Strangely, I didn't expect this. His little introduction made me think "here's a guy who really wants to learn". I thought he would be one of those types who don't like to be told what they should think, but is determined to come to his own opinions based on personal experience. I thought the fellow had an open mind. That impression didn't last very long.
I think what surprised me the most was not a prejudice against the Turks, but against the Jews. He seemed very tolerant in many ways of the Turks and even seemed quite fond of them in some places. Not that he didn't have plenty of negative things to say about their military, religion, and culture. He did. Yet, the Jews seemed to get under his skin in a completely different way.
During his discussion of the Jews, his language became less forgiving. He used words like foolish, shallow, liars and cheaters. He continually challenged their intelligence and intregity. I would have to say these opinions were influenced by prior prejudices.
Oh, before I sign off, I thought I would list all the words I failed to recognize in his writings:
- janissaries
- galcots
- timariots
- bastinadoed
- santones
I'm going to have to do some research to figure out what those words mean or who they refer to. Okay...I'm outta here.
3 comments:
Krista,
Very nice point about Blount's different treatment of the Jews in his narrative. I think you stated in class that the vitriol he vents on Jews as a group may indicate a stronger Christian affiliation than many of the students felt he possessed. I found it interesting, however, that he records an in-depth conversation with a Jew who expresses the idea that Christianity was a religion constructed to fit the cultures "oppressed" by Rome and its imperial expansion. He might despise such people, but at least he engages them; and, not only does he listen, but gives quite a bit of space in his own travel narrative to such "blashphemy." What do you make of that?
Compared to much writing of the time, Blount's representation of Muslims and Islam is relatively unbiased. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that in seeking to explain the reasons for stereotypes (i.e. Turks are jealous because of the cultural institution of polygamy), he seems to seek understanding and knowledge rather than to find evidence for his own prior opinions.
Very perceptive comments on all of the readings!
I forgot to add the following:
"janissaries" -- the Ottoman army which was made up of Christians taken from the provinces. I think this got clarified in class discussion.
"timariots" -- Ottoman soldiers stationed in garrisons in the conquered provinces.
"bastinadoed" -- beaten on the soles of the feet.
"Santones" -- I'm not sure about this one without looking it up ... is it a reference to the "crazy" people who are looked upon as saints?
"galcots" -- you stumped me. I'll get back to you.
I thought it a neat little paradox, to tell you the truth. I think he wanted so desperately to be open-minded that he made a valiant effort to at least get to know the Jews. Yet, in his writing about them, he seemed unable to divorce himself from his distrust and dislike of them.
Of course, this mere conjecture. I could be way off base...
Post a Comment