interesting… what do you think the impact would be on the Turkish govt if they were less strong in demanding an apology? Would there be negative consequences for a weaker or more mild stance?
It sounds like you would prefer to reserve your opinion until you can get hold of 'unbiased' evidence. Fair enough. But as a historian, often there is only evidence such as this available. How then can you figure out where the 'truth' lies?
I agree with the majority of what has been said. The first article from the Israeli perspective is extremely long and drawn out. It seems as if they are trying to justify themselves. It is often said that when someone is not being completely honest, they try to prove their 'honesty' by given long winded stories. It seems as if they are trying to prove their innocence in the event and explain why they will not apologise, but the article is so long that it seems to actually make it lose its impact. I believe that they should apologise because they were wrong to an extent. The second article from the Turkish perspective is much shorter and more 'to the point' and it states the reasons for why they are demanding an apology (because of the deaths). But similarly to what the others have the said, the way that they are "demanding" an apology seems quite forceful and and quite aggressive. I can imagine why though, because they would be angry about all that has happened. I think that the Israeli should apologise, but I do not think that the Turkish should have been so forceful with their demand.
I agree with Maddy. I believe that the Turkish people were right to demand an apology however perhaps they went around it the wrong way. When someone has to demand something, does that necessarily mean that they deserve it to begin with? However, because the articles are biased to the parties that they support, this means that we can not get a clear decisive about who is in the right or who is in the wrong. The article shows the aggressive side of Turkey and not the side that makes you want to negotiate with them. The language used gives a negative feeling for what the wish to achieve and the word 'demanding' much like Maddy has highlighted shows a negative connotation. However, in saying this I think that by not apologising to Turkey, Israel is just prolonging the stupidity that is this argument. However, this is just my opinion given to me via this article. If i perhaps knew the entire story of both parties, my opinion may be different.
Which words make the Turkish perspective seem aggressive? are these words written by Turks or Israelis?
You have identified some key language items.. How might the use of the word "Islamist" help to justify the Israeli position?
This use of 'islamist' is really interesting because it taps into a whole discourse of conversation about islamists and terror etc… What do you think the intended function of labelling the flotilla activists as 'Islamists' is? What do you think the Israeli writers are hoping to make readers feel about these people?
Some insightful comments here, too. nice work.
Nice clear analysis of the language used… are you awayed by either side's approach?
Because the article is from a Turkish perspective, they make it seem as though it is definitely Israels fault – “Israel will not apologize to Turkey”. The Turkish perspective seems very violent and aggressive towards Israel. However, I think they have a right to feel this way and demand an apology, but the article makes them seem too aggressive. This just shows how the media can blow things out of proportion and exaggerate things, using words like ‘demand’ which has a severely negative connotation.
I believe there is a definate change in the language used and the context it is used in between the two articles on the Gaza Flotilla. The two websites differed in that they each represented their own country, Israel and Turkey. Turkey was the country demanding the apology for their 9 dead on the Flotilla, whilst Israel was refusing or avoiding an apology by justifying their actions in saying that the deceased Turkish people were "most probably Islamist by nature" "with about half of them having expressed an intention to die as shaheeds." The language and expression used to describe this implies that the Israel's were not in the wrong. My opinion is that the Israeli's were in fact in the wrong, and are justifying their wrong-doing with invalid reasoning.
Something that I noticed was that in the Turkish newspaper article they stated the facts and didnt use biased language, this could be because they aren't in the wrong, as it was the Israelis fault for the death of their people and all they want to do is ask for an apology. However in the Israeli newspaper they used very biased languge such as violent, and calling the turkish victums "probably Islamist by nature" to try and persuade people that they are not in the wrong, and an apology is not necessary as they killed bad people and not good people. I think that the Israelis are in the wrong and should apologise to the Turkish people as there is no real substance to their argument, and their use of forceful language doesn't improve their case. They are just making assumptions without any factual proof, such as calling them "Radical Islamists".
I think that the Turkish people were correct in demanding an apology however especially in the second site, their demand was portrayed in a negative way and it illegitimated their request for the Israeli apology. “They are demanding an apology” Here, the word demanding gives the sentence negative connotations and instead of it seeming like its the right thing to do; (apologize) the Turkish seem to be greedy and out of order. “Since the attack took place, Turkey has demanded an apology.” Here, there is a double meaning because it can be stating that “Because the attack took place, Turkey has…” or it can be commenting on the fact that “Ever since the attack took place, Turkey has…” This makes me feel as though perhaps, despite the tragedy, the media's portrayal suggests that Israel is within their rights morally, not go give Turkey an apology. I disagree but I can see how such a dispute can come about. In the first article it is portrayed that Turkey's demand was completely feasible. “This is yet another testimony that human rights activists who joined the flotilla out of humanitarian considerations took no part in the violent confrontation initiated by IHH.” The choice of the word testimony is held in high regard religiously and also academically therefore this statement is made more truthful by its inclusion and the public side with Turkey after reading this article.
Because this article is from a Turkish newspaper it is from a Turkish point of view this is shown through the title of the article and the blame is being put on the Israel people "Israel Will Not Apologize to Turkey". When the Turkish are talking about the Israels harsh words have been used such as demanded making them seem forceful,violent and in the wrong. When describing the Turkish words have been used such as talk and other words to make a calm mood making the Turkish seem controled and inocent. Quotes have been used form either side to further show the story in a way that shows the story but in a way that keeps the Turkish public happy as they are thinking that they are right. In the Israel newpaper article explains the situation with trying to avoid the people responsible and focusing on the people injured in the event. The blame is very brief in the title and uses genrelised term to focus the blame away from themselves trying to get the public on their side. Each article uses specific writing techniwues and witholdes information to make sure their view point is put foward and they put the view point to please the public.
So what do you think? Whose rights should be upheld here? How does each side use language to legitimise what they are doing?
I beleive it is extremly hard to study human nature because of the factors that humans are influenced by. No matter how big or small the sample size is, there will always be 1% of the result that can be questioned. Because when studying a person or a group no matter how "natural" they try to be , the trying to be "natural" can result in demand charateristics. Therefore there will always be questions raised towards the study of human nature because humans are constantly evolving.
I think the most challenging part of obtaining knowledge from examining human action is that everyone is different, so some peoples reactions to certain situations might be different to others, so it is hard to take knowledge from just examining a few people. For example someone raised in a strict environment (steriotypically in Asia) they might react to the creation of a presentation like that of what we did in class. This reaction would most likely be structured and wouldnt vary from the task. However it would be incorrect to take knowledge from this as not all people would react this way. One could take the knowledge that some people would react in that same way, but they could not make predictions of future experiments, unless the people being tested were from the same environment. I also think that whether the people in the experiment know that they are being examined, has a large effect on the results. This is because I changed dramatically from when I realised that I was being watched, as I began to look at the people who were noting our reactions to the experiment. However I also believe that you can still take knowledge from this experiment as I did not change completely and some of the things that I did I would have also done in an experiment that I did not know about. For example my loss in concerntration would have been similar. Other factors that will change the result dramtically would be the environment and also who is listening to your work. For example if no one was in the room you would be more likely to stray from the task, but if the principal of the school was watching you would be on your best behavior.
There are many challenges that come with obtaining well justified knowledge in the human sciences. The two main issues are sample size and reliability (how unbiased) the data is. As we discussed in class, it is extremely difficult to determine what the "right" sample size is. When is it "enough"? In truth, no sample size is too big. Without observing or questioning every single human being, you can never truly be 100% certain, as every human is different. No two humans are the same and therefore what may apply for one person would not apply for the next. We can really only just make generalisations for the majority. Therefore this is a challenge as we can never be absolutely certain or sure of the generalisation. The other major problem comes when observing human actions/reactions when they knew that they were being observed. This is because when someone knows that they are being watched, they will most likely change the way they act and become much more aware of their behaviour. This could then affect the results obtained and lead to false results. In my opinion, those are the two main issues.
I think that the external factors in which we observe human action holds significant influences in what we study. These factors could include whether or not the people that we are studying are actually aware of the fact that they are being studied as well as the nature in which they are being studied. For example, in class, in the last TOK lesson, when we were divided into two groups, the group being studied were quite aware of the fact that they were being studied which could realisticly have a major impact on the results of the 'experiment' because they would have most likely adjusted their behaviour to what they percieve as being 'correct' or 'at a required level.' The group being studied were given obvious indication to the fact that they were being studied as the second group were essentially camped around them, taking notes.
I believe in order to gain evidence to prove a theory or knowledge in a human science subject the experiment must be created to create the perfect conditions so the results are reliable to back up the theory that they are supporting. In our experiment the people being observed saw the observers acting in a way that was not explained to them so the people being observed tried to figure out what the observers were doing this changed their natural behaviour and once they figured it out changed it even more as they were aware of what their actions were and changed them and differed them to their natural actions in a situation. Different experiment in different human sciences require different environments to have an experiment done in. The fault in our experiment was that the people being observed know that they were being watched so we would have to take that variable away. This could be done by one way glass but even that could change their natural reactions. I think the best option is looking from afar but that would require too much effort for a simple experiment. But the message is that in human sciences it is hard to gain hard reliable data to back up statements made by people studying in the human sciences. Because of this the human sciences have been regarded as less superior and less reliable and concrete as the human sciences are pretty new where as the natural sciences have had time to figure out the problem that the human sciences are being faced with today.