I think it is easy to say that most people have been able to see two different sides to a story. It happens so often that we do not even acknowledge it because most times it happens in simple fashion, such as a dilemma in a movie or television show or a dispute between friends or family. While at Miami, I believe I have been able to identify and analyze multiple perspectives to a issue that is a little more complex than a fight over a boy; it is one of the most controversial, complex, and emotional issues in our worlds history- the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I am currently in International Studies 201 course and have been learning about major conflicts throughout our world’s history. I had learned about most of these conflicts (wars, attacks, imperialism, globalization, etc.) through my various history classes but the one thing that this course offered me that my high school classes did not was the ability to look at these issues through different lenses. Once I began to relearn the conflicts I realized that the standard American textbooks I had been receiving my information from were quite skewed. They only told the story from the American perspective, leaving out important details and more times than not portraying our country in a positive light. In ITS 201 we look at these issues on an international stage not just the American stage. It truly amazed me how unknowingly and unwillingly biased I was about these certain issues. Once I was able to see the whole story, including the different perspectives, it caused me to completely reevaluate my opinions.
One of the major Issues we focused on in class was the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is a topic I did not know much about but still had some opinions. I thought it was ridiculous how the conflict has being going on for decades and still has no end in sight. I thought there was no excuse for the extreme violence against each other and especially to the others not involved. And honestly, I thought these people were not civilized because if they were they would of been able to make progress to address the issue. After spending only five weeks studying the topic, I hold none of my previous opinions and can now see how ethnocentric they were.
There are many different issues within the conflict that make it so complex that I was unaware of. It is a local conflict (Palestinians vs. Israelis), it is a regional conflict (Israel v. Arab neighbors), and it is a international conflict (clash of competing empires). There are many obstacles that are standing in the way of peace such as, the status of Jerusalem, final borders, return of Palestinian refugees, jewish settlements, resources, and security. The main issue is that both groups of people, the Israelis (Jewish people) and the Arabs (Palestinians/Muslims) have legitimate claims to the same land. The Israelis claim that they had lived on the land prior to the birth of Jesus, that the were unfairly expelled by the Romans in 135 c.e., and also that God promised them the land in Genesis (“Promise Land”). The Arab’s claim that they had been continuously living on the land even before Abraham, that the Bible cannot be used for a political claim, and also that the Europeans exported their problem to Palestine. A United Nations mediator on Palestine, Folk Bernadotte, illustrates this extremely tangled web the conflict has created,
"It is...undeniable that no settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged by the hazards and strategy of the armed conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. The majority of these refugees have come from territory which...was to be included in the Jewish State. The exodus of Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumors concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion. It would be an offense against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries." (israelinationalnews.com)
Already I saw how hard it would be to tell either group that they were wrong about their claims. They both have legitimate and emotional ties to the same land and why should one group have to give that up? To make matters worst in the early 19th century Britain promised both groups the same land if they agreed to help defeat the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Both groups agreed to fight in order to achieve their dream, to claim the land as their own. The Hussein McMahon correspondence (Britain’s promise to the Arabs) and the Balfour Declaration (Britain’s promise to the Jews) further made the Jews and the Arabs feel entitled to the same land because they had now shed blood for it. I realized how the “bad guy” is neither the Jews or the Arabs, they both just want to live in peace on “their” land. The “bad guy” is Britain for playing the two against each other (I bet that is not in British textbooks). Overall, the issue is about two competing national movements, the Jewish National Movement (Zionists) and the Palestinian National Movement fighting for their land. There was and still is continuous fighting among the parties including wars, violent attacks and multiple leader assassinations. These atrocities have only added fuel to this fire and not even the U.S. or other major powers have been able to put it out. In 2006 Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said, “ The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.” (wikiquote.org) Once again this shows how truly difficult this issue is to resolve.
Learning about the conflict in full allowed me to correctly understand and see through the eyes of both parties. I am now extremely empathetic to these people and the conflict because I realize both sides have been wronged. These two different groups want the same thing, the right to the land they were promised and believe they rightfully deserve. How could I ever pick sides since I am not personally involved? My favorite quote about the conflict is by Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, he said “The Israelis cannot have security while denying the Palestinians a state, and the Palestinians cannot have a state while denying the Israelis security.” (imeu.net) I believe this quote perfectly illustrates the simple miscommunication of the complex conflict. I think I have been able to effectively identify and analyze both sides of the conflict and now understand why it so complicated and emotional for these struggling people.
Works Cited
Barghouti, Mustafa. “Targeted Killings Won’t Bring Peace.” The Institute for Middle East Understanding . The International Herald Tribune, 9 June 2007. Web. 13 Dec. 2010. <http://imeu.net/?news/?printer005509.shtml>.
Fendel, Hillel. “Analysis: Response to NYTimes Op-ed.” Arutz Sheva. Israeli National News, 30 Aug. 2010. Web. 13 Dec. 2010. <http://www.israelnationalnews.com/?News/?News.aspx/?139395>.
Wales, Jimmy. “Arab-Israeli Conflict.” Wikiquote. N.p., 7 Jan. 2010. Web. 13 Dec. 2010. <http://en.wikiquote.org/?wiki/?Arab-Israeli_conflict>.
Note: Different fields have different ideas about what it means to truly know something. For example, most of the sciences favor an empirical approach to knowledge. Real knowledge is acquired through sensory experience generally observation of experiments.
In contrast, scholars in some social science, education, and cultural studies fields believe that knowledge is socially constructed truth is constructed through perception, social norms, relationships, and interactions.Think about what it means to know something in the fields youve studied.
Learning. Such a simple word can mean so much. It is that little “Aha!” moment; that warming sensation that washes over us as we expand our knowledge base. We, being students, strive to learn; it is our sole purpose, our goal towards which we work day and night. Only by learning more about the world around us can we attain the knowledge necessary to function at a high level, achieve excellence, and grow and mature as individuals. Yet even the very act of learning can be a very diverse process, as I discovered within my HON 281.F class, which was designed to prepare us as HON 181 Peer-Facilitators. Within this class, our instructor, Leah Joos, taught us the varying learning styles of students from an education perspective. I, being a science student, was completely unaware of the presence of these different learning styles! They varied from verbal/linguistic, audio/musical, and visual, to body/kinesthetic and intrapersonal. In learning these various learning styles, I was essentially learning about myself. I discovered my own learning style, and was able to apply it to my own academic tendencies and personal experiences. It was irony at its finest: I was learning about, well, learning.
Leah first had us identify our own learning style by going over information provided by two handouts: Lazear’s “Seven Ways of Knowing: Teaching for Multiple Intelligences” and Armstrong’s “Seven Kinds of Smart: Identifying and developing your multiple intelligences.” Through these readings, I was successfully able to identify my personal learning style as being logical-mathematical. According to Armstrong, there are many qualities that are associated with this “scientific” style of learning that involves quantitative and qualitative problem solving. Such qualities include the ability to easily compute numbers, the capability to identify irregular or abstract patterns and sequences, and skills required to solve riddles or puzzling brainteasers. Lazear similarly cites this intelligence as the “capacity to recognize patterns, to work with abstract symbols such as numbers and geometric shapes, and to discern relationships and/or see connections between separate and distinct pieces of information.” This style undoubtedly describes my personal learning intelligence, as illustrated by my genuine interest within the sciences: I am a Biochemistry and Zoology double major, who at one point was seriously considering a mathematics minor!
Surely then it would imply that my main intelligence is only involved with mathematical and science phenomena, right? Not quite. Even Armstrong identifies certain qualities associated with this intelligence that relates to interpersonal communication, by stating how, for example, people with this intelligence enjoy new developments in science. And it is indeed accurate how I commonly enjoy discussing the latest scientific discoveries with my fellow colleagues or classmates. In fact, over the summer, I participated in a Journal Club at the Cleveland Clinic where I sat in on discussions about the latest medical journal publications. Armstrong, however, also finds rather negative attributes with this intelligence as well, stating how such individuals often find logical flaws in other people’s thinking and cannot accept the fact that something does not have a logical explanation. I must rather embarrassingly admit that at times, I do often get frustrated when something cannot be explained rationally or if someone’s thinking does not agree with the “scientific approach,” even if I do not express such sentiments externally. Through HON 281.F, I was successfully able to identify my own learning style as being logical-mathematical, and I was able to distinguish the various strengths and weaknesses that are commonly associated with it. But more importantly, I was able to successfully apply the learning style to my own academic and personal experiences. For example, Leah even had us explain how our intelligence specifically would affect our teaching style as an HON 181 Peer-Facilitator (see attached artifact, Reflection #2).
Yet I wanted to take this insight one step further. In accordance with this Tier outcome, how does a logical-mathematical person gain knowledge specifically? Looking at the field of science in general, what exact methodology do scientists utilize to learn about the world around us? As I reflected about this question, I decided to take a break and work on my Tier 2 inquiry entry. And when I began typing the words “scientific method,” it then dawned on me. I alluded to “new developments” in science, yet how are these innovative developments reached in the first place? Well the answer really involved the integration of the inquiry competency. Scientists utilize an empirical process that starts from a hypothesis or creative question as a foundation from which further investigations blossom. From this investigative process, scientists who possess this logical intelligence formulate new knowledge within the field of science.
Although I gained much insight into one intelligence in particular, it is not to say that I learned only about that style of learning. In fact, the learning style that interested me the most was not my own, but that of intrapersonal learning. I was a little confused at first as to the specifics of this learning style. Obviously, it was much more different than the logical-mathematical learning style as it did not deal with abstract concepts, mathematical models, or scientific methodology; it dealt with people. But most importantly, as I learned in Leah’s class, this learning style was all about me. When I read Lazear’s and Armstrong’s references provided to me by the course, I was immediately fascinated by how this learning style deals with learning more about oneself, through much self-reflection and contemplation of one’s emotional feelings and personal thoughts. Armstrong suggests that a person with intrapersonal intelligence regularly spends time meditating, reflecting, and thinking about important life questions, sets important goals in life, and is strong willed and independent minded. When I learned more about this learning style, I came upon two revelations. First off, this is the intelligence/learning style that the Honors Program at Miami is really trying to foster. Obviously, not a lot of people spend time reflecting about their lives and setting personal goals. However, the Honors Program is really trying to develop this intelligence. For example, after having come to Honors, I have written so many reflections either for Honors classes or for this very ePortfolio. In teaching us such practices early on, the University Honors Program is encouraging us to really develop our intrapersonal learning such that we become these “strong willed and independent minded” people who will ultimately achieve excellence.
So having established a scientific method for gaining new knowledge, how is this accomplished in a field that utilizes a lot of intrapersonal reflection such as education or social science? And believe it or not, a trip back to my inquiry Tier 2 entry would provide me the answer. Within this inquiry entry, I compared and contrasted an empirical and analytic approach to inquiry. An empirical process was surely utilized within the field of science, yet it almost seems as if the intrapersonal approach utilizes an analytic inquiry process. Such a methodology looks back at previous experiences, observations, or studies and ascertains the benefits and limitations (i.e. surveys, evaluations, etc.). Such an assessment tool would thereby provide greater insight into the efficacy of certain teaching methods or theories in practice. This new knowledge can then be utilized in future teaching or education applications and would contribute to novel methodologies within the fields of education and social science (on a side note, I highly encourage the reader to observe my Tier 2 inquiry portfolio submission as the parallels between these two competencies are very evident).
After having thoroughly reflected about both learning styles individually, the second thought that I had was to compare intrapersonal learning and my own learning style (logical-mathematical). Lazear comments on how the different learning styles and intelligences that exist are not distinct, and he points out how there is much fluidity between the concepts, as different learning styles can share similarities/differences. The two learning styles of interest (intrapersonal, logical-mathematical) are indeed quite different as mentioned before. They are centered around two completely different concepts. But then how are they similar? Well, is not a person complicated or abstract? Logical-mathematical intelligence deals with abstract and complicated problems, but if one thinks about it, people are not simple at all. The emotions and personal feelings of people must be taken into account, which often convolutes situations further. Therefore, a logical-mathematical intelligence can help profoundly, by providing a solid source of rationality to work out any intrapersonal or even interpersonal issue. What about the other way around? How is intrapersonal intelligence related to logical-mathematical? Well, this took me some real thought, but then I realized that intrapersonal intelligence is really at the forefront of each intelligence type? Does not it take much personal reflection of some sort to discover what one’s strengths and weaknesses are? Intrapersonal intelligence really acts as a portal into ourselves, an environment of reflection where we can really ponder important life questions. As a result of these questions, we learn more about ourselves and our strengths and weaknesses with regards to personal intelligence.
In addition, the methods through which both of these learning styles acquire knowledge are not completely dissimilar. Sure, a scientific approach may be tied to an empirical model while an intrapersonal learning style is more analytic in its knowledge gathering, but there is definitely some crossover. One example is the review process in scientific communication. Once a journal article is published, it is up to the other members of the scientific community to evaluate and review the published article for any inaccuracies or areas of improvement. Thus, in essence, science adopts an analytic approach to better its investigative proceedings. The same can be said of a analytic approach in education or social science. Sure, evaluative reflection is a huge method of knowledge gathering within this field, but the initial implementation of the program or theory itself within a field such as education is essentially an empirical approach. Take my example of the Honors program before; the initial implementation of the program is undoubtedly an empirical “experiment” in a sense (Taylor & Haynes, 2008). But subsequent alteration (i.e. changing the required number of Honors experiences from 12 to 9) is surely a product of analytic inquiry.
Because of Leah’s HON 281.F class, I learned so much about how I can do my part to really help the next cohort of Honors students adapt and acclimate to this new environment. But even more importantly, it provided me the opportunity to step away from a scientific point-of-view and really delve into a new field, that being the field of education. From this new perspective, I was able to learn so much about the process of learning itself. I was able to elucidate my own learning style as logical-mathematical and apply it to my own academic and personal experiences. I even learned about the other intelligences and learning styles that exist, their associated characteristics, the ways in which they work to acquire knowledge, and the similarities/differences between them. As a result, I was able to truly, yet ironically, learn about the very process of learning. Therefore, since I was able to really compare and contrast two distinct learning styles (logical-mathematical and intrapersonal) and really make thoughtful connections between them and my own personal experiences, I truly believe I have fulfilled the Tier 2 Honors Outcome for Critical and Integrative Thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment