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.