being accurate.

The best piece of art that depicts Mahoment Eden’s description of India is Daniell’s , Near Currah, on the River Ganges. It shows India as this small Garden like paradise with a lot of trade potential. The boat shows the merchers and the beautiful white building stands out as an aesthetically pleasing luxurious building. He is showing the Garden of Eden Paradise is not gone, its seen in India ‘and the very bowels of the earth enriched with inestimable mines of goal and diamonds” – its not only an eden its an Eden where you can be wealthy. Mahomet indirectly shows how he thinks Europeans are greedy by constantly trying to appeal to their desire for wealth in his writings. He tries to show off his own wealth a lot (talking about money and how rich everything is) and then talks about wealth in relation to people getting rich in India and so on.

Blog Summary #1

For this week, no blog post is required. However, students will post their first blog summary on this site according to the instructions in the assignment sheet (attached)

109-blog-summary-assign

Holding a Gun to his Head

When describing white people and people of other places (such as Africa, Portugal, and America) in his letter I’tesamaddin keeps the narrative that British people are superior. His hegemonic depiction of British differs from other accounts as he represents acknowledges their ignorance in some aspects. I’tesamaddin writes constantly of the British ignorance of their own failures. For example when he describes how Indians have no knowledge of the sea but have gotten it from accounts from Alexander the great. He then writes this counter-hegemonic movement where he calls out the British for praising Alexander as they over exaggerate his greatness, “Consequently their writings have no more significance than fairy tails..They describe him as a model justice when in reality he was a tyrant”. What makes this hegemonic however his how he ends the description, “The Arab and Persian historians writing from such a great distance in space and time, could not rely on heresy. Surely there is a world of difference between what one hears and what one sees with one’s own eyes”. Although he points out their ignorance he quickly returns to praising them or pointing out his the faults in his own culture to not draw attention to the critique. Similar to Joseph Pitt’s narrative as he wrote these small counter-hegemonic moment’s but quickly retracted then followed hegemonic notion that Christianity is better. This is evident again in I’tesamaddin’s text when he when . He spent the whole time pointing out British’s efficiency on running the boat, but ends with this, “The sailors gave themselves up to singing and merriment And the gentleman passengers enjoyed themselves by dancing with the ladies. All this appears very strange ot me I was filled with the dread at the thought that if the ship remained their much longer we would all starve to death.” This is showing that no matter how much technologically advance they were they were ignorant, but in a way that still makes the British people look good so it isn’t serious. There are some key differences as Pitt’s needed to appeal to the British when he returned to London, while I’tesamaddin was surrounded by them and needed to praise them to live. It was like they were holding a gun to his head every time he wrote to make sure he didn’t write too much. Luckily due to his clever writing we do get this counter-hegemonic moment’s were he calls them out for being ignorant.

A Dying Culture

Lord Byron’s The Giaour does not foreshadow the eventual triumph of Western Hellenism over the tyrannical Orient as all the Hellenistic properties in the poem died alluding Greek culture being simply something of the past. The beginning of the poem is a call to arms by The Giaour to all the fallen Greek heroes, “Clime of the unforgotten brave! .. / The Grave of those who cannot die!/Enough-  no foreign foe could quell/ thy soul, till from itself it fell, / Yes! Self-abasement pav’d the way/ To villain bonds and deposit away”. He is saying Greek culture is not dead, they just need to be reminded of their power, which is ironic because Greek culture dies in this poem. In  the end of the poem The Giaour says to the Priest who he’s bribed to let him stay in the church, “Such is my name, and such my tale, / Confessor-to thy secret ear”. The Giaur was the last character with Western Hellenism in the poem, but is killed and won’t even get a tomb. In addition he had to bribe the priest to even enter the church, and he’s the only one who knows the Giaur truths and life story. It seems like his tale will definitely be forgotten. By killing the only Greek characters and suggesting they are nothing more than a tale or memory it shows the “tyrannical Orient” succeed in beating Western Hellenism by making the only attachment Western Hellenism a simple memory (I also hate this wording as it makes the Turks sound bad). Leila continued on in the afterlife and that it was the memory of her and Greek culture that fueled them to try and reclaim “their heritage”. Leila continued on in the afterlife and that it was the memory of her and Greek culture that fueled them to try and reclaim “their heritage”. But Pan Hellenism wasn’t about reclaiming Greece for Greeks, it was about appropriating it for Europeans.

Colonist Mindset

Mary Montagu and Baron Byron romanticize the “dead Greece culture” but in different ways. Montagu portrays Greek traditions as something beautiful, so spectacular she loses her train of thought, “but I forget myself in these historical touches, which are very impertinent when I write to you”. Byron, however thinks the Greeks trditions need to be reviced.

Montagu compares the harem bath house to Greek deities and goddess. She uses this beauty to undermine the Turks who took over the land as” she deemed the way they treated the land that were once ruled by the Greeks,”I was, however, half broiled in the sun, and overjoyed to be led into one of the subterranean apartments, which they call the stables of the elephants, but which I cannot believe were ever designed for that use”. It seems like she uses Greek culture to justify the beauty she sees in the Orient, because she can’t believe people of color could create such beauty without white influence. Despite her appreciation of Islam and the Middle East her morals lie within the idea that she’s still superior to them just for being white (we can’t trust the morality of someone who thinks slavery is good). It is even evident in her portrait by Jean Baptize Vamour due to her being the center of attention (and very white), served by two Muslims of color. Referring back to the bathhouse she demonizes them by claiming she never joined them in their “activities” although they basically tried to undress her. This depiction of the women make them seem inferior for participating in “lewd acts”, or less holy than she, which adds to her colonist belief that Europe is better.

Byron on the other hand is someone who had no regard of politics or what people said about him, so it’s no surprise he wrote a poem without a care in the world. His Gothic poem, “The Giaour” directly encourages people to relive Greek ideals and traditions to “save” the new world from war and destructions, because they had democracy and good systems in place. By doing so he is undermining the traditions and cultures already in place. It completely villanizes the fully Muslim characters and makes this half Ottoman half European character the hero which suggests to be a hero or good you must be both. Essentially, in order for the Ottoman empire to be good it must also be Greek (white). That is not a good message to send.

In a nutshell Byron wrote, “The Giaour” a gothic text to inspire people to bring back Greece, while Montagu wrote letters describing the beauty of Greek influence in the Orient and how it is a shame it died. Although both authors have appreciated Middle Eastern culture, they still have very Orientalist ideals as they believed Greece was somehow better and needed to come to “save them”., or that the Turks were somehow in the wrong for living in what was once a beautiful white Greece. They have a colonist, manifest destiny, mindset.

by Jazmin Cabrera