The more I read, the more I come to think of Jerusalem as a
symbol, rather than a piece of contested land. A Jerusalem worth wanting seems to be an ideological home for the
devout and the hopeful, not the geographical reality of the location
itself. This is emphasized in the
Dumper reading, which gave me my first real overview of the physical layout of
the land. Its inhabitance is as
ancient as it comes, yet the area has a remarkable deficit of clean water. This has historically accounted for the
ebb and flow of the population as much as the overwhelming changes in who
controlled the city in each era.
Jerusalem has never had any remarkable economic power, considering that
the surrounding area does not have sufficient trade-worthy natural recourses
for this.
Still, I have heard about Jerusalem all my life. Growing up, I was very in-tune with (or
at least mildly aware of) current events, as my parents had the news on at 6:30
promptly every evening, and dinner on the table by 7. My earliest pictures of the modern-day Jerusalem were of
street fighters throwing grenades through shop windows. My parents informed me that this fight
was “as old as Abraham.” Clearly,
there is a reason that Jerusalem is contested for and sought after so badly. This reason, though, must lie outside
the realm of geographic practicality.
The article uses the term “frenetic,” but looking at the
timeline of the history of Jerusalem-a relentless series of conquests,
revivals, pillages, and exchanges of power- I have more of a “hectic” picture
in my mind. It seems as if
a “brief history of Jerusalem” is
an oxymoron. It is fascinating to
see how so many different groups of people have at one time been in control of
the city, leaving behind traces of their distinct cultures and traditions. Having almost no prior knowledge of
this, I am still getting used to the vocabulary. For instance, I am confused as to what the term “Old City”
refers to. Any insight from fellow classmates are welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment