At the dawn of World War I, the United States was only a rising power. Our reputation was relatively benign among Middle Easterners, who saw no imperial ambitions in our presence and were grateful for the educational and philanthropic services Americans provided. Yet by September 11, 2001, everything had changed. The United States had now become the unquestioned target of those bent on attacking the West for its perceived offenses against Islam. How and why did this transformation come about? And how did each of the factors that make the Middle East so complex contribute to this transformation?
This series of 24 lectures by an award-winning scholar is a narrative history of U.S. political involvement in the Middle East from World War I to the present day. Presented from a historian's balanced perspective, it will strengthen your ability to place today's headlines into historical context, evaluate what is most likely to happen next, and understand those oncoming events when they occur.
Step by step, with attention to the viewpoints and motivations of each nation and leader involved, the lectures explore
Disclaimer: Please note that this recording may include references to supplemental texts or print references that are not essential to the program and not supplied with your purchase.
©2003 The Teaching Company, LLC (P)2003 The Great Courses
This course is a great introduction to anyone interested in the history of US-Middle East relations which has so shaped the world we live in today. From WWI, the resulting fall of the Ottoman empire, to the Iranian revolution, the Oslo peace failures and 9/11, Professor Salim Yaqub gives us a balanced and insightful narration of events.
What really caught my interest in this presentation was Professor Yaqub's recounting of the reasons that lead to the Iranian revolution and the extreme feelings against Americans in the region. I was already aware that our strong support for the rather unsavory Shah was a main factor, but some of the finer details suprised me: for example, I had no idea that bad driving by our GIs resulting in ridiculous levels of death by vehicular manslaughter was one of the sparks that set off the proverbial powder keg.
Really the one qualm that I had with this presentation was the Professor's extremely slow reading speed. Even at 1.5X speed the recording still seems to run at a pace slower than normal conversational speed. He could have gotten so much more information in 12 hours.
i love biographies
In this series of lectures, professor Salim Yaqub tells us the story of this confusing link between US and the middle east. One have never imagined that this relation started so early as the missionaries of US even before 1914. He explained the transfer of power from great Britain to US in the last century. He clarified that critical moments in the middle east in which the US was regarded as an enemy and these moments in which some of the middle Easters called for its help. So entertaining to hear these lectures to understand the minds behind the american diplomacy machine in the region
Learn, understand, then decide whether you accept or reject.
This part of modern history is usually full of contradictory testimonies from contradictory sources. This course helps set the framework of what happened without speculation.
I only need two: unintended consequences
Not really but the course does make you cringe as you listen to mistakes the US and/or the Mid East have made over the past century.
Professor Salim Yaqub is fairly balanced throughout the course and I enjoyed it very much. The one knock is that his narration can get annoying with all of the pauses.
Interesting that some reviewers commented that they liked that he spoke slowly (so they can take notes--something impractical for me in my car), and some were bothered by his speed. My problem was his habit of saying three or four words and then pausing. I don't know if this is an affectation. I don't imagine he speaks like this when he is not lecturing.
I have not finished listening. I heard about the establishment of Israel on the way to work and about the '56 war on the way home. The lecturer is described as even-handed. Well, I suppose that is true if your definition is that he is not pro-Israel. I will withhold final judgment until I finish the course. Lots more to come, I'm sure. But I had to post this because I happened to be reading Dershowitz's The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace ( http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Israels-Enemies-Exposing/dp/0470490055/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1410933029&sr=8-6&keywords=dershowitz+alan ) and he happened to refute a couple of the things that the lecturer mentioned in my listening today. He did mention that Palestinians were fleeing Israel during the 48 war. He failed to mention that some Arab leaders told the Palestinians to leave. Something denied by Israel's enemies, according to Dershowitz, but something that he documents. This is an error of omission, perhaps. The lecturer does posit that the Israelis outnumbered their Arab enemies. This is also something that has been asserted by enemies of Israel, but that is false. The numbers used by Israel's enemies (and also the lecturer in this course) are misleading. They add the front line troops on the Israeli side to the rear echelon support troops. But since Israel's opponents were dictatorships, we have no record of their rear echelon support troops, so we only have their front line troops. In any meaningful comparison, you would compare front line troops with front line troops, or total forces to total forces (which is impossible since we don't have information about the dictatorships). To calculate Israel's troops by one method and use a different method by a different is meaningless and misleading.I am not saying that the lecturer is among Israel's enemies. But he is using their (false) information, so I am not sure I would call him unbiased. We all have our biases. We should acknowledge them. We certainly should not refer to someone as even-handed just because his views match our own.There is bias in the information we include and in the information we leave out. There is bias in nuance and in expression.I expect to enjoy listening to the rest of the course, and I am sure I will learn much. But don't listen to this course and expect to have a complete understanding of a very complicated topic.
I learned so much from listening to this series. I am particularly happy with Professor Yaqub's organized lectures and his even-handed manner. I also like that he speaks slowly enough for me to take notes. I highly recommend this lecture series.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content