Rick Steves

I don't feel it is necessary to beat the theme of the problematic depiction of Iran over again in my blog post. I am wondering what the goal Steves' project is and what is intention was when visiting Iran. I found a youtube video of a lecture he gave about his trip to Iran and it appears that the UN asked him to visit Iran because they were concerned with the perceptions of Iran and the movement toward war. That being said Steves indicates that in his program on Iran he attempted to discover the "humanness" and visit the country with a "travel point of view." He specifically says that he and his crew told the Iranian government that they were not interested in "politicizing" the their project. Thus he is not looking for an answer to Iran's stance on their nuclear program or if they fund terrorism. The problem I see with this that Steves may not be actively searching for these answers but his audience will inevitably have questions of this sort in their mind. They will be searching for ways to reconcile and understand the Iran they know from the media, the axis of evil, with the smiling faces of the innocent children found in Steves' production.

The lecture Steves gives is titled "Iran: Personal Impressions." I think this is a key piece of information to understanding what Steves is attempting to accomplish. In this lecture Steves says he was afraid of Iran and knew little of the country. Thus the video that we see and the lecture that Steves gives is his personal reaction to the clash of his expectations and his actual experience. The writing of the show was painfully ridden with Orientalism, the silencing of the other and constant comparisons of Iran to the "Western" world. Steves cannot say that Iran is a developing and modern country without saying that it is like every other developing and modern country in the west just without the fast-food restaurants. What I begin to wonder is if there are stages of recognition and realization? In an attempt to humanize Iran and eradicate fear, Steves, unknowingly or naively, forces a country into a definition that is contingent on Occidental interpretation and explanation. However, he is recognizing that what he has previously thought about Iran is incorrect and thus is creating a new definition. In this case, Steves' constant referral to the Occident is an attempt to ground himself and redefine something that his experience has proved his falsely identified. If Steves had been educated in postcolonialism perhaps he would have recognized what he was doing when he wrote the script for his program.

Returning to the idea of stages, I wonder if before people can be educated about the way they understand and define a culture or a people, they first must have all of their preconceptions and stereotypes shattered. In this sense, what we see is Steves' losing his preconceived notions and attempting to transfer his experience to an audience so they can share in the removal of stereotypes. The problem is with Steves distorted Oriental views we replace on misconstrued understanding with another. Ideally, one would have preconceived notions removed and replaced with educated understandings, I am just not sure that this is currently a common possibility in the United States. For starters our educated understanding of the Orient consists of TV shows like Steves that most people will not notice to be Orientalist. What I am really driving at in a roundabout way is that our education and material in the subject of postcolonialism is lacking and that we should becareful in our assumption that everyone can simultaneously let go of past perceptions and latch onto new "educated" views without a stepping stone stage: Steves' project is perhaps a illustration of that stage.

LIpstick Jihad

The more we read this semester the more I feel like there is a trend in identity and displacement. Lipstick Jihad, the Bastard of Istanbul, Persepolis, and the Image, the Icon and the Covenant all address the need to identify oneself as a part of a particular people. Azadeh struggles between thinking of herself as Iranian or American. This is further complicated by the fact that Americans and Iranians add their own projection to Azadeh's identity and she is consequently not fully considered one or the other. I fee like what we are seeing are generations of people who feel they have multiple identities and this multiplicity is in itself a new identity. One is neither exclusively Iranian or American but somehow genuinely both. This hybrid feeling seems to somehow deconstruct that one can only belong to one place and have only one nationality. A multiplicity of nationalities seems to suggest a healthier more encompassing personality. There seems to remain a pressure however to remain one thing, one nationality. Where does a person who feels both American and Iranian or Palestinian and Jordanian belong geographically and culturally speaking? It would seem as though a person's understanding of themselves is still distinctly linked to geographic location and acceptance. This struggle with identity found in the literature we have read this semester seems to point to the desire to still categorize and identify people as one or the other. When a person can be both/and their those attempting to identify them lose their ability to create a definition. Thus we find the person experiencing hybridity and those projecting grappling with ambiguity fluidity. The result is a struggle for acceptance and understanding.

Persepolis

After reading Persepolis I find, like I tend to find after reading almost all books, that I do not know what I think of the novel. The novel all at ones seems to address issues of education, freedom, the creation of history, gender roles, fanaticism and a search for ones self. However, a question that seems to be pervading throughout the novel is "who is the enemy?" Is the enemy the communists, the news media, the Shah, the Reformists, Iraq, the westernized world, men, neighbors, or yourself? Perhaps the better question is who is not the enemy? Inside Iran, Marji finds that her neighbors and her friends may be enemies to her as well as the government. Later in the second novel she finds as a foreigner just as many of her friends and enemies prove to be her enemies. Her mother's friend Zozo who sends her to the Nuns and then the Nuns who also turn her out. Marji as a child struggles to understand how she can be told to praise the Shah in school on one day and shun him on the next. Her attempts to ground herself in history and her family show her quest for identity and understanding of the events in her country. Marji cannot know why to dislike the religious fundamentalists or why to dislike her neighbors who pretend to be complete supporters of one regimen after another if she does not herself have a position for or against such behaviors. Thus in many ways the novel is one about the nature of hypocrisy and the way people act under times of hardship and pressure.

For me the most telling scenes is when Marji distracts the Guardians of the Revolution from her makeup by saying that a random innocent man harassed her. Marji does not even contemplate the the effects her lie may have on the man or the hypocritical nature of her behavior. In fact it takes her grandmother to point out that what Marji has done is wrong. This scenario strikes me as compelling because it demonstrates the power of fear and self-preservation. Marji is wearing make-up to impress Rezo but it also is a sign of rebellion against the religious fundamentalists. In this sense, one cheers Marji for her rebellion and perhaps dislikes, rolls their eyes, or condemns her attempt to please Rezo. When confronted with having to defend her decision to wear make-up Marji in a panic resorts to preserving herself over the possibility of being punished by the Guardians of the Revolution. She moves away from the history of her grandfather and uncle and thus sacrifices an innocent man to protect herself. This action for me negates the meaning of the rebellious act, not because she does not want to be punished but because she is willing to blame someone else for her own actions. The reader confronts the nature of hypocrisy in this scene seeing one move away from a position of standing for freedom at all costs and self-preservation. Further, the question is of what constitutes rebellious behavior and what is simply reckless and irresponsible is posed.

I do not think that as the reader we are asked to judge those people who behave hypocritically. When Marji implicated that innocent man to save herself, I was frustrated with her behavior but I attempted not to judge. At the base of the situation you had a woman trying to feel normal in an oppressive society. I am more inclined to blame the situation than the person. Further, I feel that to judge her behavior, as her grandmother did, must be accompanied by an experience that legitimizes such a judgment. Most people will opt to sacrifice another person to preserve themselves. Unless tested in such a scenario, one cannot know how they will behave. Hence, whereas Marji's grandmother has experienced placing her life in danger to help protect her husband and other innocent lives she can judge Marji; however, I as the reader, having no similar experience can hope that I would not behave in the same manner but cannot really know until such an event occurs. As a result, I can find fault in her actions without judging her. This raises the point that those people who are true martyrs, who sacrifice themselves to save many, are more rare and that most common everyday people, so to speak, will not make such a sacrifice. I do not think this point is one of cynicism but rather one of pragmatism.

Kneller's Happy Campers

Caveat: My point of view on suicide is unorthodox and to some people very unsettling. Please keep that in mind before reading this post. Second, please note that I am not suicidal, I do not have suicidal tendencies, and I do not need therapy, well the last is probably debatable ;).


I didn't even know where to start with this novella. I loved it but was at the same time very bothered by part of its message. I had trouble grounding myself and deciding how much of it was commentary on Religion, particularly Christianity and Islam, and how much was just probing at existential questions. The blatant depiction of suicide bombers and Jesus make it difficult to ignore the religious references; however, as they seem to address more of a mainstream understanding or even stereotypical understanding of the religions I am not sure where or how to situate myself within that conversation. Consequently, I think I will focus more on the depiction of suicide and the implications surrounding such an act.

What bothered me most about this story was not its depiction of Jesus as a suicide, in fact I found that rather entertaining, or the failed hopes of the Muslim suicide bomber. What bothered me was the assumption of suicide as always condemnable. Thus Keret would be exposing the hypocrisy of Christianity and Islam, as those sacrificial figures (Jesus) or martyrs (Suicide bombers) are nothing more than common suicide victims. This does indeed as Katie said "pull the rug out from under" our common perceptions of those religions. The question remains where does this leave the act of suicide in general. Should one learn to always cling to life and make the most of this earth and accept death only when it comes naturally? It is in this question that I disagree with the conclusion the book seems to convey.

The suicides in this story are committed for religious reasons, cowardliness, unhappiness, and the inability to cope with what happens in life. These are, in my opinion, all deemed as condemnable reasons to end your prematurely. So heinous are these reasons for killing yourself, that you are forced to continue living in a world that is almost an exact replica of the one you tried to escape except that it is more mundane and detestable. What this says to me is you can not escape existence by any act of your own free will. Leehee is the champion of this point of view. She clings to life, and rather than see the negative aspects of life she is able to find happiness and pleasure despite the monotony of existence. She is the epitome of Albert Camus's statement "one must imagine Sisyphus happy." This story seems to say that you must find a way to be happy or at least content in this life because there is nothing better.

This notion that there is nothing better than this life to me is purely cultural socialization and survival instinct at work. To assume that suicide is always condemnable and life is always the better alternative leaves far too much grey area and this does not even broach the topic of how to decide what is a suicide and how do motives and/or intentions contribute to the definition of a suicide. Is a person who volunteers repeatedly to go to war and is finally killed considered a suicide? If a man who mistakenly believes he can save humanity and allows himself to be captured and killed is a suicide then surely the man who is willing to sacrifice himself for his country is no less suicidal. Further, what about those people with terminal illnesses, those cancer patients who have no hope of life, who live in constant pain, and decide death is better than this current existence? Even more complicated, what about those people who kill themselves for economic reasons? Look to the example of Father Time in Jude the Obscure, who kills himself and his siblings because his parents cannot afford to feed them. In these cases are not the intellectual gymnastics one would have to perform to find happy meaning in this life more delusional than deciding to end your life?

I feel we as humans often cling to life assuming it is the most desirable state of existence; the correct statement would be it is the only known state of existence. I further find that those who most condemn suicide are those who do not suffer with enough afflictions to be able to comprehend that nothingness, nonexistence, and the unknown hold the only hope of relief from the current state. I am not suggesting that suicide should not viewed as a tragedy and that those who are depressed should kill themselves instead of seeking help. I am, however, contesting that we should also look at whether our point of view on how suicide is understood is not just socialization and that further those who do commit suicide of any manner and for any reason are also victims of a socialization, it is just a different shade of socialization. Perhaps we should employ empathy in an effort to understand the motivations of suicide, thus we can either attempt to alleviate the hardships or understand the reasoning. Condemnation or judgment of suicide seems to me to be more a moral projection of an individuals cultural conditioning than a statement about the nature of suicide.

Jannissary

I decided to dabble in some research on the Janissaries because I knew nothing about the subject. As it turns out they were the first Ottoman standing army. According to Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge), the Ottomans were the only ones in Europe at the time to have a standing army. This is the part that grabbed my interest. I could not help but wonder if having a standing army added to the stereotype of a violent blood thirsty culture. Thus images of armed men who did not disband in times of peace gave a visual impression of a militarily and physically aggressive society.

Returning to the Jannissaries, they appear to originally have been prisoners of war or slaves. As time went on a devsirme system of recruitment was put in place. In this system, non-Muslim boys were taken from their families, possibly by force, and made to serve as a Jannissary. Sometimes this service of the son could be consider the feudal dues the family owed to the Sultan. The information on the page about the devsirme system says it was a way to humiliate non-Muslim families. I am not convinced of this statement, although this research is preliminary at best, it seems to me this is a way of passing on culture or enacting hegemony; however, considering the Janissaries were well paid, I am not sure humiliation is the correct description of the whole process. Jannissaries eventually became a lucrative position that sons of Muslim Turkish families were volunteered and the devsirme system was ended.

The Jannissaries became a strong political force. Those who were done serving would move onto positions in academia or the government. Eventually, they gained so much power they could control the Sultan. The famous Auspicious Incident, where the barracks housing the Jannissaries were fired upon killing about 4,000, saw the end of the Jannissaries. Those who were not killed in the Barracks were caught and executed later. It was been suggested that Mahmud II, the Sultan, was responsible for inciting this attack on the Jannissary.




This has been far from a comprehensive overview of this the Jannissary. What is interesting to me is the possibility of a standing army adding to the stereotype of a violent culture and the concept devsirme. It seems as though devsirme holds the possibility of being described as way to militarily homogenizing those people who are not a part of the dominant culture. This again would add to the idea of a violent culture and spread that idea if a person learns about the culture from inside a army. One could associate the violence with the culture as opposed to the nature of military or warfare in general.

Beaufort

After watching this moving I was not really sure what to think and I am still not really sure what to think. I was frustrated with the seeming ignorance or inconsideration on the part of the "command" in regards to the loss of life of the soldiers. Ziv, for example, seems well aware that he is going to die, that the bomb is most likely going to explode but yet those in charge do not seem to take this into consideration. Perhaps if this was a necessary road that needed to be clear, Ziv's death would seem less pointless. However, as it is later stated in the movie, the road was not that important.

I thought the movie achieved the goal of showing how war is futile. The fact that the soldiers are, for all practical purposes, guarding a large hill for mere ideological reasons and in doing so, waiting to be hit by missiles, leaves little room for one to argue the necessity of war. This particular example also strengthens the above idea that those in command are not concerned with the collateral damage, in this case soldiers, on the small scale.

Juxtaposed to the notion of the futility of war is Liraz's attachment to his assignment and to the ideology of Beaufort. Liraz is distraught at the idea of having to leave Beaufort. He loses his temper at his soldiers when they try to remove the dog and equipment from the station. Further in the middle of the movie, Liraz says he knows that he should abandon the station, that command's orders are not in the best interest of the soldier, but he says he physically is incapable of leaving. At another point in the film it is said that Liraz is just happy that they gave him a job as a commander. I would suggest that Liraz might be attached to having a purpose or feeling like he has a purpose. Thus by acting on his suspicions of command's poor judgment, Liraz risks losing his sense of direction in life. It's almost as if Liraz wants to buy into the ideology of Beaufort but he knows that doing so is just as meaningless as the war.

Overall, I am still not sure how I feel about this movie and I am quite sure there is something else going on that I am missing. I am not sure I would recommend it for viewing without also having some contextual information about the conflict between Lebanon and Israel.

Children of Gaza