1

Name: Reine Kanj

ID#: 1710187
Subject: IST205 3rd Assignment
Due Date: 8th of May 2020
Instructor: Dr. Arda Akmekji

Part A:
In that text of Tayeb Saleh the two worlds are “north and south” which are known
as “east and west” in our culture. However, he was trying to show readers how
colonialism affected people of different generations. Those who are in the first
generation how are they affected, then how the second generation took it more
mildly. And then he criticized how the third generation got affected, where most of
the people immigrate to London for studies and others go for other reasons like
shopping.

Let me start with a brief explanation of the background about Mustafa Sa’eed, who
was a character in the text of Tayeb Saleh. He went to England to study for higher
education in the university and worked in the BBC Arabic program. According to
Mustafa Sa’eed the two worlds: north and south and completely different. For him
Sudan is the south. It is Africa, black, Arab and Islamic. Sudan is the Nile, the
equator, the desert, the sun, the heat. Focusing on Sudan being a pump of
traditions, religion, corruption and victims... On the other hand, according to him
north is England. England is white, it is the extreme cold that even the fish died
there. However, it is the country of technology, innovation, industrial revolution,
education, permissiveness verses the traditional appraisals especially with women.
 2

The second character in this story of Tayeb Saleh is the narrator which his name
wasn’t mentioned. This narrator went from Sudan to London to study English
poetry in England and he came back after 7 years. From the moment he came back,
people started to flourish him with questions about so many thing there. So, he
answered by saying that the British are like us even they do things differently but
people all around the world are the same. And among the crowd of villagers who
welcomed him home was Mustafa Sa’eed.

One day, on a drinking session Mustafa Sa’eed gets drunk and begins to recite
English poetry which made the narrator really surprised because he thought that he
was the only one who speaks English and knows English poetry in the village.
After that, Mustafa Saeed told his life story to the narrator who promised not to
confide it to anyone. In brief, his story was that when Sa’eed graduated, he was
awarded a scholarship to study English poetry at Oxford. In the meantime, he made
up stories about the charms of Sudan and Africa to seduce English women. He
caused heart break to his three girlfriends and murdered Jean Morris, his English
wife. Which lead to being convicted of murder and sentenced to seven years in
prison. The narrator will later discover that all of Saeed’s secrets and unanswered
mysteries have been locked in the private room of his house, where he finds
English books, photographs of his English girlfriends, and a portrait of his English
wife.

Some incidents that took place draws the conflicting points of view between both
Mustafa Sa’eed and the narrator. First, they debate over what the real needs of
Sudan are, and the narrator gets extremely desperate when Saeed blames him for
studying the life of an obscure English poet instead of studying agriculture,
engineering or medicine as mentioned in the text.
 3

Second, each refers to the other as being a stranger to the village in particular and
generally in Sudan. Since Saeed is still not elected as the chairman of the
agricultural committee despite the efforts he exerts to develop agriculture in the
village. The narrator’s grandfather still identifies Mustafa Saeed as a stranger who
had come here five years ago and not as a local man. Which showed readers that
Mustafa Saeed is destined to be a stranger to the village in life and also in death.
Because after he dies it was mentioned in the text that he “hadn’t even found
himself a grave to rest his body in”.

Saeed is from an Islamic conservative society, where women are subjugated,

circumcised, veiled and mainly for satisfying the sexual desires of their husbands.
While in England, he meets a different type of women who as mentioned in the
text “knows no fear; they accept life with gaiety and curiosity”. His marriage from
Jean Morris was threatening because of the questions she raises about his jealousy
which was obvious of a soul of manhood in oriental societies. Her doubts whether
he would feel jealous in case that she betrayed him with another man, this
extremely insulted and offended him.

Socially, both the narrator and Saeed believe that women in Sudan are oppressed,
subordinated to men, and denied freedoms of expression, choice and thinking, and
rights of education, work and equality. Unfortunately, repelled by gender-based
violence and discrimination, they commit themselves to reform gender relations
and redefine gender roles. Saeed, for instance, sets himself as an example of “a
generous husband and a generous father” who helps his wife Husna to make a
change.
 4

The text states the conflict between consciousness and unconsciousness which is
personified by the characters of the narrator and Mustafa Saeed. Their identical
cultural, social and educational backgrounds account for identifying Saeed as a
double or alter ego of the narrator. Yet, they develop discordant attitudes towards
the west. However, they consciously view the west as an enemy that needs to be
defeated, they unconsciously consider it as a friend whose knowledge,
technologies and sciences should be borrowed and transferred. Finally, though
Saeed’s words and deeds introduce him as an invader of the West, he is a cultural
hybrid who neither belongs to the east nor to the west. Instead, he seeks to combine
both civilizations in his schemes for the development of Sudan.

Part B:

Peter Balakian is an American Armenian author. He’s famous about poetry books
and American literature concerning genocide studies, identity issues. He got
several prizes for his writings. On the outside Peter Balakian was an American, but
on the inside he was an Armenian.

The author in his book entitled by The Black Dog of Fate illustrates the trauma of
being an Armenian American at the same time, and what does it exactly means to
him. Following the Armenian side of him, he focuses on the role in him that
shouldn’t accept injustice. And if he follows the American side of him, how can he
neglect the Armenian in him that never stops hurting. So, how does he deal with
this reality?

He lived in a beautifully decorated house with the picture of Ararat and a cross that
was given as a present from the catholic, Persian carpets on the floor. He went into
details and mentioned the smell of food he used flourish when he cooked with his
 5

grandmother, that scent touched his heart. However, he added that such smells
couldn’t be found in any of the American houses. For him, he talked about how
culture was transmitted from the kitchen in most of societies.

Peter Balakian was a good reader, he used to read books. Once he read a book
from his father’s library by Henry Morgenthau that wrote about the Armenian
genocide in his book. This book was as a red flag in his life. He says that
sometimes we pick a book that influences in a way that changes our life, point of
view, position and reaction. Moreover, that book turned his life because it made
him figure out that there’s a secret in his house.

However, people talked about the old country and when he asked them they told
him it doesn’t exist anymore. So, he was wondering where this old country
disappeared. Also, he was surprised why his parents when they wanted to
communicate they spoke in a secret language, which he couldn’t understand well.
At this time, he knew there was a secret in the background that nobody wanted to
talk about nor mention. After that, he read the book and realized that obviously
there has been a big atrocity which took place in the life of Armenians. But, he
thought also that this was something out of his reach, something that happened to
others not to him. And the only link with this old world was his grandmother.

She was a funny grandma that liked to do things of younger age. But, somewhere
in her background there was a secret which she wouldn’t share or talk about.
Gradually, Peter Balakian realized that his grandmother was a survivor of the
Armenian genocide. In fact, she has arrived to the United States in the early 20s
with two daughters and he realized that she has lost her entire family. The day
when she arrived to Aleppo, she did something that no one has done before.
Besides, according to Balakian he views what she did as a fantastic act at that time
of the century when there was no human rights. To clarify, she made a list of
 6

inventory of all the stuff she has lost back home and eventually when she reached
the US she filed a suit against the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Plus, she asked for
reclamation of everything she and her family had lost. As mentioned by the
grandma ''Because I am a human being and under the support of international law.''
On the other hand, the Turkish Government never responded. However, there was
no justice, no reparation, nothing but all they afforded was silence.

Peter Balakian illustrates the connection between the public silence and his
family's reticence and reserve. As he wrote: ''There was no one then to listen'',
since there was no social movement or political context in which his grandma and
other survivors could be heard. Hence, Balakian mentioned in his book how he
appreciates what his grandmother have done and how great this was. He says the
reason why people get away with impunity with murder is because they’re not
accountable and they don’t ask for their rights. So it’s interesting that Peter
Balakian approaches this Armenian genocide, not as an Armenian victim but as an
American who’s looking at diagnosing the situation and talking about what
happened on the different perspectives.

Peter Balakian concludes his text with an angry complaint of United States policy
toward Turkey, for them being a cold war partner. Including, he blames that the
presence of United States military bases and the gainful defense contracts, softened
America's stance. In addition, he asserts that a ''political agenda'' motivates Turkish
Government funding of Turkish studies at major American universities like
Princeton and the University of California, Los Angeles, are specifically cited.
According to Balakian, this has created an evil revisionist history that gives a false
legitimacy to Turkey's continual insistence that the Armenian genocide never
occurred. Balakian was calling for a formal acknowledgment and apology for the
Armenian genocide by the Turkish Government. Similarly, he wants both closure
 7

for the victims and the possibility of forgiveness for the perpetrators. He added that
some crimes are beyond redemption and cannot and should not be either forgotten
or forgiven.

The writer concludes his book by mentioning two important things. First about the
date of April 24 and the importance of the commemoration for the Armenians.
Second, he says that many people usually ask why you keep on bringing up the
past after a hundred years. However, he always answered that the past is not over
yet. On one hand it is still alive in the bear and memories of the survivors and on
the other hand the perpetrators are around denying this disaster. And when you
deny the murder, you commit the murder twice so he talks about the trauma that
people have lived with. Like the first generation, they never mentioned about this
genocide. On the contrary, they wanted to spare the children and protect them. In
order not to grow up with any sort of fear of what had happened. But after 50
years, during the second generation had a different reaction, however they started
writing, expressing and claiming. This started again to show that the wound had
never healed and he says that the wound is still open. And the opening wound
never heals unless there’s closure. Overall, people need to have a ceremony closure
for the thousands of people that died without a grave in unknown places.

As long as there are historians today that falsify history, how will you be able to
live with this denial?

Part C:

Daniel Goleman is an author and a science journalist. The main theme he talked
about was intelligence. However, he analyzed two theories which are intelligence
quotient (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EI). In 1996 Daniel Goleman argued that
 8

emotional intelligence might be as important as IQ in determining how we conduct

our lives. So, he focuses on how important are the emotions and he raises the issue
of emotional intelligence. In a way that gave EI a similar weight that is given to
our intelligence and logical thinking.

The debate is between nature and nurture. In other words what is innate and what
is achieved. Similarly, what is inherited and what is taught and what makes our
intellectual capabilities. Nature which is generic, born, innate, biological and
inherited. While, nurture is acquired, achieved and learned.

According to Daniel, not allowing our negative emotions control and overwhelm
us and affect our judgment, is not always easy but we really do have the power to
change the way we feel by changing our thoughts in any given situation. Also, he
analyzed the stressful situation we may pass through. Hence, handling stressful
situations can make the difference between being assertive versus being reactive.
To clarify, being assertive through exercising our right to disagree and saying “no”
without feeling guilty, also expressing our feelings without blaming others is an
important aspect of being assertive.

To conclude, Daniel Goleman was a product of intelligence which fell between the
valley of emotions and logic.

Part D:

Personally, being a child of a divorced couple will definitely make you a product
of two worlds. I lived with my grandparents since I was born and proudly been
raised by them. I’ve never had the chance to try the feeling of a normal family that
is made up of parents and their children. However, since day 1, I had an attached
relationship with my dad and grandparents that provided for me all my secondary
 9

and primary needs. Being raised by grandparents is more likely to experience

challenges as well. Because I lived in an unofficial arrangement which made me
less likely to qualify for social activities. On the contrary, I became more likely to
experience emotional and behavioral obstacles. Since then until today, I still live
with my grandparents whom I consider myself responsible for their smallest details
like their health, medical treatment and safety.

Moving forward, living in a ‘three generational’ home definitely made me face

some challenges and ups and downs because of the different way of thinking each
one of us has. Moreover, I had so many differences in my life style comparing to
my friends’. For example, I was too late to have WIFI connection and a laptop at
home, because my grandparents never saw that as a priority. Unfortunately, having
three different opinions, life styles and ways of thinking in one home is not that
easy.

Accordingly, I always compared the life of my classmates with mine, how they got
mobile phones in an early age and also how they were practicing after noon
activities. On the contrary, my grandparents never valued such hobbies or interests
like Zumba dancing or playing piano. However, my grandpa always forced me to
read stories and summarize articles. To clarify, he always woke me up around 5
AM to look from the window and illustrate how the sun rises. But, my friends
never passed through such things with their parents, but they had other interests
like watching Disney or following their hobbies. So, I always fell in the valley of
what I am living and what I preferred to live at that time.

The inner me, always asked for living in a normal arrangement and moving with
my age’s interests accordingly. It was hard for me to get along with my parents’
generation and my own at the same time.
 10

On the other hand, I always had the great warmth and appreciation feeling for my
grandparents and I really value the important role that they played in my life.

Today I say that, despite the fact that my childhood was different than my friends’
but that didn’t mean that is was wrong. But I learned how to be responsible for the
elder, how to understand different opinions, how to get along with different
traditions and life styles and most importantly I would like to highlight two
important lessons I learned. One, that problems aren’t the end of the world,
however we can still get along with different ways of living and look at the bright
side of the case. Two, I learned that making choices and decisions will affect me
and my relatives, so it’s better to choose wisely.