Your World

"Your World" is the title of the lesson plan I created based on our class. You can (and should!) view it here.

Rick Steves: Iran, Yesterday And Today

On the whole I enjoyed this video, Rick Steves's "Iran, Yesterday And Today." It does much to discuss misconceptions about Iran and it touches on some of Iran's history. I know there was some talk in class about the frequent comparison between what Steves expects and what he finds ("Though most people think this, in reality, Iran is like this"), but I think that that commentary was done consciously and purposefully. To a person who knows nothing about Iran or its customs, a person who may have a relatively stereotypical view of Iran (of the Middle East), having those contrasts between reality and perception specifically pointed out can do some good. I think this may be Steves's way of pointing out and shedding misconceptions while offering new facts to replace the misconceptions. It sounds like something we do with students, but when you're trying to reach a mass audience and you're not able to go terribly in depth with your topic I think you need to be more explicit.

One particular issue I had arose in part 5 when Steves was discussing with his guide the differences and strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. At one point, Steves asks why the two groups have been fighting for so long. He asks about the Iraqi Sunnis and the Iranian Shiites and their battles. After the guide explains that those conflicts are national ones (Iraq vs. Iran) and not religious ones (Sunni vs. Shiite), implying (I think) that Sunni and Shiite are just terms reporters use (somewhat improperly) to differentiate between two groups (perhaps to imply a religious conflict that is not an issue, perhaps out of ignorance of the meaning of the words) but that news editorialization does not represent the conflict, Steves still, in his narration, compares the Sunni and Shiite "conflict" to the Protestant and Catholic conflict in the West. While the guide says that a good way to describe the issue is to look at relations between England and Ireland, Steves lends his own spin. I feel as if he wasn't really listening to the guide.

I wish Steves had been able to go more in depth, but for what it is and how long it is, I think the video is a good introduction to Iran. Additionally, we must remember while watching that, as mentioned in the beginning of the video, Steves traveled with a guide. His questions were censored, what his crew was allowed to film was censored, even where he was allowed to go was up to his guide (a government employee in charge of enforcing the provisions that allow Steves and his crew to film in Iran at all). So perhaps some of our questions or the problems we see derive from censorship and not totally from bad "reporting."

For Your Enjoyment

Information about and a poem by Forough Farrokhzad (as mentioned in the Keshavarz piece we read). More about and from (link at bottom of page) Farrokhzad. The Google search.

A selection from Rumi (a renowned and oft-taught poet).

This Website features many works by Mahmud Kianush, but poetry by others is available at the bottom of the page.

mtvU and poetry. More about Behbahani here, here, and here. Her selected works: A Cup of Sin. Some of her poems.

Two Women, Redux

Please see my post on Two Women.

In Related News...

Turkey.

Pro-government Iran.

Military as a vehicle for Orientalism in Iraq?

Religion, veiling, Iraq.

Iraqi displacement and refugees (from 2007).

Iraqi refugee camp now.

Palestine.

Israel.

Corrective (?) Lenses

I'd like to take a moment to discuss something about the literature we've been reading. We're all here trying to get an idea of other cultures through literature. But I think we're facing a little bit of a wall. I have enjoyed almost all of what we have read and watched, I think that it is all valid and useful. I am glad to have read and seen all that I have.

I do, however, sometimes feel as if we are leaving out of our conversation voices that are even more underrepresented in our culture than those we have been reading. Indeed, voices which are underrepresented in their own cultures.

For instance, we read an excerpt from Fatemeh Keshavarz's Jasmine and Stars: Reading More Than Lolita in Tehran. We should remember that Keshavarz left Iran in 1979, before the Islamic leadership and laws began. She was educated in the West, she lives and works in the United States. She claims to be an average Iranian, but seems to be upper-middle class. Even just middle class puts her far above most people.

We read Marjane Satrapi's wonderful Persepolis. While the book is engaging, well written, and only talks about Satrapi's personal experience, much of it - her formative teenage years - occurs outside of Iran. Even the end of the book tells us that she will again leave her homeland and live abroad. Today she lives in Paris, France. Persepolis makes it clear that its author was raised in a relatively privileged way. Her parents had money (they can afford to send her to a French school, send her abroad, continuously bail her out of jail, they have a maid).

We never see the perspective of the poor or of those who agree with the Islamic government in Iran.

Rooftops of Tehran, by Mahbod Seraji, is another wonderful book. It takes place in the mid 1970s, when its author was indeed living in Iran. But Seraji was educated and has lived in the United States since 1976. He has since visited Iran, but has not lived there. His memories of the culture and people are decades along.

I would like to read something written in, say, the 1980s or 1990s by someone living in Iran. Fiction or nonfiction, I think the representation would be vastly different.

Likewise, both of the books I read for Iraq were written by U.S. authors. While the books were engaging, especially for high school students, the perspective is uniquely American. Sunrise Over Fallujah discussed its protagonist's feelings on the Iraqi people (that they're really just like Americans, that all people are really mostly the same: good and bad, loving and proud). But I didn't get any perspective of real Iraqi people. Nothing to tell me first hand what life in Iraq is like, how war affects families, what dinnertime is like.

My goal here is not to lampoon the work we've done and the books we've read. It's simply to ask us all to keep searching and always remember that our perspectives are shaped by the information we choose to take in. We have discussed how we are somewhat beholden to publishers and their translation choices. Remember that people in other countries know of us what their publishers choose to translate.

Oppression In The Time Of Freedom

We've been talking a lot about oppression in the Middle East. The oppression of women in particular. I think we all need to recognize two things:

1). Men are also oppressed in countries that force religion and morals upon them.

2). We should buy ourselves a mirror.

1. We tend to assume that because laws force some women to wear oppressive clothing (literally physically oppressive clothing and figuratively oppressive), and because some laws are written that either specifically remove or purposely don't grant certain rights to women, that the men in countries with such laws take full advantage of the fact that the government gives them power over women. But these men live in a place that also dictates their behavior and their dress. Muslim countries often prohibit the consumption of alcohol by anyone. In some cases men are allowed to wear only specific types of clothing (certain ties, for example). Laws against public displays of affection (hand holding, even) certainly affect men. Laws regarding courtship impact men.

Additionally, we are sometimes blind to the fact that many men are against nonsecular governments (just as, in the West, many whites fought for the abolition of slavery and many men in the U.S. rallied for women's suffrage) that are oppressive in general and oppressive to women especially. There are a great many men who are involved in the Green Revolution, for instance. Many men, for and against their current governments, are opposed to the way women are allowed to be treated and to the way the laws make them literally worth less.

I think we acknowledge these men, but act as if they are in the vast minority, and then we are given the perception (by what our media chooses to show us, by the books publishers choose to translate, by our own decisions about whether or not to educate ourselves) that all the men who are not opposed to the government treat women like crap or abuse them or think they are stupid. But this is not true, and it's part of what Fatemeh Keshavarz was getting at.

I'm not arguing that women aren't oppressed. Sure they are. I mean to look at the conversations we have regarding that oppression. We seem to become so passionate, and often place so much blame, that we don't, in the heat of a discussion, recognize that not only are most men not the villains we talk about, but that their lives - the ones they may choose to live if they had the choice - are also altered and diminished by the types of government that rule places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

2. Next, I think that if we're going to talk about how terrible a government is and a country is because it oppresses its citizens (in our conversations, specifically its women), then we need to look at the United States before we demonize others. I'd like to say right up front that I know a lot of you will say, "But it's so much worse there. We have laws that ensure equality and give women legal recourse for things like abuse, rape, and stalking. Aren't you really talking about degrees of oppression?" Well, maybe you'll see degrees, but oppression is oppression regardless. If we (the government of the U.S. or any other country) feel that we are in a position to tell anyone how to treat its people, then we'd better make sure we're treating ours properly, or at least acknowledging and taking steps to rectify any mistreatment.

So how are women oppressed here? Well, I think we all know that women make less money than men do. (They also often pay more for the same products and services.) Women with equal or greater education, equal experience, and an equal track record make less money than their male counterparts in the same positions (even C.E.O.s and the like). And women are statistically less likely to be promoted. Our government doesn't seem to see this as a big problem. I mean, at least we let ladies have real jobs, right? If it were to recognize this as the injustice it is, our government would still be too scared to try to somehow mandate pay guidelines to private employers. After all, many raises are merit based. How does the government know that women just don't deserve raises? Employers can't be forced to give raises or equal starting pay, can they?

It's perfectly legal for a man to walk around without a shirt on because it's hot. It is illegal for women to do so. Why is it illegal? Because women can't show their breasts (which, by the way, are not sexual organs any more than men's breasts (which can lactate) are). Because men like breasts and have sexualized them, they're considered dirty and/or capable of inciting riots. Lewd. Inappropriate. Trust me, I've seen many a bare man-boob far larger than anything I've got to show. But if the suggestion is made that women should be allowed to join men in their shirtlessness, we are faced with one of three reactions: 1) That it's indecent. 2) That it's laughable or not serious. 3) That it's a bad idea because then men'd have to look at less than desirable breasts/ladies without their shirts on (this is supposed to be humorous). Yes. Because my favorite thing to look at is fat-hairy-sweaty-guy-without-his-shirt-on. That's what laws should be based upon - prettiness. So women wear tank tops, which takes us to the ever-popular double standard.

Women wear tank tops because it's 90*F and we're not allowed to be shirtless. Men, of course, feel free to ogle us because, as is common knowledge, we wouldn't put it out there if we didn't want someone to look at it. No person has the right to ogle another, to make another feel so uncomfortable - it's as if women are expected to feel ashamed generally because they have something men want and ashamed especially when even a peek of that something comes out because it ought, rightfully, to be covered and uncovering it is a clear invitation. Let me tell you what my grandma would say (seriously): "Yeah, asshole. I'm sweating like a fat man chasing an ice cream truck, it's hotter than hell, and I thought that instead of being comfortable by covering as much of my body as possible, I'd show you my tits. Fuck off." If this ogling happened at work someone'd be guilty of sexual harassment. But in public it's okay because she clearly wants it. Yes this is a form of oppression. Society allows women to be objectified in this way because no one does anything about it. So women have to choose whether or not it's worth it to be less hot, choose whether they're going to fight today or just look the other way. No, we don't cover our women up by law, but we certainly let them know how we feel about their being uncovered.

The opposite? Well, if a woman wears baggy clothes or a large sweater, it is, of course, so that men will wonder what's under there.

And if a woman chooses to wear anything remotely revealing, she'd better not pick that day to get raped, because you can be sure it'll be pointed out that she clearly wanted it. Showing herself in tight jeans like that, enticing the men - her rapist couldn't be expected to help himself. Plus, it's not like she's a virgin or anything. She just regrets it and is whining now. It's not his fault. Doesn't this sound insane??? Doesn't it sound like Hassan in Two Women? Yet this defense is used in court cases. We want to take away women's power, especially their power to express themselves sexually, but then we project power over men on to them in order to excuse the bad (often illegal) behavior of men.

A real, current example of women's sexuality being used against them? Turn on the news and try your hardest not to hear about Tiger Woods. Rather, try not to hear about "his women." News casters love to talk about how they're all "busty" or blonde or seem dense. They insinuate, and watchers write in and say outright, that these women are homewreckers and sluts. Alright, you shouldn't sleep with a married guy. But HE is the married one. Tiger Woods's marriage is his responsibility. And slutty? TIGER is the one that slept with his wife plus at least 12 other women. But men and women want to talk about the morals of the mistresses and how dirty they are. Seriously? If anyone in this scenario is likely to give you the clap, it seems to me like it's probably Mr. Woods.

Think, for a moment, about the names we call opinionated (especially if they're smart) or aggressive women. Both positive characteristics in men, many try to shut women up by attempting to make them feel as if they are less. Less smart, less important. Just plain silly; annoying for expressing themselves.

We're often surprised at what women do. Surprised because we didn't think women could do that. Because women aren't strong enough or don't have enough determination. Or because they have children. I'm certain we all know women who are in a race to begin their careers because they want to be able to have kids and they don't want to have them too late in life, but if they have them too early it'll ruin their careers. How often do we hear men complain of this? I know what you're going to say, "Virginia, having a baby and taking care of it, even if it interferes with work, is a choice." And I agree. I just don't understand why women are uncaring, bad mothers if they don't leave work for a sick kid or if they work more than the standard work week and men who don't leave work and who work late or have meetings after hours are just providing for the family. They never worry about ruined careers because they don't have to leave or call in or skip a meeting so that they can be called by others a "good parent."

We scoff at women's professional sports (because how can they ever be as good?). Anyone who's ever watched WWF or WWE type shows can tell you that the men beat the crap out of each other while the women barely wear clothes, "wrestle," and sometimes meet the fate (oh, no!) of a water gun/hose. Yes, the men are scantily clad also (I imagine so that clothes don't become a hazard), but the women wear fantasy outfits and have their dirty, inappropriate breasts largely uncovered.

Any person who speaks out about these things is mocked (or at least not taken seriously). People say, "Oh, what are you some kind of feminist? I don't want to hear that man-hater crap." Yeah, no one wanted to hear it in the 1920s when women were arrested, went on hunger strike, were force fed raw eggs, and suffered life altering medical complications or death, either. No one wanted to hear it in the 1960s or '70s when women tried to get equal rights under the law, when they spoke out about the thousands of women killed by coat hangers. Since when is "feminist" a dirty word? Demanding equal pay, rights, and protection is not "man-hating." Every self respecting woman is a feminist.

So what we need is to recognize that we are not without fault of our own. Maybe the oppression in the U.S. seems less bad and therefore less worthy of attention to some. But I spent 10 years convincing doctors and insurance companies to perform a surgery for me. One that any 18 year old man can get in one or two doctor visits (I say this without reservation because I know several men who had it performed when they were aged between 18 and 24). But I'm a woman. My pain, my missing class and work, my hospital visits, the fact that years of injections and treatments didn't work, was of little consequence. Because I'm a woman and I might change my pretty little mind one day. This, too, is wrong. But the government and society would side with the doctors and insurance companies. This is discrimination near par with countries wherein women have no rights over their own bodies, where they need a man's permission.

Do I think all men believe that "she is/was asking for it" crap? No. Do I think all men feel that women need to be the only ones to sacrifice for the children? No. Do I think all men secretly hate women and are glad that they have a disproportionately low amount of power and pay? No. Just like not all Middle Eastern men want to see the women they share their lives with oppressed. We still have societal and institutional oppression in the West against women. And against pretty much all non whites (and some foreign whites, if we're being really honest).

The Complete Persepolis

Given everyone else's feelings, it seems a bit redundant to say this, but I loved reading Marjane Satrapi's The Complete Persepolis.

The graphic novel does a wonderful job illustrating (literally and figuratively) the complexities of Iran throughout its history. While the story centers on events just before to just after the revolution, it takes into account and addresses other parts of Iran's history, parts that led the country to have certain relationships with certain countries, parts that defined how Iranians felt about their own country and its leadership. It also showcases primarily positive characters, both female and male. Those who are "villains," enforcers of the rules of the new government, or are disrespectful are only bit characters that come and go, serving as reminders to the reader that it is an outside force which compels the strife of Persepolis's characters. Additionally, readers are presented with a picture of how the new, religion-based laws have a negative affect on both men and women.

This coming of age novel is well written and beautifully illustrated. Teachers can rest assured that the novel's illustrations lend themselves to a critical reading and understanding of the novel. At times expository, joyful, and beyond sad, Persepolis is always engaging and honest. The book shows the best and worst in its author (the protagonist in this memoir-ish novel) and always the best in those closest to her, her family.

We get to see what war does to a family - any family, anywhere in the world.

Persepolis gets at hypocrisy by directing a critical eye toward those secular characters who embraced (or seemingly did so) Muslim rule of law. It examines and makes clear, so importantly, that Iran needed a revolution, but the one it got was not what many had hoped for. Before the revolution, the shah had people investigated, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by his (not so) secret police, the SAVAK. He was brutal. Iranian people were united in their desire for a revolution. But the revolution that occurred brought with it new problems and new oppressions and losses of freedom. An important part of the book is reconciling what the desired post-revolutionary government was with what the implemented government was.

The Complete Persepolis is definitely suitable for secondary classrooms (9th - 12th grades; the first half of the book, sold as Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood, perhaps for middle schoolers). It can be used as a study of oppression in conjunction with other books, it can be used as part of a unit on Middle Eastern studies, it can be used alone to explore a genre or as a platform to discuss many current issues.

You can watch the movie here.

A Mouthful

Reading chapter 2 ("The Eternal Fourough: The Voice of Our Earthly Rebellion") of Fatemeh Keshavarz's Jasmine and Stars: Reading More Than Lolita in Tehran left me with a lot to think about, namely how she gets at her main purpose, which is that women aren't as oppressed in the Middle East as Western society and media would have everyone believe.

To be fair, we should establish that Keshavarz left Iran in September of 1979, before the revolution really took hold and she was forced to obey religious laws regardless of whether or not she believed in them.

Some of the first proof she offers of the openness of Iranian life (and its lack of governmental oppression in general) is that translations of Western novels aren't impossible to find in Iran. Keshavarz tells her readers how, in 1986 in (war-torn) Iran, she was able to find an already translated copy of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, which she had just read in the U.S.. The novel was first published in Italian in 1980 and published in English in 1983. "The presence," Keshavarz writes, "of such translations in Iranian bookstores is testimony to the openness of the readers and their interest in the world. This is a trait that the New Orientalist vision of the Middle East does not acknowledge. In fact, RLT's depiction of Iran portrays a culture unreceptive to books by Western authors. . . . Censorship of all kinds is undesirable. But there is a difference between banning all Western books and banning the story of the seduction of the underaged Lolita" (37). We should examine, here, that The Name of the Rose is a murder mystery set in a 14th century Italian monastery. When Keshavarz talks about Iranians being receptive to books by Western authors, she makes an unfair comparison: a relatively benign story versus one she readily admits contains more controversial material. Then, not all books are banned, so it's less bad than if they all were. Banning Lolita is for the good of the people because it is arguably crude or shocking (a contention with which many in the United States would agree). But it is difficult to argue a people's receptivity to world literature when you also contend that maybe it's not so bad to ban a book, especially if its subject matter is something that maybe people shouldn't be interested in.

Later, Keshavarz talks about how she interviewed an old man who had memorized the entire collection of Parvin Etesami's poetry. When she first saw the old man, toothless and in "peasant clothing" (43), Keshavarz assumed she was about to waste a couple of hours on an interview that would prove to be useless. Keshavarz found, however, that the old, illiterate man was very intelligent and articulate. It is here that Keshavarz begins to get at something - something about preconceived notions and altering them. She relates this anecdote to what she views as the West's idea that anyone (any country) poor (especially illiterate) is considered to be ignorant and stupid, fundamentalist. Any culture or government outside of one like the West has is a failure in and of itself. Sadly, many in the West believe this to be true - that more "traditional" cultures are backward and wrong and need to be helped along. But this doesn't get at oppression as viewed by those experiencing it.

Keshavarz talks about the media's portrayal of Middle Easterners, especially women, and how those portrayals are often false or exaggerated. I think she's right, but I think her main downfall is that she fails to give readers and consumers any credit for their critical thinking capabilities. I understand Keshavarz's desire to defend her homeland, but she continually skirts the issues surrounding the actual oppression that does take place.

Keshavarz writes about how texts such as Reading Lolita in Tehran, those that discuss sexual abuse in the Middle East, are unfair because they "often associate these corruptions with the local religion, Islam. RLT places these incidents consistently in the familiar context of the savage, overly sexual and duplicitous Oriental who in public projects an image of purity and piety" (50). We in the West, however, have experience separating isolated incidents (a bunch of priests molested a large number of young people) from the need to vilify an entire group (not all priests are molesters/rapists). Keshavarz is right, though. It can be difficult to dissociate Iranian child molesters/rapists from practitioners of Islam in that country because Islam is the national religion. Keshavarz writes, "The reader, predisposed to accept the stereotype of the Muslim male as a sexual oppressor, is unlikely to question the relevance of this individual crime to the overall bankruptcy attributed to Muslim morality. This abusive incident will be just an added 'proof' to what the reader already 'knows'" (50). Again, though, she does not give people enough credit. We are (I sincerely hope) intelligent enough to realize that just because one Muslim man raped someone does not mean that all Muslim men are rapists.

Keshavarz also contends that "women would like to reform electoral law and various other legal codes in Iran to get better representation, and, yes, they are still involved in various struggles to improve their lot" (52), but she never gives specific examples of the laws and reforms of which she speaks. I think some of what Keshavarz refers to can be found in Iran's constitution, some laws which pertain specifically to women (although some affect both sexes), and some explanations of penal codes.

On the whole I agree with Keshavarz that the Western notion of the situation of women in Iran, in the Middle East in general, is sensationalized. Women enjoy a great number of freedoms, Iranians and Muslims don't lock women up and treat them as worthless slaves. The Iranian constitution talks at length about peace and respect and protection. I agree with many of Keshavarz's contentions and appreciate her point of view. But I have to ask her to give people enough credit to differentiate themselves from the (outspoken) minority that takes sensationalist notions at face value and thinks that women are given no respect or regard in the Middle East. And I have to ask her to acknowledge that just because women have freedoms does not mean that they don't suffer. Indeed, both men and women suffer under a government that forces them to live by a religious code to which they may not subscribe. Many women choose to be veiled, but for those who are forced to wear the veil, it acts as a physical reminder of oppression. It's not that women are frequently burned with acid or beaten, it's that the law provides them with no recourse if these things do happen. It's that women are legally worth half of what men are worth. It's that children can't be tried for crimes. Girls stop being children at 9, boys at 14.

The White Castle

For Turkish literature I read The White Castle by Orhan Pamuk. Sadly, I wouldn't recommend this book. I didn't like reading it very much and I don't think I "get it." 

I was really sad to miss class last Thursday, first because I don't like missing class, second because I was sick as hell and wanted not to be, and third because I really wanted to talk to other people about this book. Your blogs helped a little, primarily Ashley's and Lisa's, but I still don't know what I think.

Perhaps I have what Marie calls "reader fatigue," but I thought reading this novel was annoying. The prose's absolute drudgery made it a slow read (which I can only hope was a device so the reader can share the main characters' long, drawn out experience), it was depressing (all that drama and animosity between the two main characters, neither of whom is a particularly good or interesting person), and the story line didn't seem to really go anywhere. 

I kept trying to make something of the novel. Maybe it was about the duality of man (I half expected the reveal to be that the two men were one). Maybe about social class. Maybe about ethnicity (East vs. West) and progress. Maybe about religion and progress. Maybe about colonization and superiority (E vs. W again).

I recognized many smaller pieces - symbols, the idea of identity, of reliance, of blame. But I was unable to stitch the pieces together into a coherent, overarching point.

In the end, I felt like I had just read Melville's "Bartleby, The Scrivner." I don't get it, I'm not going to reread it, and I'll never get that time back. Only Melville's story is better written and far shorter. At the very least, "I'd prefer not to" goes over well with lit. professors and has gotten me out of reading crappy "write a poem about Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez in five minutes, then we'll share with the class" activities in front of the class. (This is my way of ending on a good note.)

The Bus Driver Who Wanted To Be God

Like almost everyone else in class, I really liked Etgar Keret's The Bus Driver Who Wanted to be God. At first I thought some of the stories didn't really have too much of a point, but after going back and looking again, I was pretty satisfied that they mostly all do. Mostly. As Carly says, though, I don't know how much some of the stories tell us about Israeli culture.

Since nearly everyone blogged about this book, I'm going to

try to keep this post short. I loved "A Souvenir of Hell," "Uterus" (to which I have a somewhat personal connection, believe it or not (the story, not the organ)), and "Breaking the Pig," which I thought was hilarious and ironic. That row of three was a great run for me. I'm also a big fan of "The Flying Santinis," which says, to me, a lot about striving for perfection and God's understanding nature.

While I was really disappointed to hear my classmates' bad reviews of Wristcutters: A Love Story, I think I may give it a chance, especially since Will Arnett is in it. I don't expect to particularly enjoy it after having read "Kneller's Happy Campers," but I'd like to see it just the same.

Off topic, I came across an old clip of Will Arnett hosting one of MTV's spring break things. He introduced Arrested Development. (If you don't know, Arnett went on, years later, to star in the fantastic series "Arrested Development.")

Carefully chosen, some of these stories could be great to use in secondary or early college classrooms. Some just provide thought and discussion provoking material ("Breaking the Pig," "Cocked and Locked" if you can deal with the language) (though the teacher may have to pull some ideas out and prompt students or give them questions/ideas to think about while reading), while others provide a specifically (or more powerful because it's) Israeli (or Jewish) perspective, such as "Shoes." The stories would also be great models for a creative writing classroom. Keret provides much to discuss in the way of style and voice. His quiet, absurd, and sometimes seemingly inappropriate humor can be a great perspective for young authors unfamiliar with that sort of thing (his writing reminds me David Sedaris's in this way).

Time of Favor/Paradise Now

  I took an assload (it's O.K., I have an English degree) of notes on Time of Favor. In fact, now that I'm going over them, I wish I had written my essay about the movie. I just find that there's so much to talk about. Especially comparatively. In many of the movies we've watched lately, rationality comes from outside the main group, from questioning. It comes from characters like Suha, Korvis, and Mookie (among others, of course, like Michal, but these illustrate my point). And in Time of Favor especially, questioning and doubt are huge themes.

But I won't talk about that or the 10 other themes I took notes on and for which I wrote down quotes. I want to talk about the suicide bombing in Time of Favor compared to the suicide bombing in Paradise Now.

To be perfectly straightforward, I'm not sure I'd classify Pini's action in Time of Favor as a suicide bombing. Yes, he was going to blow stuff up; yes, he would've died during the commission of that crime, but I think he used the suicide bombing as a cover for just plain ol' suicide.

In Paradise Now, Said and Khaled chose  to become suicide bombers for a variety of reasons. They believed in martyrdom, they believed it was the only way to fight the Israelis, they each wanted to atone for the sins of their fathers. And they were, to a degree at least, manipulated by Jamal and Abu-Karem. In Time of Favor, the idea of fighting for Israel, of being a lion and not a dog (see Philip's blog) is first presented by Rabbi Meltzer. But Pini takes this idea and twists it until it is not only far from what the rabbi presented, but until it no longer has any real tie to faith. Pini uses this idea to lie to and manipulate his friend Itamar because he knows Itamar will go along with "the rabbi's plan."

Where Said and Khaled are ashamed of their fathers and want to make up for their shortcomings, Pini is ashamed of himself because Michal does not want him. He wants to hide from his shame. Said and Khaled think they will find martyrdom and glory, but want to bomb because they see it as a way to fight for Palestine, for thousands of dead and displaced civilians. They see it as a way to fight against an enemy with better training, more money, better weapons, and who is seen by many as the conflict's hero. But Pini manipulates Itamar so that blame for the bombing will be placed on Menachem, so that Menachem will be shamed. Pini tells only Michal of his plan (the bombing, not the additionally shameful manipulation of Itamar) because he thinks she will be proud of him for displaying his "lion-like qualities," for "defending his religion." Then he kills Itamar (presumably so that Pini's secret manipulation dies with Itamar). Pini is using the guise of a faithful suicide bombing to cover his desire to commit the sin of suicide. Through this act, he wishes to gain the admiration of the woman who did not love him, place blame for murder on Menachem, the man Michal loved, and commit suicide to hide from his personal shame (or inability to deal with rejection of the beloved rabbi's daughter and possibly, as a result, the rabbi). To this end, he manipulates, connives, and murders.

While I recognize that suicide bombing (any bombing, really) is neither good nor glorious, the mindset of the characters in Paradise Now present it as a path to atonement, martyrdom, and service to the country. In Time of Favor, Pini uses these ideals to try to cover up his shortcomings so he can kill himself and try to pretend he did so for a cause.

While I don't doubt that Pini is devout and dedicated to the Jewish faith, I don't think a full argument can be made that makes religion his primary motive in his action. He wants revenge, pity, and admiration - glory. That he got the idea from Rabbi Meltzer's sermon is secondary here (when discussing Pini - the rabbi's a whole other topic). I don't see how Pini is motivated to the act by religion or devotion, only that he uses that idea to manipulate Itamar and try to manipulate Michal.

Each of these movies is great on its own, each is rich in commentary and symbolism, each can be written about at length. But together, they could provide secondary students a strong starting point for conversations or essays, for critical thinking about difficult and touchy topics.

Beaufort

I'd like to begin by saying, because it's totally out of context with the rest of this post, that I'm pretty sure that in one of the last scenes in the barracks, when they're making sure everything's all wired to blow, there's a small (4-inches by 6-inches or so, maybe even a sticker) U.S. flag taped to the wall bordering one of the beds. Make of it what you will. Remember that Israel gets U.S. funding, but in the movie Hezbollah is using U.S. manufactured weapons.

Now, what I liked about this movie was that it had a sense of humor. A relatively sarcastic sense of humor, which I especially enjoy. For example, at the beginning, Ziv gets up at night to go find Liraz (Liraz wants to talk to Ziv) and gets all turned around. Ziv stumbles upon two soldiers guarding what I think is "Green," where everyone later gets killed. (Forgive me, I didn't write down which two soldiers he meets here.) The three then have a conversation about what a good time they're having at Beaufort and joke about what the relationship between the two guards may be. There's kind of a couched humor throughout, but I appreciate it.

Liraz is an interesting character, but I think Korvis, his foil (if that term is applicable to film), is far more interesting. Korvis, always smoking, is outraged when Ziv dies. He is emotional but strong and logical. When Zitlawi is injured and Korvis is trying to save him, Oshri tries to come join them but is shot. Liraz freezes, he can't help his soldier. Korvis has to leave Zitlawi, run out into shelling and gunfire, and carry Oshri in to save him. Near the movie's end, when the castle is wired to be blown and command tells Liraz that he and his troops must remain another dangerous night at Beaufort, Liraz refuses to stand up for his soldiers. Korvis says to Liraz of his inaction: "I deserve a commander who can [demand to leave]. We all do. Ziv, Zitlawi, shpitzor, Oshri. They deserved a better commander than you." And when they finally blow the castle up and move out, Korvis's first action is to call his mom. Seriously. Respect.

A Lake Beyond The Wind, by Yahya Yakhlif

I felt like the odd man out with this book. Several people in our group enjoyed it, but I really liked it. Granted, a little was lost in translation, but that's to be expected.

I found the characters and imagery rich and full and much of the prose was just beautiful. One of the problems some people had was that sometimes, although the narrator changed, the voice did not. The book has two narrators: the nameless, omniscient speaker, and Abd al-Rahman the Iraqi. (Some will argue that, and the book is billed as if, one chapter is narrated by Wolf, the dog. Well, one chapter follows Wolf around and relates what he sees and thinks, but the speaker is the omniscient narrator, not Wolf. If nothing else, the pronoun "he" (referring to the dog) gives this away.)

But back to voice. I concede that the difference in voice between narrators is somewhat diminished by lack of colloquialism and slang (one narrator is Iraqi, the other presumably Palestinian) and translation probably muted some sentence structure. But I found al-Rahman's narration to be somewhat richer, thus identifiable. For instance:

I emerged from the furnace of the desert. From between the grains of sand. The winds surrendered me to the winds, and the frost nipped my nose and the tips of my fingers.

I'd ridden in a hired car from Baghdad to the al-Habbaniyyeh crossroads. Then, for countless numbers of hours, I'd walked. No luggage and no passport. Still I'd walked, avoiding the police patrols. I was thirsty. The desert, heavy with the iciness of January, spat me out. (53)

I read this passage with the tone of voice and flow I would use to read poetry. I love the variety of sentence length and structure. I love the staccato effect at which some of the sentences hint (which is further developed and used to move the story along in the novel). I love the images.

Additionally, only al-Rahman's narration (which is first person) contains within it stories told by others from a first person perspective. Narrative within narrative within narrative.

I was also struck by the fact that (and probably biased by) animals are often used to show the character of A Lake Beyond The Wind's inhabitants. Now, animal imagery and symbolism (especially birds - they're everywhere) abounds in this book. But there are specific instances where Yakhlif explicitly connects kindness to and respect for animals to the fact that a character is a good person. No other explanation is offered. That a person has reverence for animals is enough, in this book, to prove his (and her) good nature.

At any rate, I really enjoyed this book not just for its historical perspective, but for its richness, for its full, relatable characters. I'd read it again. But I don't know if I'd use it with 9th or 10th graders. Honestly, I think there'd need to be some reading aloud and lots of discussion to make sure the the prose remained viable for younger students. It certainly offers fodder for A.P. papers (symbolism, voice) and for any study of colonialism, the Palestine/Israel situation, general discussions of war.

Justice Richard Goldstone

Bill Moyers's interview with Justice Richard Goldstone.

The video (part I) is just over 21 minutes long. It's a two parter, and part II is available by link at the top of the page and by link just below part I.

At the beginning of the video, when Moyers is talking about all the things Goldstone has done, I thought of Etgar Keret's story "Good Intentions." I don't know any more about Justice Goldstone than is presented in the interview, but just the notion of a person spending all those years trying to find a way to even come remotely close to finding justice for such a number of atrocities makes me wonder how much weight he feels.

This is really a great interview. If you've got the time you should at least watch part of the interview.

The Goldstone Report

From Palestine News Network (the article is longish, but worth your time).

The Goldstone Report (it's 575 pages long).

A pro-Israeli response (also worth the read). A few of the arguments are made without proof or with flawed logic. One refers to the HRC Resolution and indicates that conclusions regarding crimes against humanity had already been made before Goldstone's information gathering mission even took place. This is a correct contention, but the Resolution talks about crimes going all the way back to 1967, ones that had already been documented; it calls for further investigation and a recommendation on how to handle the present issues. The site also questions the validity of having the crimes investigated by both Israelis and Palestinians. "How can Goldstone imply that Hamas or the Palestinian Authority operates a legal system that comes close to anything resembling that of a western democracy," the site asks. As if any other legal system is incapable of determining whether or not a crime has been committed.

Leaflets the above site mentions.

A Palestinian view about the leaflets and general situation they address.

Another perspective.

Power(less) Struggle

David Newman and Ghazi Falah's article "Bridging the Gap: Palestinian and Israeli discourses on autonomy and statehood" left me feeling irritated. I really have a lot to say, but promise to keep this post short.

First, the sheer number of interpretations of the concepts of autonomy and self determination (or the way groups will twist these words to suit their own needs) astounds me.

Second (and this is nearly word for word the comment I left on Ashley H.'s blog), It seems to me that Israel only ever acknowledged Palestine in human terms (instead of as a "refugee problem") as a result of external pressures. The article made me feel like Israel doesn't really want to deal with the Palestinians, considers them vastly inferior, and wants to get rid of the "problem" as long as it doesn't involve giving Palestine any power. (Including trying to "give them to" Jordan.) This reminds me vaguely of some other major historical events, ones a little geographically closer to home. What might they be... Hmm...

Rooftops of Tehran

Rooftops of Tehran by Mahbod Seraji is turning out to be a pretty good read. I haven't quite finished the book yet, but thought I'd do a quick post about it. 

The novel is very engaging and the prose is rich; Seraji makes complex characters witty and fun. He tackles large and intricate concepts while managing to keep the reader flowing from page to page.

The main characters are  primarily 17-20 year-olds and Seraji writes them as such. They're funny. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes as a result of adolescence.

I don't want to talk too much about the book because Marie and I think you'll probably read some of it and we're not sure which parts yet, but here's the basic breakdown:

Characters

Pasha (main character, narrator)

Ahmed (Pasha's best friend)

Doctor (Pasha's mentor)

Faheemeh (Ahmed's girlfriend)

Zari (Doctor's fiancee, Pasha's secret love)

Setting

Tehran, 1973 (action)

Tehran, 1974 (vignettes of the near future interspersed throughout)

Some background on the Iranian government of the time is definitely helpful (read: important), but we'll get there later.

Paradise Now

Paradise Now was excellent. It was co-written and directed by Hany Abu-Assad (right in above picture) and co-written and produced by Bero Beyer (left). Abu-Assad was born in Nazareth, Israel, in 1961 and moved to the Netherlands (which is, I presume where he met Beyer) in 1980. Although he was born in Israel, all the information I found on him refers to him as a Palestinian. In this interview he seems particularly sympathetic to Palestine. Perhaps he is a Palestinian born in Israel. I found no biographical information on Beyer except that he is Dutch and has produced a couple movies.

I'm sure we were all struck by the humanization of Said and Khaled (the protagonists). It is truly rare (at least in the United States) to be given the opportunity to view a suicide bomber as a real person.

Paradise Now does not exist to justify suicide bombings, but rather to illustrate how it is that one chooses to become a suicide bomber (or just a bomber, or a terrorist in general). I've always found suicide bombings particularly interesting because they're not just about killing the other person. If that were the case there'd just be bombs, no suicide. But martyrdom is an important part of the action. Showing that you believe so much in something that you'll give your life for it and for the good of your people.

We begin to see why Said and Khaled feel that they will be martyrs while they are filming their goodbye videos. While we can recognize suicide bombing as something that's not O.K., these men make their cases seem almost rational. We can at least sympathize with them, with their need to try to make right what they feel is so wrong.

Khaled says that Palestine has tried other means of getting through to Israel, political and peaceful means. He says that he can no longer accept being treated as if Palestinians are inferior, can no longer accept ethnic cleansing, occupation, unfairness, lack of compromise. This unimaginable act is his way of fighting for his country. Khaled asks Jamal to protect his family from retribution by the Israelis.

In his video, Said says, "Our bodies are all we have left to fight with." A statement that is at once dreadful, determined, and ineffably sad.

Later, Suha, who is also exceptionally rational, tries to talk Khaled out of his "mission." She points out that these actions give the Israelis all the justification they need not to stop what they are doing. But what really gets to Khaled, I think, is when she says, "If you kill, there's no difference between victim and occupier." He is forced to see himself as the enemy.

Said, trying to reaffirm his commitment, is again the model of downtrodden determination and elicitor of sympathy. "And the world watches," he says, "cowardly, unjustly. . . . [The Israelis have] convinced the world and themselves that they are the victims. . . . How," he asks, "can the occupier be the victim?" Suha has answered this riddle.

Powerful in its raw emotion and near constant intensity, the film presents the perfect persuasion. Even if you don't agree with the act, you feel for the person.

This film could be beneficial in classrooms for a number of reasons. Most obviously, it touches deeply on current events. But it can lead teachers and students to discussions about right and wrong in any number of areas. (How do we determine what is just? Was dropping the atom bomb just? Was it just for George to kill Lennie? Is the U.S.'s current involvement with Iraq and Afghanistan just? Are there degrees of justness?) Also, the way in which each main character presents his (and her) case can be used to facilitate discussions of writing persuasively. Each side of the "to bomb or not to bomb" argument is presented clearly and rationally. While the film's authors acknowledge their bias against Israel, they never indicate that they think Israelis should be killed, especially innocent citizens. The arguments both for and against the suicide bombings are well thought out and logical. Students will see that a writer needn't agree with a point of view to present it respectfully.

And for all the film's talk of violence, we never - not even once, not even when Said carries out his bombing - see any violence.

"With Guns In Their Hands And God On Their Side"

Sunrise Over Fallujah is Walter Dean Myers's 88th publication of 91 (one of which is a 12 book series, so that's really 102 publications). To see the entire list, use the link above, go to the "Bibliography" section, and click on the link on the bottom of that page. It's really impressive. 

The video at the end of this post gives a great overview of the book, so I won't go too much into that. Sunrise Over Fallujah is well written and portrays a young soldier's coming of age in the current Iraq war very well. This is specifically an adolescent/young adult novel, so there's no profanity (maybe one damn or hell, but I don't remember that even being present), but Myers does a great job describing the war. 

Robin, the protagonist, encounters battle, and Myers describes piles of body bags, soldiers killing and being killed, soldiers being dismembered, even attempted rape. He does this all in a way that provides a pretty clear picture for adolescents, but not in such a graphic way that it will cause any real controversy ("you can't let students read this"). It is a tasteful and toned-down-yet-realistic picture of what soldiers encounter.

Through Robin, Myers brings to light issues young people, those most likely to be enlisting in the near future, may not have considered. Certainly issues that aren't often discussed with adolescents, especially by recruiters. 

We get a mostly balanced picture of the situation (the initial invasion of Iraq at the start of the current war). Robin is dedicated to his country and his job, but he is conflicted because he now sees that war isn't as cut and dry as he imagined. It's difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys. He wants to feel safe and protect his fellow soldiers, but really doesn't want to kill anyone. He is often scared and sometimes cries. He doesn't always understand the U.S.'s policies or logic.

Even the soldiers are presented diversely. Robin serves with women, blacks, whites, hispanics, young people, older people. And while the U.S. soldiers are primarily presented in a positive light, those who condemn all Iraqis are disliked by other soldiers. Those who seem to enjoy war are, through tone and imagery, presented in a somewhat negative light.

I could easily write much more about Sunrise Over Fallujah and pull out tons of quotes, but I won't. The book gives adolescents an idea of the plight of Iraqi citizens, talks about the myriad tribes and factions present there, the local violence, lack of hospitals and drinking water. It shows how the soldiers help the people and how the invasion has brought strife to the area. It would be a great book to use in a literature class, in a current events class, in a social studies class. It is appropriate for high schoolers and beginning college students, but could surely be explicated by professionals.

If the embedded video won't work, click here.