The clash of civilizations is essentially what one could describe as the story of mankind. Although it is currently being popularized as the antagonism of west versus east, this clash has been seen in numerous facets and guises throughout history. From the Romans and their quest to expand and conquer, to the Vikings descending in their war ships, to the various world wars, man has had conflict that has its roots in differences of culture, race and thought. Thus what one sees today publicized as the fight of the Christian West against the Muslim East, is merely a modernization of what lies in history. It is all but a resonance of what is carved into the hallways of time, a shadow foretelling what is to come and a symptom of man’s ever present weakness, that of self-identity. But even as one acknowledges the resonance of the clash, one cannot entirely attempt to explain it away as being caused by difference in identity and culture, rather one must dig deeper into the political, social and economic factors in each civilization. This paper aims to highlight the resonance of the clash of civilization as well as to analyze the reasons of the clash itself.
History has proven that humanity cannot eradicate the existence of cultural or national clashes therefore one can conclude that the clash of civilizations does resonate in a historical context. No matter how complex or how convoluted the issues that gave cause to war, the roots of all conflict behind many wars have lain in ethnic, cultural or other distinguishing differences. It is the whole concept of the “other”. It is always easier for men to blame or hate for as long as they perceive that their fellow human being is different and therefore could be a threat. The other is the basis for man’s understanding of himself and is also a threat to his well being. At the Nuremberg trials, Hermann Göring, Reich Marshal, of the Nazis said “But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”( Kamalipour pg 78) These words show how little effort it takes for one to turn against another so as to defend their identity, their sovereignty or some other such misconceived possession. By fulfilling this need for security, man guarantees that the clash of civilizations is perpetuated and continues to echo in each new generation of historical events.
In light of this one can assume that the conflict between East and West comes with the sanction of the people. By so doing this enables the clash of civilizations to resonate within the citizens of either Western or Eastern countries. According to author Mahmood Mamdani nowadays people are only surprised by violence that seems senseless, unfounded or unjustified. This means that if one’s government can find a reason to explain why violence was needed whether as a means of protection, or a way to bring about progress, the world would sanction this violence as right and proper. Even worse the world will ignore the occurrence of this violence. Such a scenario would reaffirm the fact that it is because of the people that the clash of civilization resonates and it is through them that it continues to exist.
Another way in which the clash continues is in the everyday lives of people. Whether it is on T.V. shows, in the news or in casual conversation, the bad guy is almost always cast as someone from the Middle East or someone possessing such features. In its own way, the clash of civilization lives on and is carried via the channel of people’s ignorance of each other’s culture. Apart from all this, one cannot totally blame the conflict between the East and West on merely the theory of the “clash of civilizations” Though many crimes in history have been committed with the reasoning of race, bloodlines and cultural differences, one cannot entirely make these the reason why the West and the East have conflict. This would be to fall into the same line of thought as Samuel Huntington whose view is that all it takes is for one to be Islamic and the other Western for the to be conflict. According to him the fundamental differences between western and Islamic civilizations are irreconcilable and inevitable lead to conflict (Huntington 22-49) . To take Huntington at his word would be to conveniently blame all of the world’s mistakes on the issue of identity and stereotypes or some other labels people decide on.
Critics of Huntington’s assertion have argued that to think of the world in terms of a clash of civilization would be inadequate as there are always other factors to consider such as internal conditions within each civilization. Huntington himself uses reference to Bernard Lewis to base the origins of some his arguments but this shows a limited understanding of what Lewis defines as the roots of the clash of civilizations. Unlike Huntington, Bernard Lewis declares that American cultural, political and economic imperialism is mainly to blame for the conflict East-West conflict. He argues that “for a long time now there has been a rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness” (Lewis 49) . Furthermore because of the US’ encroachment into the politics and economy of the Middle East it has tried to direct the governance of these countries and threatened their independence and sovereignty. So if there is a clash between the US and the Middle East then the reason can be found no further than the US’ foreign policy.
Edward Said also scathingly criticizes Huntington in his article titled “The Clash of Ignorance” in which he states that labels like "Islam" and "the West" serve only to confuse an already disorderly reality . The words of Said are truly understandable especially when one tries to pinpoint who is “Islam” or who is “the West”. In a world that is increasingly global that has immigration and inter-racial families as part of its norm, one could not truly begin to define the clash of civilizations in a definition limited to cultural identity. While states are political territories with geographic landmarks, culture is not confined to similar strictures. Just as “Islam” can be found in the US, “the West” can equally reside in the Middle East so to try to make these labels the basis of the argument of the clash of civilizations would be to take the myopic view of much broader subjects.
The clash of civilizations does exist and indeed it resonates in many circles of our society. Just as it can be traced through history, the clash continues to be seen in popular media, the way kids are tough about the clash in their respective countries as well as in the reasons behind its existence. It can be argued that the clash exists because of the fear within the citizens of both East and Western countries just as one could propose that the clash’s continuance is encouraged by the political and economic intentions of primarily Western governments. Whatever the reasons in their full scope, they just serve to pronounce the resonance of the clash.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Understanding the "other"
The clash of Western and Islamic civilizations cannot be discussed without considering the concept of the "other". The manifestations of this creature are many and varied whether be it in discussing corruption of political leaders, distrust in business dealings with the "other", religious fanaticism or cultural eccentricities of the "other". No matter the topic there is always that "other" looming its head as the protagonist of the story. In this context one has to conclude the inevitable necessity of the "other". There is no escaping it, the "other" is the vehicle by which the story becomes more exciting, the standard by which human beings define themselves, the vital component that lends itself to how we shape our ideologies. Human beings are only as good as they can be compared to or against the "other". This therefore suggests that the whole debate over the West versus the Middle East is highly over-dramatized and spurred more by an ignorance of who and what constitutes either party. I would venture to even declare that the greater part of this pervasive ignorance is on the part of Westerners who often do not take the time to understand beyond popular rhetoric all the issues surrounding dialogue on the the Middle East.
Other than discovering who is responsible for fueling the clash, one is faced with the regrettable fact that there can never be realistically a world without the "other". Simply put, it is the basis of human understanding and we need for there to be an "other" in order to understand ourselves. People are skinny because there is an "other" who is fat, well mannered as opposed to the "others" who are not, and religious fanatics instead of God know how the West would describe itself in terms of religion. It is a phenomenon of life that is essential to self-identity therefore one should not lose it in the popular band wagon of hatred and animosity rather, the "other" should merely be understood and accepted as part of one's everyday reality.
Other than discovering who is responsible for fueling the clash, one is faced with the regrettable fact that there can never be realistically a world without the "other". Simply put, it is the basis of human understanding and we need for there to be an "other" in order to understand ourselves. People are skinny because there is an "other" who is fat, well mannered as opposed to the "others" who are not, and religious fanatics instead of God know how the West would describe itself in terms of religion. It is a phenomenon of life that is essential to self-identity therefore one should not lose it in the popular band wagon of hatred and animosity rather, the "other" should merely be understood and accepted as part of one's everyday reality.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Perspectives on Media
For my perspectives of the media, I chose to look at an article about Iran’s plans to expand its nuclear activities as well as its latest breakthrough. This article was covered by the Los Angeles Times and for the Arabic perspective, by Al Jazeera.net. Al Jazeera is a sub-company of Al Jazeera English, a 24 hour English-language news and current affairs channel that is headquartered in Doha, Qatar. Both articles related that Iran had announced new advances in its nuclear technology with two new devices that would enrich uranium. Iran also was inaugurating a plant that would produce fuel pellets for a heavy-water reactor. Although both articles dealt with the same subject matter, what is unique to note was the portrayal of Iran in the Western media as opposed to the more objective reporting of Al Jazeera. This paper seeks to analyze both articles in a bid to reflect the bias of Western media towards the Middle East and the counter depiction of the Middle East about itself.
From the titles of the articles, one can predict the differences in perspectives that each writer is going to bring. The Los Angeles Times headline reads “Iran touts nuclear technology gains” The term “tout” would suggest that Iran is being brazen in its publicity of its nuclear breakthrough. On the other hand Al Jazeera.net’s headline reads “Iran 'open to nuclear talks'” In this case, there is a ring of optimism in the picture drawn by the Middle Eastern headline. It seemed to present Iran as a country that is willing to cooperate with all those concerned about its nuclear activities.
As one begins to read the article by the Los Angeles Times one is faced with terms such as Iran is “trumpeting” its achievements which would suggest that Iran has a boastful attitude. Granted this would be perfectly permissible if Iran did decide to boast about it nuclear activities, after all it is their achievement, but the tone of the Los Angeles was almost disapproving. The article goes on to relay details of the ceremony that Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had held to mark these developments however it then digresses for about two thirds of the entire article into an analysis of how the West suspects Iran of intending to eventually produce weapons. Now this is a concern that has been ongoing for years now therefore to be fair to the Los Angeles Times, it was bound to crop up in any discussion of Iran and nuclear technology. Even so the reporter declares that “Iran's buildup of nuclear technology infrastructure, without explicitly pursuing weapons, keeps its unnerved regional rivals and the West guessing about its capabilities and intentions, a strategy that some analysts say could serve as a deterrent to foreign military action.” Such as a statement would suggest that Iran has a deliberate plot that is to keep the West nervous and uncertain while it sneaks about increasing its infrastructure.
One statement quoted within the Los Angeles article is that of Paul Kerr, an arms control expert at the Congressional Research Service. According to Kerr "The reactor is under safeguard. They can't [create weapons-grade plutonium] without getting caught" This version of Western perspective reflects and apparent attitude of suspicion that is embodied in the use of the phrase “without getting caught”. It also doesn’t help that this phrase brings back images of Iran sneaking about behind the West’s back. This statement could even be taken to be an expectation by the West that Iran will be caught of which that would mean as far as the West is concerned Iran is guilty until proven innocent.
I was especially curious about the writers of this article from the Los Angeles Times, Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim, seeing as it was that both had names that could be assumed to be Arabic or at least from the Middle East. Because of this I wondered why they would write in a voice so reminiscent of Westerners. Though I failed to find much about Ramin it turned out that Borzou was actually born in Iran but was raised in Chicago and New York City. This and the fact that his bread is buttered by the Western media would explain the differences between his writing and that reflected in the Al Jazeera article.
As far as the Al Jazeera article is concerned it actually was concerned more with the Iranian President’s speech to allay Western leaders’ fears over its nuclear developments as well as the US’ response to this speech. This was a stark difference from the Los Angeles Times that had paid more tribute to the suspicion of guilt itself. According to Al Jazeera.net “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was open to negotiations based on "justice and respect".” The article goes on to say that Mahmoud accused the West of using the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a "mask of peace to confront [Iran] and stop its advancement" The picture painted this far in the article would be that of a cooperating Iran that is being hindered by Western finger-pointing and intrusions. I am skeptical about the total innocence of Iran as this article would have it seem, just as I am undecided over its future nuclear plans, what is most important to remember for everyone concerned in Iran’s matters, is that nothing has been proven of all these allegations of weapon manufacturing. Therefore should the Iranian President be open to talks then it is up to the rest of the world to take it at face value and accept the olive branch for what it is.
The second half of the Al Jazeera article is in regards to the US’ response to the nuclear developments as well as the Iranian President’s accusations. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is quoted to have said "We don't know what to believe about the Iranian programme. We've heard many different assessments and claims over a number of years." One would applaud the diplomacy of Hillary in not resorting to an outright declaration that Iran is guilty of plans for manufacturing weapons, something that other leaders have done. On the other hand one must note that Hillary did not negate these allegations either instead of extending the solidarity and goodwill that should exist between countries that are at peace with each other.
The Al Jazeera article rounds up in an analysis of how the speech by the Iranian President could be interpreted to have been political posturing in preparation for the next presidential elections. Between this article and the Los Angeles Times one I would say that I prefer to have read the AL Jazeera one primarily because it was more objective. While the Los Angeles Times alluded to boastfulness in Iran’s nuclear announcement as well as highlighted the opinions of those that would suspect Iran, the Al Jazeera article limited itself to just the Iranian President’s announcement and West’s response to it. For me this was valuable in that it was not an imposition of another’s opinions that would guide me in what to think over Iran’s nuclear developments, rather I could formulate my own opinions. Both articles proved to me what I saw as the bias of the West reflected in its media thereby further compounding upon people’s already misguided notions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/200949151820306693.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear10-2009apr10,0,6613541.story
From the titles of the articles, one can predict the differences in perspectives that each writer is going to bring. The Los Angeles Times headline reads “Iran touts nuclear technology gains” The term “tout” would suggest that Iran is being brazen in its publicity of its nuclear breakthrough. On the other hand Al Jazeera.net’s headline reads “Iran 'open to nuclear talks'” In this case, there is a ring of optimism in the picture drawn by the Middle Eastern headline. It seemed to present Iran as a country that is willing to cooperate with all those concerned about its nuclear activities.
As one begins to read the article by the Los Angeles Times one is faced with terms such as Iran is “trumpeting” its achievements which would suggest that Iran has a boastful attitude. Granted this would be perfectly permissible if Iran did decide to boast about it nuclear activities, after all it is their achievement, but the tone of the Los Angeles was almost disapproving. The article goes on to relay details of the ceremony that Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had held to mark these developments however it then digresses for about two thirds of the entire article into an analysis of how the West suspects Iran of intending to eventually produce weapons. Now this is a concern that has been ongoing for years now therefore to be fair to the Los Angeles Times, it was bound to crop up in any discussion of Iran and nuclear technology. Even so the reporter declares that “Iran's buildup of nuclear technology infrastructure, without explicitly pursuing weapons, keeps its unnerved regional rivals and the West guessing about its capabilities and intentions, a strategy that some analysts say could serve as a deterrent to foreign military action.” Such as a statement would suggest that Iran has a deliberate plot that is to keep the West nervous and uncertain while it sneaks about increasing its infrastructure.
One statement quoted within the Los Angeles article is that of Paul Kerr, an arms control expert at the Congressional Research Service. According to Kerr "The reactor is under safeguard. They can't [create weapons-grade plutonium] without getting caught" This version of Western perspective reflects and apparent attitude of suspicion that is embodied in the use of the phrase “without getting caught”. It also doesn’t help that this phrase brings back images of Iran sneaking about behind the West’s back. This statement could even be taken to be an expectation by the West that Iran will be caught of which that would mean as far as the West is concerned Iran is guilty until proven innocent.
I was especially curious about the writers of this article from the Los Angeles Times, Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim, seeing as it was that both had names that could be assumed to be Arabic or at least from the Middle East. Because of this I wondered why they would write in a voice so reminiscent of Westerners. Though I failed to find much about Ramin it turned out that Borzou was actually born in Iran but was raised in Chicago and New York City. This and the fact that his bread is buttered by the Western media would explain the differences between his writing and that reflected in the Al Jazeera article.
As far as the Al Jazeera article is concerned it actually was concerned more with the Iranian President’s speech to allay Western leaders’ fears over its nuclear developments as well as the US’ response to this speech. This was a stark difference from the Los Angeles Times that had paid more tribute to the suspicion of guilt itself. According to Al Jazeera.net “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was open to negotiations based on "justice and respect".” The article goes on to say that Mahmoud accused the West of using the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a "mask of peace to confront [Iran] and stop its advancement" The picture painted this far in the article would be that of a cooperating Iran that is being hindered by Western finger-pointing and intrusions. I am skeptical about the total innocence of Iran as this article would have it seem, just as I am undecided over its future nuclear plans, what is most important to remember for everyone concerned in Iran’s matters, is that nothing has been proven of all these allegations of weapon manufacturing. Therefore should the Iranian President be open to talks then it is up to the rest of the world to take it at face value and accept the olive branch for what it is.
The second half of the Al Jazeera article is in regards to the US’ response to the nuclear developments as well as the Iranian President’s accusations. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is quoted to have said "We don't know what to believe about the Iranian programme. We've heard many different assessments and claims over a number of years." One would applaud the diplomacy of Hillary in not resorting to an outright declaration that Iran is guilty of plans for manufacturing weapons, something that other leaders have done. On the other hand one must note that Hillary did not negate these allegations either instead of extending the solidarity and goodwill that should exist between countries that are at peace with each other.
The Al Jazeera article rounds up in an analysis of how the speech by the Iranian President could be interpreted to have been political posturing in preparation for the next presidential elections. Between this article and the Los Angeles Times one I would say that I prefer to have read the AL Jazeera one primarily because it was more objective. While the Los Angeles Times alluded to boastfulness in Iran’s nuclear announcement as well as highlighted the opinions of those that would suspect Iran, the Al Jazeera article limited itself to just the Iranian President’s announcement and West’s response to it. For me this was valuable in that it was not an imposition of another’s opinions that would guide me in what to think over Iran’s nuclear developments, rather I could formulate my own opinions. Both articles proved to me what I saw as the bias of the West reflected in its media thereby further compounding upon people’s already misguided notions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/200949151820306693.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear10-2009apr10,0,6613541.story
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Questions left over from 9/11
So what did really happen with 9/11? Because i personally believe there were too many incongruities that the government never answered or addressed in their report on 9/11. Just analyzing the sequences of events of 9/11 and the responses of the FBI and government officials from the vantage of logic, any discerning person would have to say there is a lot from the government's official reports that leave room for suspicion and dissatisfaction.
Just to look at some of the questions one could ask:
1. Why didn't Army jets intercept the attacking planes since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks? After all a country as intelligent and well advanced as the US had obviously foreseen such possibilities of a terrorist attack from the air and would have prepared for such an eventuality. Let's not forget the testimony that alleged that Vice President Dick knew and still kept the orders not to act standing.
2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001? Indeed why? From Bush to Condy Rice, those two-faced politicians were claiming that no one could have foreseen such an attack, but God knows, they all knew and had modeled some of their war games on such a scenario.
3. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? Sending all the salvaged steel to foreign countries, engine and wing pieces missing from the crash, all videos of the crime scene confiscated an those released showing nothing of the plane? I mean really? Am i the only one who smells a conspiracy?
4. Where was George Bush at the time of the attacks? Yes indeed, where was the country's valiant hero when the nation's most important monuments were under attack? Better yet, what was he doing when the army could have intercepted those jets and saved thousands of lives?
5. Where are the flight recorders? You know them, those nifty little gadgets that record conversation in the cockpit, radio communications between the cockpit crew and others (including conversation with air traffic control personnel), as well as ambient sounds. I wonder if someone had not contrived to make sure that they disappeared, whether their story of the the hijackers taking over the planes would have matched the 9/11 reports.
6. This has to be my biggest question. How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly? By culprits i would be referring of course to those young Arabic lads educated from US flight schools and colleges, whose identities and guilt were so clearly discovered at the scene of the crimes, despite everything else including metal having been blown away. This would also be a good time to insert that some of these guilty, soulless terrorists, associated to Bin Ladin, that would have the nerve to attack the US, have of course been alleged to be still living and thriving on in the US. Luck them to have survived 9/11.
7. How extensive was the relationship between the Taliban, the ISI and the CIA? This question would of course have been prompted by the fact that General Mahmud Ahmad, former head of the ISI at that time, had been visiting the capital and meeting with government officials day before 9/11. Now it beats me, but why would the US government have been entertaining the very people who were to launch terrorists attacks on the nation? Even more suspicious was the $100, 000.00 that was supposedly transferred by this same general to a certain Mohammad Atta, which was later said to have been used to fund the attacks. Did i mention that this general had to quit his job soon after?
Now sarcasm aside, one must say there a number of red flags to be seen when looking at the 9/11 story. Its a shame to suspect one's own government of involvement in a tragedy that cost the lives of thousands and left many Americans scarred. Even more shameful would be that should 9/11 have been a conspiracy and a big hoax by the government then many innocent Arabs would have suffered needlessly, from those that were labeled hijackers to those that still suffer the stigma today. Whatever the nature of the truth, the events that occurred on 9/11 were too painful for many and too life threatening not to deserve total and absolute truth.
Just to look at some of the questions one could ask:
1. Why didn't Army jets intercept the attacking planes since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks? After all a country as intelligent and well advanced as the US had obviously foreseen such possibilities of a terrorist attack from the air and would have prepared for such an eventuality. Let's not forget the testimony that alleged that Vice President Dick knew and still kept the orders not to act standing.
2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001? Indeed why? From Bush to Condy Rice, those two-faced politicians were claiming that no one could have foreseen such an attack, but God knows, they all knew and had modeled some of their war games on such a scenario.
3. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? Sending all the salvaged steel to foreign countries, engine and wing pieces missing from the crash, all videos of the crime scene confiscated an those released showing nothing of the plane? I mean really? Am i the only one who smells a conspiracy?
4. Where was George Bush at the time of the attacks? Yes indeed, where was the country's valiant hero when the nation's most important monuments were under attack? Better yet, what was he doing when the army could have intercepted those jets and saved thousands of lives?
5. Where are the flight recorders? You know them, those nifty little gadgets that record conversation in the cockpit, radio communications between the cockpit crew and others (including conversation with air traffic control personnel), as well as ambient sounds. I wonder if someone had not contrived to make sure that they disappeared, whether their story of the the hijackers taking over the planes would have matched the 9/11 reports.
6. This has to be my biggest question. How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly? By culprits i would be referring of course to those young Arabic lads educated from US flight schools and colleges, whose identities and guilt were so clearly discovered at the scene of the crimes, despite everything else including metal having been blown away. This would also be a good time to insert that some of these guilty, soulless terrorists, associated to Bin Ladin, that would have the nerve to attack the US, have of course been alleged to be still living and thriving on in the US. Luck them to have survived 9/11.
7. How extensive was the relationship between the Taliban, the ISI and the CIA? This question would of course have been prompted by the fact that General Mahmud Ahmad, former head of the ISI at that time, had been visiting the capital and meeting with government officials day before 9/11. Now it beats me, but why would the US government have been entertaining the very people who were to launch terrorists attacks on the nation? Even more suspicious was the $100, 000.00 that was supposedly transferred by this same general to a certain Mohammad Atta, which was later said to have been used to fund the attacks. Did i mention that this general had to quit his job soon after?
Now sarcasm aside, one must say there a number of red flags to be seen when looking at the 9/11 story. Its a shame to suspect one's own government of involvement in a tragedy that cost the lives of thousands and left many Americans scarred. Even more shameful would be that should 9/11 have been a conspiracy and a big hoax by the government then many innocent Arabs would have suffered needlessly, from those that were labeled hijackers to those that still suffer the stigma today. Whatever the nature of the truth, the events that occurred on 9/11 were too painful for many and too life threatening not to deserve total and absolute truth.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
A Film Analysis:T.V’s Promised Land and the allegory of the promise
T.V’s Promised Land is a stunning montage of images, video clips and documentary footage that Nick Dembowski put together in order to depict the inconsistencies of US politics and reality as well as the disparaging of Arabs in the media. Although it promised that one would find humor in the ridiculousness of how the US politicians incriminated themselves, I must say that I felt many things but humor was not one of them. It is a journey of the discrimination of a race not only between the years 2000- 2003, but through time as seen with the native Indians who suffered the loss of their lands when Europeans settled in the US. It is also a depiction of the legalization of injustice through the media and involvement of politicians.
The film focuses on Jerusalem as the “promised land” that God promised to the Jews, and showing the US’s justification of why they support Israel. It then brings us back in the past to the US’s justification of settling in America as the “promised land”. This brings me to question the idea of the promise. Whether one believes in the Bible or not, one cannot conceivably make it the cornerstone for international politics, especially politics between nations of different religions to whom the Bible’s promise means different things. This being the case, politicians such as George Bush have made themselves agents of God in a bid to secure this land for the Israelis against what Bush calls “the Axis of evil”[1] (implying that his side is where the good guys are), just as the early American settlers made themselves agents of God by claiming America as their promised land. This is especially ironic for a country like the US that steadfastly claims a distinction and separation of state and religion. This therefore makes the promise not so much the land that was being conquered, nor does it have anything to do with religion, but rather the political motives of the countries involved. Watching T.V’s Promised Land left me with the feeling that the promise was all about political purposes of countries masquerading under the veil of religion.
The film is very good at showing the inconsistencies in American politics. It shows scenes of American politicians’ declarations of support for Israel that made me question the reality of the supposed long-standing friendship. As I kept watching Bush declare how America has “always” stood behind Israel, and how it is because they are a common people with America, sharing western ideas, religion and democracies, I kept thinking of the hypocrisy of it all. After all history has numerous accounts of Jews’ discrimination in America and at the hands of fellow Americans. According to A Concise History of Anti-Semitism in America “Quotas and discrimination kept American Jews out of jobs, education and housing just as they kept Eastern-European Jewish immigrants out of America”[2] It bears saying that this was during the 1920s and through the 1940s when Hitler was doing pretty much the same thing only on a grander scale that was easier to condemn than the quiet segregation of Jews in America.
Seeing these facts of history then looking at Bush’s declarations of America’s zealous support for the Jewish cause one skeptically questions what prompted the change. Maybe it might have been when the promised land was being doled out by the United Nations after World War 2 so as give Jews their own place to belong while also strategically placing a bit of Western influence smack in the midst of all those troublesome Islamic nations. Or maybe even the discovery of oil along with the threat of terrorism.
More than anything I was shocked at the animal imagery that perpetuated not only the news and various forms of media used in the film, but that was voiced by the people behind the media, the average American woman who was shot saying “they are not human like us, they have no souls” and the American politician like Bush. Throughout the film, the Arabs were called mosquitoes, rats, dogs, rattlesnakes and pigs amongst many other animal images. It seemed as if somewhere along the line the supposed war against terrorism had become an ethnic cleansing against Arabs who, as far as these American speakers were concerned, were no longer worthy of human status. Having been degraded to animal status it was acceptable for terrorism experts like Steve Emerson to say “killing somebody there is not the same as killing someone here”[3] as well as to call this honorable fight against terrorism “Operation I hope we don’t offend you but we are gonna kill you anyway”[4]. In this case, Arabs had been effectively stripped of their humanity and therefore their being killed was justifiable, at least to these people.
Although the film does a great job in showing the inconsistencies of American politics, it must be criticized that a greater majority of its footage came from Fox News and shows such as The O'Reilly Factor which are very conservative in nature. Even though Fox news is the nation’s most watched news channel, it does not depict every American’s attitude nor does it mean that all news channels also shared this pervasively negative attitude towards Arabs. By basing most of his footage on this conservative side, it becomes easier for Dembowski to condemn American media. There is no balance of views throughout the film and it does not show the other side of American media that might have been a bit more tolerant to Arabs such that it lacks a little in objectivity.
The absence of Dembowski’s voice as narrator or any other narrative for that matter, though being truly remarkable, does not preclude his influence on the film. It is there in the build of the film, in the carefully interspersed images of the Native Americans’ struggle against white people and the Indiana Jones clips. It is there in the background voices of American politicians declaring that they are fighting terrorism on a scene of an Arab civilian being tortured by soldiers. Though his narration is absent, his influence on the turnout of the film is there in its layout and progression. This therefore means that the film is not totally objective because in his editing and compilation, Dembowski has a motive which then transfer onto how the film turns out.
I did not find any of the politicians or Bush’s proclamations funny because their words of fighting against terrorism were side to side with images of them killing, starving, bombing and knocking out infrastructure belonging to normal Arabic civilians and people like O’Reilly reduced the Arabic plight to words like “Let them eat sand”[5]. It was many things; indecent of the politicians and O’Reilly, shameful for Americans, unjust for Arabic civilians, hurtful in the man who was being tortured and the woman and child dying of starvation, shocking in the pervasiveness of the hatred of Arabs, yes for me it was many things, just not funny.
Despite these criticisms I cannot run away from the fact that Dembowski does a splendid job in relating the story as it was being told by western media. No matter how his influence came through in the compilation, it does not take away from the fact that the compilation is based on the truth of what the average American was being fed via TV during this time span. His film brings to mind how fake the “promised land” is and how people would hark on religion so as to pursue their political ends. It challenges one’s stance on the war and depicts a reality of who the war is affecting like nothing many Americans have seen.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
American East
Watching this movie was interesting in how many layers kept being revealed with each scene and each character that we saw. It was complex in terms of the emotional baggage that the characters had as well as the highly sensitive political times they were living in after 9/11.
You have Mustafa who is unjustly persecuted at the airport where he is picking up his cousin. They arrest him and interrogate him primarily because of his middle eastern features which are on everyone's red alert after 9/11 but also because he is shouting around the airport. None of these reasons for his arrest are an offense in themselves, especially if you consider that Mustafa is shouting because he is frantic over his son who has gone missing. But when you have a country that has so much animosity and fear because of the events of 9/11, then you see how difficult it can be to have the country that you belong to and believe in turn against you.
This is exactly what is happening to Mustafa, his family and friends. They believe in this country that they came to as immigrants, they are innocents just as any other white American who lived through the twin towers tragedy, but they are now victims of prejudice and hate because of their skin color and Islamic heritage. Even though i can understand the tragedy of 9/11, i can never justify the suffering that Americans of Middle eastern heritage were being subjected to at that time, even though they were not part of 9/11 itself.
It was as if, the FBI was saying, we welcome you as immigrants so long as you contribute to the economy but you are never truly American so if things go wrong we can turn against you. I mean, how more American did they expect Mustafa and his family to be in order to see that they were also victims of 9/11? Mustafa was equally patriotic, he believed in the system even when it was exposing him to racial prejudice, arresting him and tearing apart his family. All those claims of how America believes in diversity and in its people flew out of the window after 9/11 such that it became that America believes in some of its people's diversity with the notable exclusion of those of Arabic heritage and the Islamic faith. As much as we want them to protect the nation, the FBI treated Mustafa and his family like they were not America and in effect was failing in protecting them.
The film also exposes us to the burdens of being an immigrant such as ties from your country of origin. Mustafa is in the land of opportunity and could have been doing better financially had it not been for the debt he had inherited from his father which was the need to repurchase the family lands in Egypt. He is trying to live up to traditions such as his religion, ownership of land and seeing that his sister marries well, but all these obligations end up burdening him. At the same time you have Mustafa's sister who is being forced to follow the tradition of an arranged marriage, yet wants more from life. You also have Mustafa's kids, who have been born American but are suffering under the prejudices surrounding a religion and tradition that they did not choose, such as in Mohammed's case, or that they do not fully understand, as is the case with Mustafa's daughter. All of these 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, experience the difficulties in living within two different cultures and have a hard time of it. This made me question the idea of immigration in America, and whether it is truly worth it given that the country itself doesn't truly accept you, neither does it make it easier for you to adjust to its culture. It is unlike in Germany where immigrants are encouraged to learn the language and take an immersion course, or in Canada where they grant immigration based on the applicant's ability to fit in and adjust. I could not see any evidence that the US is that interested in its immigrants despite it being an immigrant nation. Even Saber, Mustafa's cousin who was visiting from Egypt could not understand why they would want to stay in a country that treated them so badly.
There are a whole lot more insights that i got from the movie such as the whole politics vs religion conflict that was going on between the Jews and the Muslims but i wanted to focus more on the Arabic-American's view of their lives after 9/11 especially since this film was produced by Arabs. The political struggles will always continue whether the reason be that Jerusalem was promised to the Jews in the bible or that there is oil in Iraq, but it is the ordinary people who are caught in the conflict. It is people like Mustafa who are clinging on to the dream that is America even if the dream rejects them, people like Omar who are sacrificed as victims to the conflict, or children like Mohammed who question their identity because it is not in line with the popular trend.
You have Mustafa who is unjustly persecuted at the airport where he is picking up his cousin. They arrest him and interrogate him primarily because of his middle eastern features which are on everyone's red alert after 9/11 but also because he is shouting around the airport. None of these reasons for his arrest are an offense in themselves, especially if you consider that Mustafa is shouting because he is frantic over his son who has gone missing. But when you have a country that has so much animosity and fear because of the events of 9/11, then you see how difficult it can be to have the country that you belong to and believe in turn against you.
This is exactly what is happening to Mustafa, his family and friends. They believe in this country that they came to as immigrants, they are innocents just as any other white American who lived through the twin towers tragedy, but they are now victims of prejudice and hate because of their skin color and Islamic heritage. Even though i can understand the tragedy of 9/11, i can never justify the suffering that Americans of Middle eastern heritage were being subjected to at that time, even though they were not part of 9/11 itself.
It was as if, the FBI was saying, we welcome you as immigrants so long as you contribute to the economy but you are never truly American so if things go wrong we can turn against you. I mean, how more American did they expect Mustafa and his family to be in order to see that they were also victims of 9/11? Mustafa was equally patriotic, he believed in the system even when it was exposing him to racial prejudice, arresting him and tearing apart his family. All those claims of how America believes in diversity and in its people flew out of the window after 9/11 such that it became that America believes in some of its people's diversity with the notable exclusion of those of Arabic heritage and the Islamic faith. As much as we want them to protect the nation, the FBI treated Mustafa and his family like they were not America and in effect was failing in protecting them.
The film also exposes us to the burdens of being an immigrant such as ties from your country of origin. Mustafa is in the land of opportunity and could have been doing better financially had it not been for the debt he had inherited from his father which was the need to repurchase the family lands in Egypt. He is trying to live up to traditions such as his religion, ownership of land and seeing that his sister marries well, but all these obligations end up burdening him. At the same time you have Mustafa's sister who is being forced to follow the tradition of an arranged marriage, yet wants more from life. You also have Mustafa's kids, who have been born American but are suffering under the prejudices surrounding a religion and tradition that they did not choose, such as in Mohammed's case, or that they do not fully understand, as is the case with Mustafa's daughter. All of these 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, experience the difficulties in living within two different cultures and have a hard time of it. This made me question the idea of immigration in America, and whether it is truly worth it given that the country itself doesn't truly accept you, neither does it make it easier for you to adjust to its culture. It is unlike in Germany where immigrants are encouraged to learn the language and take an immersion course, or in Canada where they grant immigration based on the applicant's ability to fit in and adjust. I could not see any evidence that the US is that interested in its immigrants despite it being an immigrant nation. Even Saber, Mustafa's cousin who was visiting from Egypt could not understand why they would want to stay in a country that treated them so badly.
There are a whole lot more insights that i got from the movie such as the whole politics vs religion conflict that was going on between the Jews and the Muslims but i wanted to focus more on the Arabic-American's view of their lives after 9/11 especially since this film was produced by Arabs. The political struggles will always continue whether the reason be that Jerusalem was promised to the Jews in the bible or that there is oil in Iraq, but it is the ordinary people who are caught in the conflict. It is people like Mustafa who are clinging on to the dream that is America even if the dream rejects them, people like Omar who are sacrificed as victims to the conflict, or children like Mohammed who question their identity because it is not in line with the popular trend.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The stereotype of Aladdin
Watching the first 15 minutes of Aladdin with a critical eye was an experience of revelation. Minute details that had been overlooked through the eyes of childhood, stereotypes of the Arab person that are rampant throughout the film, or even the lyrics to the beginning song "its barbaric but hey, it's home". All these things that i was now questioning and looking at, make me go back to Sahid's theory of Orientalism as a western method of institutionalizing the middle east as a way of controlling it.
I mean, Aladdin begins with a shifty looking Arabic merchant who is trying to swindle you into buying his wares, some of which are broken such as the hookah/coffee maker combo. Just from that intro, has the middle eastern man not already been depicted as untrustworthy and conniving? In this case, millions of Americans and people across the world who have watched Aladdin and those who will buy the DVD for their "little princesses" will be viewing the institutionalizing of the Arab man as an unscrupulous and manipulating businessman who preys on the unaware. With this perspective, would it not therefore be right to side with Sahid in saying that the Western world has tried from all sides to denounce and denigrate the middle eastern, thereby controlling the world's perception of it.
Going on the idea of image, is it not curious that the characters in Aladdin are all bearing the stereotypical strong features of a middle eastern person. From the big noses, to the dark skin to gruffness of nature, the characters around Aladdin are definitely what one expects the middle east person to look like. Then comes young Aladdin, a diamond in the rough as the movies says, skin a tad lighter than everyone else, angular nose and facial features that are a direct product of the west. You have to love him and his clever ways of outwitting and escaping the cruel guards/police who seek to capture him for stealing. Never mind that these police keep screaming at Aladdin how they desire to chop his head off and all sorts of dire demises (which brings to mind how bloodthirsty and errational their conception of juctice is). So looking at these scenes, one is given images that associate goodness with the western looking Aladdin while greed, cruelty and bloodthirstiness belongs to the middle east.
But one cannot ommit the other misrepresentation of the middle east that the movie Aladdin perpetuates. Remember when Aladdin first encounters the prince who is coming to court Princess Jasmine? Then when she faces off with her father about not wanting to be forced to marry? Yes, therein in these conversation is the misrepresentaion of the middle eastern leader. You have the prince who callously would have trod upon the little child in his path, then jeers at Aladdin about how he is a nobody and the fleas on his head are the only ones who would mourn him. Then you have the rotund, almost inept king and father to Jasmine, who is easily misled and controlled by his advisor, Jafar. Then there is Jafar himself, manipulative, power hungry and evil. These are three examples of the people in leadership that one sees in the first 15mins of Aladdin. Judging from this depiction of middle eastern leaders, is it not fair to assume that leaders in that part of the world are either corrupt and self serving, narcisistic and self-important or weak and inept? That is assuming that Aladdin's depiction is true. If not, then how can this tarring of a people's image through popular media such as movies, be justified?
Some would say the same of many other fairy tales or movie productions out there, but i would maintain that it doesn't matter whether misrepresentations have been made by other people, it does not take away from those that are being made in this movie. Enjoyable as i may think Aladdin is, it still does not plant positive images of the people that it depicts or even of their culture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuhG-m4MC8k&feature=related
I mean, Aladdin begins with a shifty looking Arabic merchant who is trying to swindle you into buying his wares, some of which are broken such as the hookah/coffee maker combo. Just from that intro, has the middle eastern man not already been depicted as untrustworthy and conniving? In this case, millions of Americans and people across the world who have watched Aladdin and those who will buy the DVD for their "little princesses" will be viewing the institutionalizing of the Arab man as an unscrupulous and manipulating businessman who preys on the unaware. With this perspective, would it not therefore be right to side with Sahid in saying that the Western world has tried from all sides to denounce and denigrate the middle eastern, thereby controlling the world's perception of it.
Going on the idea of image, is it not curious that the characters in Aladdin are all bearing the stereotypical strong features of a middle eastern person. From the big noses, to the dark skin to gruffness of nature, the characters around Aladdin are definitely what one expects the middle east person to look like. Then comes young Aladdin, a diamond in the rough as the movies says, skin a tad lighter than everyone else, angular nose and facial features that are a direct product of the west. You have to love him and his clever ways of outwitting and escaping the cruel guards/police who seek to capture him for stealing. Never mind that these police keep screaming at Aladdin how they desire to chop his head off and all sorts of dire demises (which brings to mind how bloodthirsty and errational their conception of juctice is). So looking at these scenes, one is given images that associate goodness with the western looking Aladdin while greed, cruelty and bloodthirstiness belongs to the middle east.
But one cannot ommit the other misrepresentation of the middle east that the movie Aladdin perpetuates. Remember when Aladdin first encounters the prince who is coming to court Princess Jasmine? Then when she faces off with her father about not wanting to be forced to marry? Yes, therein in these conversation is the misrepresentaion of the middle eastern leader. You have the prince who callously would have trod upon the little child in his path, then jeers at Aladdin about how he is a nobody and the fleas on his head are the only ones who would mourn him. Then you have the rotund, almost inept king and father to Jasmine, who is easily misled and controlled by his advisor, Jafar. Then there is Jafar himself, manipulative, power hungry and evil. These are three examples of the people in leadership that one sees in the first 15mins of Aladdin. Judging from this depiction of middle eastern leaders, is it not fair to assume that leaders in that part of the world are either corrupt and self serving, narcisistic and self-important or weak and inept? That is assuming that Aladdin's depiction is true. If not, then how can this tarring of a people's image through popular media such as movies, be justified?
Some would say the same of many other fairy tales or movie productions out there, but i would maintain that it doesn't matter whether misrepresentations have been made by other people, it does not take away from those that are being made in this movie. Enjoyable as i may think Aladdin is, it still does not plant positive images of the people that it depicts or even of their culture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuhG-m4MC8k&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
