Tag: Bushnell History Symposium

Cameron Binaley

The Problem with Palestine

The assignment that will be presented is my solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine for History 410: History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The first part of the presentation will include an introduction and explanation as to what the Arab-Israeli conflict is and how it started. The second part of the presentation will include the history of the Israeli’s claim to Palestine through showing how the Israeli people have had a claim to the land for about 2000 years. The third part of the presentation will include the history of the Arab’s claim to Palestine through showing that though the Arabs were not first to claim the land, they are the most recent owners of the land. The fourth part of the presentation will include my solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, where I will explain that both sides are unwilling to make compromises for one another and the best way to resolve this complex issue is to leave all of the boarders the exact way they are right now and end the fighting between the Arabs and the Israelis. The last part of the presentation will conclude with a recap of the presentation and stating that the only way true peace between the Arabs and the Israelis will ever be met is if they both lay down their weapons and attempt to work together.

HIST 410, History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium II: 2:45 – 3:05 PM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable

Jared Dodson

A Unified Israel

The Arab and Israeli people groups both have long and storied histories that influence the modern dilemma of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Arab people have lived in their land for an extensive period of time, and now feel threatened by recent Jewish immigration following the Holocaust. The Jews, however, also have roots in the region and feel a God-given right to live in the land. Following the events of the Holocaust, the Jews were given land in Palestine, thus creating the state of Israel, inflaming tension in the region. The religious and historical history of both of these people groups have a great deal to do with how the land of Palestine should be ruled and the role of governance in the region itself.  If there is to be peace, it can only come from understanding the diverse history of both sides.

RELS 210, The Abrahamic Faiths of Judaism and Islam

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium II: 2:05 – 2:25 PM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable

Emmalee Rusk

One-State-New-Government Solution for the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

A one-state-new-government solution will be revealed through the careful consideration of both the Islamic and Judaist religions and desires, the history and political standing of both Palestinians and Israelis, as well as world politics, the pros, and cons to the popular two-state solution, and the benefits of a one-state-new-government solution, as the best solution.

There are two primarily popular solutions to the Palestine-Israeli conflict: the one state and the two-state solution. The one-state solution is the state of Israel as one collective state that involves both the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. One-Stae would involve Arabs being given the opportunity to be seen as equal and have the same rights, including voting, as the Israelites/Jews.  The two-state solution is the idea that Palestine would be divided into a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. This solution would offer benefits for the Jews and the Palestinians in both having set borders so the conflict over who’s land is who’s can end. Both of these solutions seem simple at first glance. However, there are complications. Either group getting a whole and pure “state” of their own would require a middle eastern version of the trail of tears or a literal mass genocide for one side or the other – so a two-state is ruled out as a viable option.

A one-state solution is the only solution.

The Legatum Institute did a survey that ranks the most prosperous countries in the world.  All of these countries have either a constitutional monarchy, representative democracy or parliamentary system. I suggest that in a one-state solution, the Israeli-Palestinian people adopt one of these systems of Government. If a Parliamentary system was adopted, chosen representatives would present the desires of the people, both Israeli and Palestinian, to a greater elected group of individuals to negotiate terms of legislation and seek compromise. This way, both have equal representation and have the ability to vote in a land that is just as their own as the others who inhabit it, without the fear of being outnumbered.

Through the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two nations have been mushed into one land through the years of war, politics and local issues despite desperate efforts to give the two peoples their own state. The one-state-new-government solution does not dissipate the wounds of the past or solve all of the issues the Palestinians and the Israelis face. Instead, it creates a structure that after the wounds of the past heal, the country can thrive as others do with their own pasts of war and hurt in a unified desire for peace, equality, and the possession of land through the legal process instead of biased on a historical claim. This One-State-New Government solution provides the opportunity of a new beginning; something neither country has had the opportunity to receive since WWII.

HIST 410, History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium II: 2:25 – 2:45 PM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable

Emmalee Rusk

The Trial of Arius

There is argument on the validity of the trial of Arius’ outcome. From the history of Arius’ process of creating his dual-converging theology, to the flawed heretical arguments that lead to the trial forcing investigation of the Arian church communities, and the actions and arguments after Arius was indeed convicted as a Heretic, these cemented the correct verdict of guilty – resulting in separation of Arianism from Orthodoxy.

The birth of Arius’ understanding of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit comes from dyohypostatic theology and miahypostatic theology. Both theories do not stand alone, and cannot stand alone, but together they made the heretical threshold for Arius to thoughtfully build upon. Arianism is the belief that there is a Father and a Son; the Son, like any child/parent relationship, is subordinate to his father. This is known as the Subordinationism Theory.

The debates involving Arius were extensive, they even spread faster than Arius could travel. Arius’ theology caused so much discourse in the church, and therefore in the empire, that Constantine, the emperor, felt the need to involve himself.  Constantine called a great council, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Constantine wished to have a unified Christianity in his empire. His concern was not so much for theological debates; it was on the unity of the church to result in unity for his empire concerning all religions. After the conclusion that Arianism was heresy, Constantine took sides with the council and determined Arianism a denial of faith to the empire, with

The most compelling argument for an unjust verdict at Nicaea is the recognition of the recalls, however, the same issues found at Nicaea still stand. Through the many arguments, old and new, Arius and his followers are continually found to be heretics.

In Conclusion, Arius’ developed a dual-converging heretical theology from dyohypostatic theology and miahypostatic theology, both heretical thoughts; this new theology lead to serious question of Arian and Orthodox church communities. Arius was justifiably left out of the determined Creed of Nicaea at the Council of Nicaea on the grounds of misplacement of Jesus Christ in the divine hierarchy in both chronological and power placement. What Christ accomplished for all does not commute with the theology Arius held. Therefore, the Church is better off without the confusing heresy Arius taught and the trial that determined him unorthodox was correct then, as it is correct now.

HIST 331, History of Christianity I

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium: 11:20 – 11:40 AM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable

Emmalee Rusk

Unitarian Universalism VS Coexistence

Unitarian Universalism is related to the term “coexist”, but it is not the same as Unitarian Universalism. It is important to understand the difference between these two to not muddle the intent and authenticity of both. Unitarian Universalism is a religion while the term “coexistence” is a social cry out for religious and social tolerance. From when Unitarian Universalism and the “coexist” symbols were originated, one far in the past and the other extremely recent, to the furthered development of theological history Unitarian Universalism possesses in its own origination and the arguments of social peace in comparison to religious security and peace surrounding each side: Unitarian Universalism and coexistence are not the same belief.

Unitarian “1. one who believes that the deity exists only in one person and 2. a member of a denomination that stresses individual freedom of belief, the free use of reason in religion, a united world community, and liberal social action.”  Universalism is thought to be traced back to Origen, the well-known theologian, around A.D. 140-150. Unitarian Universalism was forged from Unitarianism and Universalism in the mid-20th century, specifically in 1961, seeing that their religions, since they were similar enough, would be stronger in their efforts together.

The “COEXIST” sticker began at a competition in Jerusalem, created by Piotr Mlodozeniec.  The design was originally with just the David Star, the crescent moon “c” and the cross. The David Star is a symbol for Judaism, the Crescent moon is for Islam and the Cross is for Christianity.

Unitarian Universalists seem to collectively agree that coexistence ideology is part of UU principles but is not an adequate description of their beliefs. There is no denying that these two are similar, but they are clearly not the same. Distinguishing the two comes down to an argument of Religion versus Social argumentation.

Unitarian Universalism is a religion while the term “coexistence” is a social cry out for religious and social tolerance. From when Unitarian Universalism and “coexist” were originated, to the furthered theology UU possesses than coexistence, and the arguments surrounding each side: UU and coexistence are not the same belief. The two beliefs are both commendable in their own way and have similarities in their desires, but due to their differences in root desires, historical upbringings, and modern applications of social or religious arguments they are related by a desire for unity, but by nothing more significant.

HIST 332, History of Christianity II

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium: 10:30 – 11:00 AM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable

Kinkade Barreiro

Bushnell History Symposium: Stagnation of Minority Representation in Media 

In the last two centuries, the status of minorities in the United States has improved dramatically. A survey of events where different racial groups have clashed during the struggle to improve the lives of minorities over the last century specifically shows that the way minority groups are perceived by the majority often contains dramatic biases. This survey attempts to show that the media’s representation of these events and the responses by majority populations to the events has not evolved with the urgency that other elements of American culture have. 

HIST 499, Capstone 

Melisa Ortiz Berry 

P103 

10 – 11 AM 

Return to schedule

Christy Seaton

Bushnell History Symposium: King Tut Exhibit and Exhibitation 

Exhibits matter because they bring museums to life. There was a exhibit of the Tut exhibit that consists of remade artifacts. The way something is shown in a exhibit.  By having these artifacts, we keep history alive Each artifact from Egyptian history matters in their cultures. 

HIST 499, Capstone 

Melisa Ortiz Berry 

P103 

10 – 11 AM

Return to schedule