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/

HiJACKiNg CATAStROPhe

This film was really disturbing. I don't care for George Bush and I don't want an in-depth analysis of how he managed to do what he did and walk away without any regret or apologies. The video was mainly about how he constructed a false image of himself and gave authority to specific conservatives whose had a vision of "American power," which resulted in the war in Iraq. The less I know about Bush and his accomplices the happier I am that day  :) Bush is one of those characters who you cannot be neutral about. I personally feel very strongly about him and it scares me to think he has supporters and has brainwashed so many Americans to believe in him. My favorite part of the film was the introduction of the quote by the Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering: 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 peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. Bush and his administration exploited people's fear and terrified them into submission. The message of his administration was that "we" need to live in fear because the "evildoers" hate America and "we" have to defend ourselves from the "axis of evil." The video pointed out that that was not a necessary response. Bush basically positioned the West against the East. He stated you're either with us or with the terrorists. That kind of attitude and ideology is problematic and harmful to the American people demonstrated in the movie American East. Because of "politics of fear" Americans are the ones stuck dealing with and suffering over post 9-11 while Bush and his accomplices sleep sound knowing they accomplished their goal. 

George Bush and his accomplices fed America numerous statements about Osama Bin Laden and his possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction." There was a tremendous amount of discourse about the Middle East and Bin Laden and all these known "facts" that perpetuated throughout the American media. The problem was how Bush and his team continued to talk about the Middle East and present false, unproven statements as "facts." There was tremendous amount of discussion about "WMD" that terrified and paralyzed Americans from challenging Bush and his order to declare war and no questions were asked. It is so painful to look back at those 8 years and see what Americans willingly gave up in order to protect their "freedom" and feel "safe." And the answer is military force, that is the universal language. America does not need to dialogue or consider resolution because we solve problems through "shock and awe." We are the military force. A theme that PRofessor Metcalf continues to bring up is to question what we "know." If only Americans would have questioned the "facts" maybe Bush and his evildoers might not have gotten away with it.

AraB iN AMERiCa COMiC & LOOse CHANge 9/11

Loose Change was one of the strongest conspiracy theories I've heard and i was blown away. One of the girl's even said it, "It was a hard pill to swallow." I was not directly affected by 9/11 or post 9/11 but it was a national event that affected and changed the way we would react to 9/11. The video presented outstanding evidence against what we know happened on Sep. 11 and countless questions that still haven't been answered. It reminds me of the "self-incrimination" the American government is famous for because the more they bullshit the American people, there is a counter idea and brave individuals who are going to call some people out. There is overwhelming evidence that challenge the official story of 9/11 and it is obvious that the government is withholding vital information. Our only hope is to challenge the bullshit and demand justice. The truth is being hidden and many people just want to know what happened. The answers the video alluded to are sadly possible, but they still leave us asking questions and with the damaging aftermath of 9/11.

A comic book that explores some of these damaging aftermaths is Rassi El Toufic's Arab in America. Similar to many of the Arab Americans dealing with post 9/11, Toufic admits that the America's anti-Semitic culture made him ashamed of being Arab. Rassi's critical perspective was interesting because it allowed him to notice Arab discrimination and prejudice normally overlooked and accepted in American society. He also points out American's ignorance in not being able to differentiate Arabs from Muslims from other nationalities. Similar to my observations in the movie The Kingdom Americans have been socialized to construct themselves against the "other," an enemy.  Important to note is that Americans were not the only ones terrified after 9/11, Arabs like Rassi also lived in fear of being targeted or deported. On a bus ride, Toufic becomes increasingly uneasy when he questions if an American would be able to distinguish him from the photos of the hijackers that in fact "looked like him." Toufic also comments on the photos themselves. The photos were problematic because of the humiliation and terror they were intended to invoke. Much like the American funded "reality" tv show in Iraq, the government uses methods such as humiliation to dehumanize and shame their subjects. "Catching" a criminal and circulating a humiliating mug shot is a strategy meant to reaffirm the stereotypes against Arabs and Muslims. Toufic mentions that one of the terrorist photos was of a man who was arrested when he was in bed. He obviously was going to look wild and disgruntled, but the photo was meant to "invite mockery." The importance of language and discourse is shown with the way "arab" and "muslim" are immediately synonymous with terror and violence. Especially post 9/11, the propaganda was everywhere.

From an Arab perspective he clearly believes that racism against Arabs is tolerated, encouraged and supported in America. His perspective is interesting and complicated because like many immigrants he is caught in the middle: he doesn't feel like he belongs to America and yet he is not entirely devoted to Arab or Muslim culture and tradition. As Toufic presents the alternative Arab perspectives he shows the varying ways Muslims and Arabs deal with their identity in America varying from denial, rejection, protest and him, unwanted and lost. When he tries to become a citizen he realizes that he was on his own with "these" people. He reveals that "this is not my country and never could be." 

One of my favorite points was when he reveals that Americans don't even know who they hate. America was founded on the idea that "we" are here, superior, dominant and everyone else is the "other." The American "enemy" shifts every time the government has a political agenda. If its not the Mexicans, it is the Arabs, if it is not the Arabs it is the Indians... Overall, Toufic, similar to Said, identifies the problem with the West's perception and constant representation of the East. As he observes some palestinian photos taken by a white college student, he finds the photos to be "exploitative" and came to the same conclusion as Said: everything Americans know about Arabs is almost always filtered through the eyes of a white American, whether it is from a biased, prejudiced newscaster or an educated college student Arabs are always represented by someone else. In the end, Toufic chooses to take pride in his Arab identity and not only appreciates the beauty of his people, but the beauty in humanity. There are political and social reasons for racial profiling, racism and discrimination but at the end of the day we have to realize that "we" are all human and there is no "other."

FiLM ANALySiS: tHE KiNGdOM

Antionette Rodriguez

Film Analysis

             The Kingdom is a fascinating movie that portrays Americans and the Middle East working together and fighting for justice. The movie begins with a brief history of Middle East and United States relations, concluding with Saudi Arabia as the number one oil producer in the world and the United States as the number one consumer in the world.

The video clearly indicates that America has strong motives for its presence in Saudi Arabia, as the movie shows through the Western compounds that were set up. The initial action begins with a suicide bombing at an American baseball game and an even bigger explosion while American officials were investigating the scene. A few Saudis overlook and record the game, while others are shooting Saudi police and American bystanders; terror is associated with all the Middle Eastern characters because the viewer does not know who is good or bad. The scenes alternate between a young Saudi who is being told to watch the attack and an American FBI agent, Agent Fluery, who is at school with his son. There is an interesting contrast between the two boys: the American boy is at school having a show and tell with his father, while the young Saudi is with his grandfather watching Americans being killed for the glory of Allah. Both children live and are brought up in two different worlds, the Saudi is taught that Americans are the enemy and the American boy knows his dad fights “bad people.” This scene foreshadows the ultimate predicament at the end of the movie: who is the enemy?

As the FBI team discusses their options and situation one thing is clear, the Saudis are threatening, dangerous, and killing Americans on a large scale. Even in Saudi Arabia everyone is suspect, one scene shows the Saudi army assaulting one of the Saudi guards for supposedly being involved in the bombing. The enemy could be anyone, but whoever they are the Americans are preparing to bring justice. When the FBI arrives in Saudi Arabia, they are unwelcome and tension occurs when they are told their cooperation is limited. Agent Fluery asks if they could at least question witnesses. When he visits the compound an American witness shouts at the first sight of Faris Al Ghazi, Saudi policeman in command, and accuses him of his wife’s death. The American does not differentiate Middle Eastern people because he only sees one thing, a terrorist. Of course he is traumatized for what happened to his wife, but it just reaffirms America’s quick tendency to blame an entire people for the actions of a few.

However, when Agent Fluery phones his son from Saudi Arabia the scene also shows Al Ghazi and his family coloring and watching television with their kids, another Saudi officer arrives home and helps his father get ready for prayer, it is an intimate moment because unlike the beginning it shows the obvious, not all Muslims are terrorists. There are Muslims in Saudi Arabia who have families, lives and are innocent victims in their country’s struggle for peace and stability. At first, there is tension and discomfort between FBI agents and the Saudi police, but during a car ride, Fluery and Al Ghazi understand that they are on the same side; they both want justice. The movie is unique because it does not rely on common Middle Eastern stereotypes; it presents the differences between Faris and Agent Fluery such as their different lifestyle, religion, customs, and traditions but what unites them is their duty and struggle for justice. The movie makes me think that there is no reason why Muslims and Christians or the West and East cannot live in tolerance. There is “othering” by the Saudi terrorists and American tourists, however Fluery and Faris are above that. They realize their similarities and represent what brings the two sides together. The conclusion of the movie shows how the problem is that “we” are taught to believe “they” are the enemy and vice versa. In both societies, the “other” is created to amplify differences and justify acts of violence. "They" are always going to be there, but "we" can resolve conflicts by putting differences aside and working towards a morally fair society.

As Faris and Fluery work together, the Saudi terrorists continue to plot their attack on the American team. The enemy changes from Saudi Arabia, to an exclusive group of Saudi Arabian Muslims who preach extreme violence. At the end of the movie, the Americans are attacked and one is kidnapped for execution. Unlike the beginning of the movie, the viewer knows the good from the bad. The FBI team and Saudi police work together to retrieve the agent and capture the mastermind behind the attacks. The movie does not fall short of portraying in terrorists in true fashion when they prepare to torture and record the American in order to publicize it on the Internet. After the American is retrieved safely the team searches the building. The building ends up being the residence of Abu Hamza, the leader of the terrorist group. When Faris realizes he is in the presence of Abu Hamza, the viewer clearly feels the terror and pride in Hamza's face. The viewer sees him as a body of evil, not because of his grinning expression, but because we have some background on his actions and what he believes in. He is not just another Middle Eastern face whose role is to terrify the audience, he is in fact a terrorist and the viewer's feelings are vindicated. During the shootout, Abu Hamza, one of his teenage followers, and Al Ghazi are shot dead. As Agent Fluery holds onto Faris for his last moments he rejoices in saying, “We got him. We got him.” There is relief in that their mission was accomplished. 

The concluding scene of the movie is the one that is critical and leaves the viewer in despair. The last words used to console the FBI agents and Abu Hamza’s grandson was, “We are going to kill them all.” Both sides continue to believe that “they” are going to kill “us," whether it is for security or the greater good it is not clear. What is clear it that the violence and innocent deaths are not going to stop. The “other” exists on both sides and as long as "we" are constructed against the "them," peace is impossible.    

AMERiCAN EASt

wOw. The video was an exceptional representation of the Arab post 9/11 struggle in America. Issues such as humiliation, shame, terrorists, post 9/11, and racial profiling were highlighted throughout the movie.

The first scene in the movie shows Mustafa's son begin ashamed of his culture and religion. Muhammad rejects being Muslim because he is surrounded by American anti-Semitism. The atmosphere around the movie is constantly reminding Arabs of the terror and threat they pose to Americans. When Mustafa loses his son he reacts the way any parent would when they lose their child, but because he was at an airport and was frantic, he was racially profiled as a terrorist. There was no threatening reason to arrest Mustafa other than the police's personal fears and biases. It was humiliating for Mustafa to get arrested in front of his son for being an Arab, it makes Muhammad want to deny his culture in America even more. The multiple interrogations by the government were also humiliating for Mustafa because they devalued and instigated him until he was completely ashamed. 

 

Out of all the characters, Omar was especially conflicted because his acting roles were promoting Arab stereotypes. His roles were almost parallel to the way people viewed him in real life. The three boys at the coffee shop recognized him as a terrorist on t.v and assumed that was who he was. They could not to distinguish Arab characters on t.v. from real Arab Americans. Because the terror alert was "red" the police publicly detained Omar and made an example of how Arabs, whether innocent or guilty, all have the potential to be terrorists. Because of American's long history of misrepresentation and biased attitudes towards the Middle East all it took was a few Arabs on Sept. 11, for all Americans to "justify" their anti-Semitic feelings. 

 

All "races" are profiled and this movie succeeds in showing the Arab point of view and showed their ongoing fight to be accepted in America. The movie showed Arab Americans as human, Mustafa and his family are average Americans struggling for better lives. I liked the movie because it didn't capitalize on the differences between "us" and "them." The characters all have their problems, but their main struggle is that America sees them as Arabs and not as living human beings.

TV'S PROMiSEd LANd

The producer of the documentary definitely succeeded in showing how shameful and embarrassing it is for American people to be apart of the Bush Administration and Fox news propaganda. It was disgusting to see the American media and officials incriminate their-selves! The coverage between fox and bbc formed a great paradox. Fox news sounded biased and RiDiCULOUS. And BBc America covered a reality of the middle East that just sounds like the truth. There are things that sound wrong and hateful and then there is a news that sounds like its mission is to present that, the news, what is really going on. 

The saddest reality is finding out that Fox news is the most watched news in AMerica. Uh.. why?!!!! It is disappointing to realize that Americans do not think for themselves, we want to be told what to think and how to feel. I would not even call it news, Bill O'Reily said it himself that he wasn't interested in facts or justifications. He simply imposes his personal views/opinions on tv and calls it news and the average American accepts it. It obvious to a critical eye that the station is biased, anti-PAlestine and anti-human rights because of the things that came out of O'Reily's mouth. Let the Palestinians starve? Kill as many as possible?  Not worth saving? Not worth feeding? Does he actually believe that they are inferior? Does he even think the Palestinians are human? We NEEd to hold these people responsible for what they are saying and promoting.

 The video was most powerful because it didn't have any commentary or narration, the producer compiled news clips of what he saw in the media, which was anti-Palestinian propaganda in America.  The video reminds me of how critical I have to be of the world and its "news." Even today, I am shocked and discouraged to see American politicians promoting and endorsing Israel's military and its actions. But in America we are proud to be American citizens, we are not concerned about the rest of the world or what happens in "Third World" countries because in America we are free, living our dream, and when we want to be informed the majority of us tune in to watch the highly accredited FOX news.

NOt wOUt mY daUGHTEr. COLONiaL haREM

The movie Not without my daughter said two things: don't get married to an Iranian man and don't go to Iran. The movie portrayed the utmost worst images of Iran and Muslims and it was clearly biased. The movie is based on a true story and although I could argue the validity of the events, the fact is these things actually happen. And...that is terrifying! I commend the movie for raising awareness about different laws in different regions of the world and how important it is to know them before you go and visit. But other than a survival story, I did not think the movie had much substance. Everything from the terrorizing pictures of Khomeini to the ominous veils of the women were captured through a strong biased lens leaving the audience with one feeling: terror, mistrust, and despise for Iran/Iranians.

Malek Alloula's book The Colonial Harem had a much stronger impact because I did not consider the power photographers have to dehumanize a people through their lens. The photographers in the book stage photos to convey and reaffirm their biases and stereotypes and the book further demonstrates how the Middle East has been misrepresented and exploited in script and photo. If i hadn't read this account of postcards, and I came across them, I would have assumed that the photographer "happened to catch" these women in those poses. It would never have crossed my mind to believe that the photo was posed for the purpose of reaffirming Otherness.

Similar to in the movie, at first glance, a group of veiled women are very mysterious and privatized. Alloula describes the veil as "a uniform mask" and a form of resistance, its value for the social group remains strong. The veil prevents women from being distinguished, they show solidarity. The whiteness of the veil defies the photographer's purpose because they are unseen and they are absent from the photo. "The veiled women are ominous and threatening to the photographer because their gaze robs him of being the only gazer." The veil is powerful and in many ways liberates and protects women from being robbed of their identity. In America many tend to believe that women have the "freedom" to dress how we choose, but that is false. Western women are more trapped in their provocative mini skirts, inviting low cut tops, and helpless 5 inch heels.

When the photographer realizes the power of solidarity within the Algerian women, he proceeds to get Algerian women alone and once he does he succeeds in manipulating and staging the photo and its story. The dress, props and pose add to the specific structure of the photo, add to the “authenticity” as he tries to make something real. "The popular images of slave girls, harems, and concubines continued to horrify Western critics of the Muslim world." The photographer solidifies these images by creating a counter reality. Because the veiled women defied his objective, he can only resort to falsified images. 

He stages the photos and creates stereotypical images that satisfy his perception. A photo of a young, poor, raggedy couple holding a baby are meant to be portrayed as "backward". The more well off couple look happy, polished and more advanced thanks to the "blessings of civilization." 

The models throughout the book are objectified, as the photographer is free to assign them a region, give them "identity," and "status." The model is his object to create, define, and release into the world as an original image. By continuously reproducing the same images, figures become identified and classified with the Oriental such as coffee, the hookah, and an odalisque. These things serve to dehumanize the Oriental. 

Beyond the photo, the photographer brings his models to light and places them into the public sphere and offers their bodies to the world. The women are possessed and their body and soul are sold for men's pleasure. "The phantasm of the harem is only a transparent and convenient mask behind which is hidden an even more sordid meaning, the key to which is colonization." Overall, Alloula does a great job in thoroughly critiquing and discrediting the postcards and, similar to Said, he insists that we have a more critical eye of what is being said, written, and depicted of the Middle East and its people.

ORiENTALiSM.

Edward Said’s book, Orientalism, challenges his readers to rethink the study of Orientalism, its origins, and its place in the modern world. As early as the late 1840’s, the idea of the Other was constructed against the Orient and has persisted in our modern understanding of Orientalism, the Orient, and the Oriental. Scholars, writers, and intellectuals have accepted a false representation of Orientalism and have based their theories and works on previous discriminatory studies and imperialist secondary sources. Said is a brave scholar who noticed these misrepresentations in scholarship and decided to question and challenge years and years of history. At the end of Said’s introduction he clearly indicates that his main goal is to have a “new kind of dealing” with the Orient and ultimately eradicate the Orient and Occident altogether.  

One of Said’s claims is how the West’s “cultural domination” and “intellectual authority” over the Orient has led to repeated misrepresentation and exploitation in the study of the Middle East and its people. The creation of Orientalism was “easily made” and “guarded” through discourses of power and ideological fictions (328). Orientalism was legitimized and protected through continuous years of Western domination over the Orient and Oriental scholarship. Orientalism expanded over a wide range of areas and has generalized an entire region of people. The Orient was not given a voice, it was being written and studied by and for the West. Europe’s dominance has “politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively produced the Orient; the Orient then becomes a mirror opposite of Europe, the defeated and distant (3). Orientalism has evolved into an idea separate from the Middle East and has transformed into an idea in opposition to the West, which is validated through Oriental scholarship. Throughout the book, Said refers to countless intellectuals who collectively reinforced similar myopic studies and images of the Orient and argues that their work was not objective and should not be considered as factual knowledge because it was filtered through preceding prejudices and stereotypes. It is problematic when imperialist, racist scholars write and theorize years of literature and academia. Biased discourse, media, literature and scholarship has consequently objectified the Middle East and limited its understanding through a prism of racist and “imperialist stereotypes.”

One of the many faults in the study of Orientalism is that it refers to the study of a massive region and generalizes an entire people. The images and representations of the Oriental are static and timeless, stereotypical images from the 1800’s remain prevalent today. Different representations of Orientals range from Disney characters such as Mulan to Aladdin, resulting in the generalization of the entire Asian continent. Oriental women are commonly depicted as overtly sexual and objects of desire, but not as a human. Similarly, the Oriental man is characterized as treacherous, deceiving, and threatening especially to white women and America. The West has perpetuated these images primarily through media, film and literature and develops them into widely accepted stereotypes and prejudices. Today, America has justified its political agenda by relying on former anti-Semitic attitudes established heavily in through its media and film. Said argues that these repeated images reinforce the static, dehumanizing idea of the Oriental and further misrepresent the Middle East. Throughout the 20^th century, America has preserved Orientalism by defining the Orient as dangerous, menacing, and backward. The media has kept Americans unfamiliar with the Middle East and the government capitalizes on this fact by filtering the news to favor special interests. Therefore, media’s reports reaffirm Otherness and justify America’s actions such as its support for Israel’s illegal occupation.  

Chapter two, Orientalist Structures and Restructures, details how Orientalism was restructured and “modernized” by Orientalists. However, as Orientalist “redefined” Orientalism their perspectives remained filtered through cultural domination. Orientalist continued to write about the Orient and what he wrote was intended as useful knowledge, not for them, but for Europe (160). Ideas and observations written about the Orient say more about Western ideology and perception, rather than accurate depictions of the Middle East. Orientalism did not originate with intentions to further understand or enhance Middle Eastern scholarship, but it further materialized Europe’s prejudice ideologies and imperialism. As Orientalists restructured Orientalism, Orient culture and intellect remained dominated and the Orient remained the Other. It is not a surprise that Europeans and Orientalists had similar studies because they both wrote from a foreign, outside point of view, resulting in further perversion. Europe possessed the Orient and by creating Orientalism they had the power to control and manipulate its meaning and how others would further understand it. The years of 1800 and 1950 were filled with literature produced by the West and over 60,000 books were written about the Orient, and yet there were no figures about Oriental’s scholarship written about the West (204). The imbalance of scholarship produced reveals the fact that only one side of the story is being told, while entire generations of people are being silenced. The main issue is that Orientalists and Europeans continued to write about Orientals instead of for them. Rather than immersing themselves in the culture, foreign scholars remained foreign observers and provided biased perspectives. The scholars who studied Orientalism inculcated and reflected their prejudices onto their work, therefore illegitimating their conclusions and observations. Throughout the book, Said criticizes the foreigner’ bias conclusions and falsified truths. Orientalism was essentially written by the West and for the West and the wide-ranging research was unfairly compiled and categorized as Oriental. As Orientalism progressed and modernized the Orient went from being a place, to becoming a domain of actual scholarly rule and potential imperial sway (197). Throughout the years, the Orient has become an idea distanced from the Middle East itself and serves as an example of Western dominance and European hegemony.

            Said's work defies the fact that all has been learned and studied about the Orient, instead he calls for alternate views of the Middle East and more in-dept research and analysis. Now that the problems of Orientalism have been exposed his conclusion hopes that political and historical awareness will begin the venture for valid and credible Middle Eastern scholarship.

 

 

COOLiES & BATTLe of aLGieRs

The bbc documentary, Coolies: how BRitain re-invented slavery, was very disturbing. It is beyond explanation of how people were treated during imperialism and colonialism. One of the men who was looking through archives to find his grandfather's information was disappointed to realize how poorly kept the records were and confessed: "i don't think people want to remember the past." Unlike the beautifully preserved castles and ancients of Britain, there was no sign of importance or sense of value for the records of the Indians and it reflects the government effort to forget and literally erase the past. I didn't even know who or what Coolies were before this film and I am embarrassed. But then again I don't recall them in any of my textbooks or classrooms, I am not saying its my teacher's fault but there is a reason I don't know about them similar to why the only image of Orientals i have are of Mulan and Aladdin. All history is biased and there are some "shameful" chapters in nation's history and the state has that authority to decide what will be taught and what will forgotten. Throughout the entire video, it was hard to see how dependent white plantations had become of cheap, expendable labor that they could not even imagine not having it. It difficult to see the replacement of African slaves to indentured Indians, to literally see documentation of how humans were commodified into white men's property. 

I don't know anything about Ghandi so it was interesting learning a little bit of what he did for the Indentured indians and his ideology was extremely unique at the time. I was surprised at how his ideology was reachable to everyone and how he inspired others to believe that JAil was honorable.. when all the laws were against you. It resembles similar ideology to Ayat's suicide bombing, of course Ghandi's technique was referred to as passive, but they are both forms of resistance. Also similar is the resistance shown in the Battle of Algiers movie between ALgerians and the French Occupation. After the FRench terrorized the Algerian opposition, I thought the movie was going to end on that note, but the Algerian solidarity in the end was inspiring. When people, as an entirety, refuse to continue that way of life, take to the streets and outright challenge the Govt is revolutionary..and the result was freedom.

Unlike, the Algerians the bbc video ended with the ethnic conflict in Fiji and it shows the unfair aftermath of what happens when Britain decides to dump Indians throughout various parts of the world and takes no accountability. The video says that the laws in Fiji are reverting back to colonial times when Indians were not allowed to own land. The reason why people repeat history is because they choose to ignore the past and learn from it. Now in the 21st century, of course ethnic, cultural conflict is going to arise because no one is taking responsibility and Indians scattered throughout the world are left to remember and recover from their past.

tO diE iN JERUSALEM.

The video is the best documentary so far. I thought I was going to be more conflicted as to what "side" i should sympathize with, but the point of view of the Israeli mother is parallel to an Israelis who don't understand why Palestinians chose to be suicide bombers. The Israeli mother refused to listen or try at the very least to understand the Palestinians' struggle. And that is the difference between seeing Ayat's operation as an act of resistance or as a death in vain. I wanted the Israeli mother to put aside her anger and sorrow and try to better understand the conditions of the Palestinian people. The woman in prison explained to her best, that it is a crime to kill during a time of peace! And there is no peace for people whose homes are being demolished, rights are being taken away, that is not a way of life. The woman made several valid points and justifications for her intended actions and all the Israeli mother just doesn't get it. She refuses to grasp the Other side of the story.

During the interview via satellite, both mothers agreed that they are victims but the conversation was never brought to a resolution of how they could use their experience to portray the negative effects of the Occupation for both sides. Instead, the Israeli mother wanted an apology and Ayat's mother was telling her Ayat's decision was influenced by the Israeli Occupation. Ayat's operation was an act of resistance and the Israeli mother was too stubborn to look past the pain of her daughter's death to grasp that idea. I would advise the Israeli mother to use her daughter's death as a medium to protest the injustices that are happening in Palestine that provoke them to choose suicide bombings.

The opportunity the Isreali mother had to try and understand the conditions that the Palestinian people face in their homeland, the refugee camps and border checks, was wasted on useless talk about why Ayat did what she did and how can her mother condone it...and she just went on about her own sorrow. Ayat's mother was trying to tell her that the Palestinians are not blaming their problems on the occupation, the OCcupation iS the PRObLem. No matter how much Ayat's mother stressed how it feels to live under Occupation and the effects of those living conditions, the Israeli mother chose to be disrespectful and blind to the injustices that Israel is inflicting upon the Palestinian people.

The isreali mother kept repeating that violence isnt the answer and that by talking they could accomplish more, but it was evident by the end of the video that talking did not achieve anything. What is there really to talk about? Their is no legitimacy for the Occupation, it is illegal and they are violating human rights. The Palestinians are fighting for their freedom and rights back. Israel has US support and military power and with that the conversation ends.

 

SAiD's LEcTUre

Said's lecture discusses the same concerns he has throughout his book, Orientalism. The book focuses on the history of "Orientalism" and how it was culturally dominated and overthrown by the British, FRench and US. The majority of Middle Eastern scholarship has been written by an outsider looking in and not so much as looking into the society and way of life of the Middle Eastern people but from a European's imagination. Right from the introduction Said makes it clear that Europeans have "politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively produced the Orient" (3). It is alarming to read that an entire region of people and their history has been distorted, recreated, and presented as facts through the minds and scholarships of others. Throughout the years, scholars have chosen to rely on previous studies of Orientalism, and have failed to look past the biased and misinterpreted reality of the Middle East. When scholars stop searching for accurate history, unbiased truths and realities and begin to base their work solely on primary resources and previous studies, their work corrupts the integrity of history and, in this case, dehumanizes the Middle Eastern people. Studies and research about the Middle East have to be revolutionized in order to present an accurate, unbiased knowledge about the Orient.

Said stresses that the repeated images and representations about the Middle East reinforce the static idea of the 'Orient'. The Orient then becomes a representation, an idea far away from the West. The West then constructs an image of the Orient creating 'Orientalism.' And then there is the 'Oriental,' the threatening male to society and especially white woman, the seductive female who invites domination. And these images are constantly being repeated in movie, media, and television. Said's work defies the fact that there is no more to be learned and studied about the ORient because he is writing as an insider looking out and that is the scholarship that needs to be especially considered. Writing from an outsider's point of view provides an alternate prospective, but it should not be accredited as much as the writer within the topic. I value Said's work because he is from the Middle East talking and writing within the Middle East, I will consider previous scholarship but their perspective is from the outside looking in, therefore their work has a foreigner's point of view and to the foreigner everything is foreign and that is the kind of perspective they will provide. I do not mean anyone who is not from the Middle East cannnot write about it, I mean both perspectives needed to be understood together. A topic needs all sides of the story to be meaningfully understood. While others write about Arabs, Said's work speaks for the Middle Eastern people, but not in the way that others have spoken for and about them; instead, he challenges previous studies and forces scholars to rethink the images, representations, and legitimacy of previous scholarship concerning the Middle Eastern people.

PeaCe. PROPAgaNda. & rEEL bAd ARAbs

After watching the video Peace, Propaganda...i was disappointed to realize that Americans cannot even turn to the tv to receive accurate unbiased news about our country and the world. i am not "anti-American" but i am PRo-truth and pro-justice and that is not what the American media, certain journalists, and members of office etc. are providing me with. i am already skeptical about watching American news but after the video's detailed explanation of how the news is influenced, filtered and presented with other's interest in mind it solidified my suspicions. When this information is revealed to Americans, who are supposed to believe that we are "neutral" in terms of the situations/wars abroad, it provokes feelings of betrayal and therefore a lost of trust in the government and American authority. i was completely unaware about the conflict between the Israelites and Palestinians and i was grateful for the video because it revealed the truth and gave a voice to the Palestinians. Over the years the American govt. has only gotten better at beautifully perfecting the art of presenting a deformed truth. and that is a disheartening (infuriating) realization.

The second movie, ReeL bAD aRABs is a problem Hollywood has with all "races." Its easy to stereotype and racially comment on groups of people for entertainment reasons. Its the same problem with blacks who are projected as convicts or drug dealers, japanese and chinese are nerds with glasses etc.. I do not give much credibility to the characters from movies but nonetheless the images and representations are still powerful. Especially when Disney decides to apply them to movies such as Aladdin. I remember being fond of the "hoodrat" and other characters but i also remember noticing how barbaric the Arabian society was portrayed. While i dont expect Hollywood to change its ways of entertainment, i would advocate for people to inform and educate themselves about other cultures, societies, and not rely on Disney for that information (or news channels such as fOx).