THIS IS MY MASSIVELY IRRITATED FACE
Now, those of you who know me, Palestinian History is definitely not a weak point of mine. I am pretty decently informed on the Palestinian narrative front.
I took this class thinking it would be something of a refuge, a place where I didn't feel outnumbered. That didn't happen. I wanted to like that class, and I wanted to like my professor.
But he has very little respect for his students. I have never heard him just respond to a question, even just to clarify a date, without wildly misinterpreting it and going off on some tangent.
His crazy stories were interesting. Not terribly academic, but really interesting. He got a bit too personal in his arguments with other students, even saying things like "I don't care what you say. The whole world knows me. They don't know you. You can't hurt me." and "You know, other people in this class tell me I let you participate too much."
All of this, all the tension that runs through that class more than any other, I can deal with. I can deal with having another class where I can't find a reason to bother to raise my hand. (Incidentally, this is the only class I never really got into the habit of talking in, because when I did, he, y'know, wildly misinterpreted my question/statement and went off on a tangent without addressing what I said.) Fine. It was still interesting.
But I hate his testing style. Hate it. It's littered with poorly worded questions-- sometimes unclear, sometimes shamelessly biased, sometimes just flat out unanswerable. Questions that ask variants of "What do Palestinians want regarding [blank]?" or "What were [Hamas/Israel/the Palestinians]'s goals during [blank]?" First of all, he has the strangest amalgamation of views I have ever heard. I have never met a Palestinian with even remotely his views. Or an Israeli. But he is, and I use the word specifically, Extremely supportive of his views. I'm not sure if he thinks none of us have ever met or heard about or read something by a Palestinian, but the statement "Palestinians want..." is a sweeping, and frankly dangerous, generalization. Any questions like the one above are inherently flawed because of the divisiveness of historical narratives. No one in the Middle East is famous for being a transparent institution. Ask me what is written in Hamas's charter, fine, but don't ask me what "Hamas wants" or what "Hamas is willing to give up". Neither Hamas, nor Fatah, nor the government of the State of Israel is consistent or transparent. Groups in states of war generally aren't. They're not going to march of to the negotiating table and say exactly what they want and not budge on anything. This is not how it works.
Again, I would be fine with the class, would have, in some ways, enjoyed the class, but instead I have to be concerned that I got a C in a subject that I know that I know about because he teaches at Harvard and he "can't give everyone A's and B's". We have a class of a dozen people. If even. I just. Gah.
I got to commiser-rant with four fellow students afterwards, which kind of helped, cause they were totally with me. But. Uhghh.
I'm going to go take a nap. IRRITATED FACE.
We had two, count 'em, two, of our short answer questions (pick three of four) on 1. why the two state solution is becoming impossible and 2. why the one state solution is becoming more likely.
Now. I actually kind of like the one-state solution, and even I think the second one is based wholly on false pretenses. Yes, there is a certain degree of swell of Palestinian support, but a. that's about it and b. they are not even the majority there. And I'm sorry, barring some really, really, massively important event that somehow revolutionizes the whole region, Israel will never. Ever. Ever. EVER. LE OLAM LO. Give up on being Israel. And they will never have to. I am happy to pick apart the two-state any day, but that just means it needs to be modified.
GUH.
GUHHHHRRRGH. RIDICULOUS.
I took this class thinking it would be something of a refuge, a place where I didn't feel outnumbered. That didn't happen. I wanted to like that class, and I wanted to like my professor.
But he has very little respect for his students. I have never heard him just respond to a question, even just to clarify a date, without wildly misinterpreting it and going off on some tangent.
His crazy stories were interesting. Not terribly academic, but really interesting. He got a bit too personal in his arguments with other students, even saying things like "I don't care what you say. The whole world knows me. They don't know you. You can't hurt me." and "You know, other people in this class tell me I let you participate too much."
All of this, all the tension that runs through that class more than any other, I can deal with. I can deal with having another class where I can't find a reason to bother to raise my hand. (Incidentally, this is the only class I never really got into the habit of talking in, because when I did, he, y'know, wildly misinterpreted my question/statement and went off on a tangent without addressing what I said.) Fine. It was still interesting.
But I hate his testing style. Hate it. It's littered with poorly worded questions-- sometimes unclear, sometimes shamelessly biased, sometimes just flat out unanswerable. Questions that ask variants of "What do Palestinians want regarding [blank]?" or "What were [Hamas/Israel/the Palestinians]'s goals during [blank]?" First of all, he has the strangest amalgamation of views I have ever heard. I have never met a Palestinian with even remotely his views. Or an Israeli. But he is, and I use the word specifically, Extremely supportive of his views. I'm not sure if he thinks none of us have ever met or heard about or read something by a Palestinian, but the statement "Palestinians want..." is a sweeping, and frankly dangerous, generalization. Any questions like the one above are inherently flawed because of the divisiveness of historical narratives. No one in the Middle East is famous for being a transparent institution. Ask me what is written in Hamas's charter, fine, but don't ask me what "Hamas wants" or what "Hamas is willing to give up". Neither Hamas, nor Fatah, nor the government of the State of Israel is consistent or transparent. Groups in states of war generally aren't. They're not going to march of to the negotiating table and say exactly what they want and not budge on anything. This is not how it works.
Again, I would be fine with the class, would have, in some ways, enjoyed the class, but instead I have to be concerned that I got a C in a subject that I know that I know about because he teaches at Harvard and he "can't give everyone A's and B's". We have a class of a dozen people. If even. I just. Gah.
I got to commiser-rant with four fellow students afterwards, which kind of helped, cause they were totally with me. But. Uhghh.
I'm going to go take a nap. IRRITATED FACE.
We had two, count 'em, two, of our short answer questions (pick three of four) on 1. why the two state solution is becoming impossible and 2. why the one state solution is becoming more likely.
Now. I actually kind of like the one-state solution, and even I think the second one is based wholly on false pretenses. Yes, there is a certain degree of swell of Palestinian support, but a. that's about it and b. they are not even the majority there. And I'm sorry, barring some really, really, massively important event that somehow revolutionizes the whole region, Israel will never. Ever. Ever. EVER. LE OLAM LO. Give up on being Israel. And they will never have to. I am happy to pick apart the two-state any day, but that just means it needs to be modified.
GUH.
GUHHHHRRRGH. RIDICULOUS.