Rana's Wedding & COLor of OLiVEs

I think I would have to watch Rana's wedding one more time to grasp the themes better, but one thing that stood out completely was how oppressed and trapped Rana seemed from the beginning of the movie when she read her father's list of men she was allowed to marry. Her life was in the hands of the men around her; it was obvious that she lived in strong male dominated society where she held little to no freedom or authority. Her character definitely contrasted with the images of women in the Egyptian film. Even though she was not wearing a veil and she looked "modern," the rules of the society she was living in upheld traditional customs such as strong gender separation and arranged marriages. The story was interesting because in the beginning all Rana wants is to marry the man she wants, but when she finds him she takes him and the audience on an emotional roller coaster. There is so much tension and frustration throughout the movie that somehow placed the reader into Rana's situation and the feeling of living under Occupation. Her emotion and confusion mirrors the chaos through check points, surveillance and military guards, which has become an everyday reality. I enjoyed the film because it gave an authentic feeling and an emotional journey of a Palestinian woman trying to overcome the city's barriers in order to have some control in her life. 

The Color of Olives was very odd. It was strange because the film (through silence and images) portrays Hani Amer and his family as prisoners in their home. A lot of the students complained that it was too intense because of the stillness and silence of the film, but I do not think anyone heard when Professor Metcalf said that maybe it was trying to portray how the Palestinians have no voice and how exciting could a film be about Palestinians living under Occupation. A step further than Rana's wedding, this film artistically and directly gave the audience the closest experience of what it would feel like to live under Israeli Occupation. Students could not handle 5 minutes of the film, but it is a film showing how a family lives and survives in the Occupation. It is disheartening to grasp the fact that the Occupation has become a way of life for Palestinians. But good thing we are Americans and we can ignore and dismiss realities of the world continue our lives guilt free.

I am glad I took this course and the only words that can sum up my feelings and conclusions is a quote from my Latin American professor:

There is the way you think the world works

And there is the way the world works.

CONteNDiNg ViSiONS oF the MiD EASt--LOCkMan

Lockman's book is interesting because it provides a perspective that many people refuse to see, which is the fact that the "west" and "east" have more in common than the media and government want us to think. For example, the United States prides itself on its modernity and progressiveness (countering traditionalism and regression). One issue that Lockman brought up was the separation of church and state. The United States claims it is more democratic and modern than other countries in the East because "we" do not conflate religion with politics. But Lockman discusses how many right-wing evangelical Protestants in the United States "abhor the notion of the separation of religion and state." Lockman includes another side of Americans who share the same values with Muslims. I would dare to say that there are so many suppressed/ignored similarities between Muslims, Christians, and Jews that is undeniable; however, with strategic propaganda, events, and images the Bush administration managed to create a cosmic struggle between "us" and "them" aka "Americans" vs the "Terrorists."

It is important to remember how powerful and how much authority the minority can have in America. The Bush administration was a group of officials who believed and imposed an exclusive ideology. In class one time I had to make the distinction between myself and the American government, realizing that I am the "other" in my own country. The more I think about the government and especially the impact of the Bush administration, I have a disturbing realization that the minority controls the majority. Instead of engaging and supporting the "good and evil" dichotomy and separating "us" from "them," we should be capitalizing on our similarities. Throughout Lockman's book there were countless examples of the "other" and it is frustrating to see how nations and peoples do not learn from history. Fears and prejudices need to be invalidated in order for people to take the next step into tolerance and acceptance.

wHAT CLASH?

Antionette Rodriguez

Professor Metcalf

 

            Before I took Professor Metcalf’s course, I would have ignorantly agreed that there are fundamental differences between the “West” and “East” that does not allow for co-existence. Like many “Westerners,” I would not have been able to name the main differences but somehow I would have known they were there. However, I owe much gratitude to the multiple videos, documentaries, and assigned readings that have informed and educated my opinion. Granted, I did not come out of the class an “expert” on the Middle East, but I do know, as Socrates said, that I know nothing at all and that fact does not grant me the right to make an opinion or share my expertise on a subject I know nothing about. But I will comment on the question Professor Metcalf proposes: Does the clash resonate?

            The first video Professor showed the class was disturbing because I was clueless about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how explicit the alliance between America and Israel is. After the video, the class discussed how “pro-Palestine” the video was, but even then I felt the video gave voice to an oppressed people. Of course my opinion is biased, but I do not support nations or “races,” rather my alliance lies with truth, justice, and humanity. The problem (which many do not seen as a problem) is how people allow the government not only to engage in inhumane acts, but how we allow them to operate with impunity. And what angers me the most is how Orientalism and construction of the Other dehumanizes people. At the end of reading Rassi El Toufic’s Arab in America I realized that at the end of the day we must remember that “we” are all human and there is no “other.” That conclusion was the most important out of all the discussions in class and “news” reports because it is a fact that people do not even to stop to think about because we are all caught up in a world of differences, intolerance, and hate.

            Edward Said’s book, Orientalism, was the most influential book of the entire course. Said, along with Zachary Lockman’s Contending Visions of the East, both explore how our idea of the Orient has a falsely constructed history and how scholars, intellectuals, and writers continue to promote this 19^th century idea through images, books, and the inescapable media. Said’s work was considered revolutionary because he was a Middle Eastern scholar who challenged years of history and asked why “Orientals” are portrayed in obvious discriminatory ways. Through research, Said precisely learned that scholars imposed their biases and prejudices onto the Middle Eastern people. He challenges other scholars to rethink “Oriental” images and representation in hopes of providing credible, accurate scholarship concerning the Middle East. One of Said’s concerns was to humanize the Middle Eastern people. It is such a basic principal that the most important leaders and elites of the world have forgotten or choose to dismiss.

            My favorite documentary of the course was To Die in Jerusalem. It is so vital to the class because the idea of the Other is so prominent. Some of the class focused on whether or not the suicide bombing was right or wrong, but the real question that no one wants to ask is why Ayat made her decision. The majority of Americans are never going to know what it feels like to live under Israeli occupation, so our opinion and moral judgment about Ayat’s suicide bombing is invalid. Americans can comment on how Others believe in suicide bombings and terrorist acts, but we have no credibility because we do not live under those conditions. The Israeli woman’s opinions in the video directly paralleled a Westerner’s perspective. She refused to listen or understand any other voice but her own. The Israeli woman believed her voice was truth and she made no room for an alternative voice. The Bush Administration enforced this idea of “us” against “them,” “we” believe and “they” believe; there was no alternative, it was either you are with America or the “axis of evil.” Americans have been trained to believe that the Other is so uncivilized and barbaric that we cannot even see similarities. Someone commented on their blog that the image portrayed of her Ayat as a hero was undeserved. There is not much difference from an American soldier going abroad to fight for his country and freedom and killing innocent people (as many news reports have shown) than a Palestinian woman who believes in her country and freedom and willing to fight and kill the enemy (in this case the oppressor). I would argue that Ayat’s decision should especially be merited because she is not acting on the offensive; she is resisting an unjust, illegal occupation and making a political statement. Once again, I am not an expert on the Occupation or on terrorists, but I was simply struck at how people were quick to morally judge the bombing without considering the most important question: why? People’s perception of the Other is so misconstrued and hateful that we refuse to consider similarities and make connections with one another, least of all attempt to live in tolerance.

            Genuine videos such as American East and The Kingdom were great examples of how much of a “clash” there is between “East” and “West.” What I admire about both films was the humanity in the American and Middle Eastern characters. In American East, Mustafa’s family resembled a typical middle-American family with the exception of their daily struggle with America’s anti-Semitism. Each family member had multiple layers and there were plenty of similarities to American family movies with similar themes such as family strength, resolution with rivals, and the struggle for a better life. Plenty of American films stress the importance of family, fathers pressuring daughters to marry a man he has approved of and children rebelling. The unique element in this film was that on top of all that they were Muslims living in America post 9/11. I find The Kingdom to be the best example of two nations working together for justice. There is no clash of civilizations or clash of cultures; there is an FBI team and a Saudi Police team working together to capture Muslim extremists. At first there is some difference between the Western and Eastern characters, but what is rare is how they realize despite differences in religion, region, and culture they are both officers of the law working for the same ultimate goal: justice. Through dialogue and cooperation they establish tolerance and even become friends with one another. Does the clash resonate is not even worth debating, the real question people should ask is how “we” (humans) can learn to co-exist on peaceful terms. I believe the first step is for leaders to engage in an honest, open dialogue with each other. 

EGYPtiAN WOMEn OPPReSSed?

I ENjoyed the Egyptian movie, Terrorism and Kebab. It was so funny and it took a serious situation such as terrorism and made it into a fun comedy.

Obviously the characters are exaggerated and supposed to be comedic, but the women were so dominant over men and it was entertaining to watch the men be over ruled to the point where one man wanted to commit suicide. There is a strong idea that Middle Eastern or Muslim women are oppressed and subjugated, but this film provided a completely different perspective. The first woman that is introduced is very loud and has authority over the main character when all he is trying to do is get an appointment. When the man goes home he is prepared to mingle with his wife and her reaction to her husband is very loud and abrasive. She is upset that he has disturbed her, but he tries to put her in the mood. He drops some liquid on the floor and she starts hollering and nagging about her responsibilities of the household. The repeated images of the abrasive, incredibly loud women makes the audience pity and sympathize with the husband who seems like a hard working man, but who is constantly under attack by women. Weak and oppressed are the last traits that the women in the film portray. As shocking as it may sound, this image is not promoted at all in American media or film. So it was refreshing to visually see a different side of people. The discussion after class paralleled Said's argument of how ignorant and harmful it is to stereotype and confine people to a static idea. People are not one way or the other. We forget that we all have complexities and different sides to us; we are not static in any way and characters and images in films should not dominate our understanding of people in real life. 

BRiTAiN's OthER: SUSAn bOYLe

This week's class was interesting because as Professor Metcalf showed us the videos, I felt like the other. Professor Metcalf gave away the surprise of the Susan Boyle video because I was expecting Boyle to sing really well because the video presented her as a joke. The interesting point of the video was that once the audience (covertly) agrees that she is a joke (before she presents) the audience and the judges outwardly laugh and snicker at her. The audience, judges, and t.v. producers construct Susan Boyle as the other and it is allowable for everyone to see her that way. My opinion was already slanted before I watched the biased video because Professor hinted at it so I was expecting a surprise. But it is the idea that the other is acceptable when everyone agrees. For example, at the train station the flash mob encouraged people to join the dance because many people joined it, which made it acceptable while everyone else around watching became the others. I was surprised that when Professor Metcalf asked the class if they would join and everyone said yes.  I instantly felt like the other, because I was the first to say no and was not in agreement with the majority. I was not ashamed of my answer, but it reminded me of how many times I am the other on a regular basis. Prof. Metcalf constantly reminds us of how often we construct the Other on a personal, local which escalates into a national and international level. The problem with constructing the Other so easily is how intolerant people become to difference. Susan Boyle, from Britain's Got Talent, is a minor example of what happens "our" prejudices turn into discrimination. If Boyle would have had horrible voice the prejudice would have been justified, but she did not. She proved the prejudice or stereotype wrong, which is more often the case. "We" think we can figure people out by categorizing them in under a minute but it is impossible. It is not possible to see someone before you see their exterior traits such as gender and race. Boyle is a reminder of how we need to realize our inner biases so that we should not act on them, because more often than not we are wrong.

OCCidENtALiSM:THe WESt in the Eyes of its ENemies

The book was interesting because it detailed the history of the West and how the East came to associate it as a "soul-less" and "machine-like" society. The West represents modernity and colonialism and those two terms have severely threatened Eastern societies that value tradition and religion. The book mentions that the basic distinction between the modern West and Islamic world is the separation of the state and church. America especially prides itself on separating the church from the state and not allowing religion to impede the progress of the nation. It is an important point that the author's stress because basically the West has constructed itself against tradition, religion, and "old" values and have named secularism and individualism as "progressive" and modern. The book also mentions that in 1942, the Japanese intellects railed against Americanism because its metropolitan civilization was shallow, materialistic, rootless, and it did not have the spiritual culture they wanted to uphold. The problem is that "we" have no tolerance for co-existence, instead the West divided the world into tradition and modernity, religious and secular and the battle for survival continues.

Americans are defined as "soul-less," "decadent," "money grubbing," "rootless," and "faithless" but the difference between American stereotypes is that those are the characteristics that are valued and needed to succeed in the American dream world. Americans are proud to be individualistic and will do whatever it takes to protect their liberty and money. The stereotype not only has truth, but those traits are valued in America because we are socialized into thinking that we have to compete with everyone, "they" are taking our spot, "they" want our money, and we become "faithless" and "rootless" in order to achieve (or in hopes of achieving) the "good life." The author refers to Engels who criticized Manchester and London city dwellers because of their loss of solidarity, everyone was an individual indifferent to one another going after his "Selfish" interests. 

My favorite line from the book was from a terrorist who was referring to America when he said, "They love Pepsi Cola, but we love death." It is the cultural driven idea that Americans delight and indulge in pleasure, while other people worship evil and killing. Americans are taught to indulge and to believe that we have a right to luxury and excess. Surely not all Americans live that way or can afford to imagine it, but it is imprinted in our media, movies, television and it is difficult to avoid that mentality. The main point of the book is that instead of fighting fire with fire, the world needs to learn to open the door to cooperation and tolerance. People need to realize that we live in a global community and we should be receptive and working towards peace, despite fear and terror of the Other.

NEWS REPORt COMPARiSOn

Antionette Rodriguez

Comparing News Reports

            I compared the New York Times with the Middle East Times (MET). Both newspapers are respected and have a wide variety of readers. I compared and contrasted how each one covered Barack Obama’s appearance in Iraq and how he addressed Iraq’s situation and the withdrawal of American troops.

            The photo used in the New York Times article, “In Baghdad, Obama Presses Iraqi Leader to Unite Factions, showed a crowd of troops surrounding Obama like fans bombarding a celebrity. The back of his body was shown grabbing a troop’s hand, but it looked more like an artist who was about to go on stage to perform. The photo was very inspiring and had a glorious feeling; it reflected America’s attitude about Obama. It is easy to equate Obama with a celebrity because he is different and has made himself relatable to the American people. The photo in the MET, “Obama in Iraq: ‘Time to Start Preparing for Withdrawal,” is Obama’s face with an exaggerated frown looking towards the Iraqi Prime Minister. It is not as glamorous and celebratory as the New York Times, but it portrays Obama as a politician, who has to make tough decisions. The photo also sets the tone for the article and implies the seriousness of the issue at hand.

            After reading both of the articles, “In Baghdad” read like a story. The language was not as direct and objective as the MET. There is a lot of description and words that make it sound entertaining rather than just fact-based news. For example, the journalists write that Obama addressed a “cheering crowd” with a “hint of impatience” in his voice and declared, “‘it is time for us to transition to the Iraqis.’” The article does quote Obama but in between his actual words, the article also manages to conveniently drop a specific name. Obama gave his speech in front of American troops packed into Al Faw Palace, “an imposing sandstone building in an artificial lake that once belonged to Saddam Hussein.” And if you click on his name the website directs you to a photo of Hussein shooting a gun along with plenty of photos and videos of his life as an “Iraqi tyrant.” What the connection is between Hussein’s lake and Obama’s speech is not clear, but it is an American journalist habit to insert a Middle Eastern name whenever to stir up emotions. In this case, the intended emotions are triumph and rejoice. It is rejoice in the fact that America has survived the war on terror and has a president that is restoring America’s reputation abroad. The article continues, “a pall of dust hung over Baghdad, grounding the helicopters that were to take the president and his entourage into the city itself.” It has great imagery and words to detail the feeling and moment, but it is that the point of a news article? The MET article’s first three paragraphs covered the 5 basic questions (who, what, where, when, why) and stated general facts. Both articles even choose to quote different parts of his speech. “In Baghdad” quoted Obama’s plan to “transition” to the Iraqis, “Obama in Iraq” quoted a very key statement that was left out in the above article about Obama assuring Iraqis that “‘the United States has no ambitions on Iraqi soil or its resources’ and that he was committed to the full withdrawal of U.S forces from the country by the end of 2011.” The comment was critical because Obama shows that he is a new administration and intends to re-establish trust. The comment was not mentioned in the New York Times article. Unlike the MET article, the New York Times quotes Obama twice. First they report that Obama “announces plans to withdraw all combat forces by August 2010,” a few paragraphs later they note “Obama pledged to abide by American commitments to Iraq, including the timetable for withdrawing all troops by the end of 2011.”      

            The reporting in the article, “In Baghdad,” was problematic. It is a “technique” happens all too often throughout the media. The infamous “he said she said.” The article reports that they are unsure why Obama chose to visit Iraq first but they rely on Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, for the answer. He says that Obama “did so because of Iraq’s proximity to Turkey.” This kind of reporting is undependable, inaccurate, and it does not appear in the MET article. It shows lack of reporting and lack of answers. This allows the media to rely on “inside sources” or representatives or anyone else they can get a quote from for the sake of developing a story, I mean, news report. The article also reports that Obama says he has a responsibility for withdrawing the troops in a timely and careful way so that “‘we don’t see a complete collapse into violence.’” The article ends by stating he was discussing Iraq among other issues. I was not present when Obama was giving the speech however, when he refers to “we” I believe he is referring to how concerned he is about all the parties involved in the war and how change could lead to more violence overall. But the article splices through his speech and associates violence with the Iraq, implying that Iraq generates violence and that we need to be cautious.

            Another interesting thing about the MET article was how it included criticism and created a dialogue. They mention the Arab critics who are skeptical that “Obama’s strategy doesn’t differ from his predecessor’s that is largely seen as an imperialist American colonization of the oil-rich region.” The article’s reporting gives a wider range of views. It continues, “some Arab commentators suggest that Obama would have done better to ‘apologize’ for an American war that has left the country in tatters and swept by sectarian strife.’” It is a topic and opinion that many people have and the article allows those questions and voices to be heard. The New York Times does not provide for a discussion of the people, rather it creates a “factual” story that the reader could believe because it does not challenge or demand thought out of the reader.

           Neither article was biased, each writer had a voice based on the information they chose to include or exclude. Reviewing an event from two different perspectives was informative because it allowed me to see the different agendas from each newspaper. Comparing the articles made it more obvious for me to ask "what was not said?" and "what is the other side?" It is easily forgotten that there are so many perspectives to events and issues, but those other sides need to be considered in order for us to be accurately informed about a situation.

Links to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/middleeast/08obama.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20iraq%20withdrawal&st=cse 

http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/04/08/obama_in_iraq_time_to_start_preparing_for_withdrawal/2958/