Reading Response 3: Armstrong 1-4

When I was reading Armstrong’s introduction, I definitely had to agree with her about the idea that “history is a dimension of the present.” You just walk through the streets of Jerusalem, and suddenly it doesn’t feel like you’re in 2012 or 2013 any more, everything is just so old and beautiful, and sure, there are modern things there like cars and technology, and people aren’t dressed like they belong in the 1800s or anything, but the city itself – the walls, the streets, everything just feels so old, and by extension you just feel like you’re part of it all.  I also like that she addressed the idea of religious pluralism, and people seeing the city in different ways, because it’s so true: it means different things to different people, and you can know it going in to the city, but actually feeling it and seeing it makes it feel more real than a romanticised description told to you by someone else.

She also brought up a good point that, for me at least, seems to reflect on the conflict at large: the whole concept of being FIRST. We were here first, we built the city first, it was important to us first. My five year old brother does that too: he saw that candy first, so it’s his. I didn’t include that last part to belittle the conflict or the people fighting every day, but just to point out the childishness of it all. So what if you were here first? It doesn’t change the fact that others have been there for a long time, that they’re still there, and that they’re probably going to continue to be there for a very long time. I understand that this part of it is small, that there are greater issues to deal with before the conflict can be resolved, but people do bring this argument up thinking it’s a valid point (my own family included) and I think that as long as anyone using it believes it, then progress can’t be made beyond this point.

Alright, that last paragraph was a huge rant and slightly off-tangent, but I think I’m going to leave it in as I genuinely do believe it.

I also really liked the part where she was talking about the similarity between art and religion, and the importance of practicing charity and compassion in every day life in order for the city to be considered ‘holy’ within religious circles. I’d never really considered that comparison before, and then she went on to say how some of the most uncharitable and atrocious acts had been committed to people within Jerusalem, and it just made me reconsider my own definition of ‘holy.’ She talked about how every major religion required its practitioners to practice charity and compassion outside the place of worship, but if Jerusalem is such a religious city, then why are there people living in fear of rockets or suicide bombers or being forcibly removed from their house?

Ultimately though, I liked the reading this week. It was a bit difficult for me to get into it once I passed the introduction and started in on the first chapter, but once I was in the zone it wasn’t that hard to keep reading. Sometimes all the information was a bit dense and I felt like it was going in one ear and out the other, but it was great to see a mix of the historical and religious history that Jerusalem had, especially its history from the ancient days. I also liked that so far Armstrong seems pretty impartial and hasn’t been “pro” anything and is more informative than editorialising. (Is that even a word? Did I use it properly? I’m not sure.)