For my next independent reading book, I chose to go a little off the beaten path from what everyone else in the class has been doing. Following the recommendation of my older sister, I decided to ready Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This book is an autobiography about a young Islamic woman and her struggles in many different Middle Eastern and African countries.
Hirsi Ali was born into a traditional tribal family in Somalia. Her father was one of the organizing members of an anti-government group and he wasn't there for a large portion of Ayaan's life because he was in put into a political prison. Ayaan therefore grew up in a household run by her constantly grandmother and her constantly on-edge mother. She also has an older brother and a younger sister, both of whom had plenty of problems with their personal identities while growing up.
After a few years, her family chooses to move to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a completely different world because it is very much more conservative than Somalia: women are not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied by a male and they must always be covered from head to toe. A couple of years later, her father managed to escape from jail and he tells his wife and family that he wants to move to Kenya.
Ayaan's mother is not happy at all about this because Kenya is much more free-thinking, not to mention the fact that a great majority of Kenyans are Christians. This is the country where Ayaan begins to develop into the strong woman she is today.
This is a story about a woman's triumph over the things that have held her back all of her life - her religion, her culture, and her family. Even though she was abused physically, mentally, and emotionally as a child, she still managed to grow up to be a strong, independent woman who wouldn't allow her culture to hold her back. Her strength allows stands as a symbol for all women, no matter what their religion or ethnicity.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
secularism in turkey
After browsing around on Wikipedia and other websites, I found out quite a bit of information about Turkey (and read quite a bit that I already knew). One of the more interesting things I found was an article on Wikipedia about the issue of secularism in Turkey.
An overwhelming majority of the Turkish population is Islamic (something like 99%) but the nation has no official religion. Therefore, Turkey is a secular state which prohibits the integration of religion in politics. Nevertheless, there have been many accusations throughout the past century that the Turkish government has been following an Islamic agenda. Several political parties have even been shut down after being suspected of fundamentalist activities. Most recently, the Virtue Party was shut down in 2001 by the Turkish Constitutional Court for Islamic activities and attempts to "redefine the secular nature of the republic".
The constitutional rule that prohibits discrimination on religious grounds is taken very seriously in Turkey, according to this Wikipedia article. One thing that really struck me was the fact that it is considered illegal for men or women to wear religious headcoverings and theo-political symbolic garments in government buildings, schools, and universities. I think that this is a pretty strong statement in the name of secularism, because even in the U.S. we allow people to wear their religious head coverings wherever and whenever you want. Ironically though, the Identity document cards of Turkish citizens must include the specification of the card holder's religion. This is obviously a symbol that the Turkish government is not entirely secular.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Dreams of Trespass
Upon completion of Fatima Mernissi's memoir Dreams of Trespass, I have a totally new understanding of what it would be like to grow up in a harem. If you look back at my previous post, you can see that I obviously had a misconstrued idea of what a harem was in the first place. Mernissi's novel also opened my eyes to other things as well, such as a very different Middle Eastern lifestyle than we have been reading about, more specifically Woman at Point Zero.
Woman at Point Zero portrays a battered woman struggling day after day until she finally reaches a breaking point. Dreams of Trespass is much less heavy, to the point of even using some light humor. This book tells of the life of a girl growing up in Morocco in a harem. When she talks about her childhood, she tells of a life that was at times difficult, but for the most part, it seems that she had a good childhood. While she did have a lot more freedom than Firdaus did in Woman at Point Zero, Mernissi was constantly questioning the people around her. She wanted to know why the women were confined to the home while they men were allowed to go about town as they pleased. In fact, Mernissi questioned her family so often that they had to tell her to stop asking questions. Firdaus never had this kind of freedom.
I think one of the reasons why this book portrayed women as having a lot more freedom than we women we have read about thus far is because Mernissi had a few strong role models in her life. Mernissi's mother was definitely the strongest woman (or maybe even the strongest person altogether) that I have read about in this class. Even though she was confined to the home, she was constantly standing up to her husband. She complained several times about being confined to a Harem and how she hated living with so many people together. Mernissi's mother would also talk about how she longed to live alone with only her husband and children; most of the Middle Eastern women we have read about so far in this class wouldn't dare voice these types of opinions to men.
Mernissi's grandmother, Yasmina, is also a very strong woman. One of my favorite scenes in the book occured near the beginning. Mernissi was describing her grandmother's life in her harem (which was somewhat different than Mernissi's: her grandfather lived with his nine wives). Yasmina said that she was sad because she really did not like sharing her husband with eight other women, especially because she did not like one of the wives, Lalla Thor. In an act of rebellion, she named her duck Thor, and Lalla Thor, not surprisingly, was upset. When her husband went to talk to her about changing the duck's name, Yasmina simply said that if she didn't like it, he should get rid of her. She had no problem whatsoever standing up to her husband (even if it was in vain).
Fatima Mernissi had a much easier life than some of the other women we have read about in this class, and I think the main reason for this is the group of strong women that she grew up surrounded by. In Woman at Point Zero, Firdaus's mother died when she was very young and she had no other mother-figures in her life to set an example for her. I think that we learn how to behave and we learn what is right from wrong from watching, and if we dont' have anyone strong in our life to set an example for us, we will end up living a very difficult life.
Woman at Point Zero portrays a battered woman struggling day after day until she finally reaches a breaking point. Dreams of Trespass is much less heavy, to the point of even using some light humor. This book tells of the life of a girl growing up in Morocco in a harem. When she talks about her childhood, she tells of a life that was at times difficult, but for the most part, it seems that she had a good childhood. While she did have a lot more freedom than Firdaus did in Woman at Point Zero, Mernissi was constantly questioning the people around her. She wanted to know why the women were confined to the home while they men were allowed to go about town as they pleased. In fact, Mernissi questioned her family so often that they had to tell her to stop asking questions. Firdaus never had this kind of freedom.
I think one of the reasons why this book portrayed women as having a lot more freedom than we women we have read about thus far is because Mernissi had a few strong role models in her life. Mernissi's mother was definitely the strongest woman (or maybe even the strongest person altogether) that I have read about in this class. Even though she was confined to the home, she was constantly standing up to her husband. She complained several times about being confined to a Harem and how she hated living with so many people together. Mernissi's mother would also talk about how she longed to live alone with only her husband and children; most of the Middle Eastern women we have read about so far in this class wouldn't dare voice these types of opinions to men.
Mernissi's grandmother, Yasmina, is also a very strong woman. One of my favorite scenes in the book occured near the beginning. Mernissi was describing her grandmother's life in her harem (which was somewhat different than Mernissi's: her grandfather lived with his nine wives). Yasmina said that she was sad because she really did not like sharing her husband with eight other women, especially because she did not like one of the wives, Lalla Thor. In an act of rebellion, she named her duck Thor, and Lalla Thor, not surprisingly, was upset. When her husband went to talk to her about changing the duck's name, Yasmina simply said that if she didn't like it, he should get rid of her. She had no problem whatsoever standing up to her husband (even if it was in vain).
Fatima Mernissi had a much easier life than some of the other women we have read about in this class, and I think the main reason for this is the group of strong women that she grew up surrounded by. In Woman at Point Zero, Firdaus's mother died when she was very young and she had no other mother-figures in her life to set an example for her. I think that we learn how to behave and we learn what is right from wrong from watching, and if we dont' have anyone strong in our life to set an example for us, we will end up living a very difficult life.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
dreams of tresspass
I will admit that i have not finished reading my book yet, so I decided to blog about what we're supposed to write about for Wednesday; and then I'll switch.
When I began reading Dreams of Trespass: Tales of a Harem Girlhood, by Fatima Mernissi, I was instantly intrigued as to what, exactly, a Harem was. The first thing I thought of when I read the title was of the typical Harems we read about, the ones with a sultan and hundreds of concubines all there to please him. However, once I began, I immediately realized that this book was not in line with the kind of thing we typically associate the word harem with. Many people just think, harem: a bunch of women a sultan (or something) uses for sex – a personal brothel if you will. But this is quite different. This harem, though it does have many women in it, they are not all there to be used for sex. In fact, the Harem that the author lives in is just one large house with one big family in it. However, Mernissi does speak of her grandmother, who is one of nine of her husband's wives.
Not surprisingly, most women do not like being confined to a Harem and having to share their husband with other women. Towards the beginning of the book, the author overhears her grandmother complain about being "suck in a harem" and she asks her what that meant.
Sometimes, she said that to be stuck in a harem simply meant that a woman had lost her freedom of movement. Other times, she said that a harem meant misfortune becasue a woman ahd to share her husband with many others. (Mernissi 34)
After this excerpt, the author makes an extensive footnote about harems, defining the different types and describing the difference between them. According to this footnote, there are domestic and imperial harems, and the imperial are the ones we most typically associate with the word 'harem.' However, this book only deals with the imperial harem.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
women in modern egypt
Since reading Saadawi's Woman at Point Zero, my fellow group members and I were compelled to research more about modern Egyptian women to see if they really are as used and abused as the Firdaus was in the novel. After merely Googling the term "modern Egyptian women," I found this site by BBC News which has links to little blurbs about eight different young Egyptian women. These women are from all sorts of different backgrounds, ranging from the well-educated, city-girls to the poor country-girls.
This website basically offered information about 2 different types of girls: the educated and the uneducated. Three of the eight girls are either in college or will be attending it shortly. From reading their profiles, I can tell that these young women come from families with money. I can also tell that these women's lives were most likely the complete opposite of Firdaus's life.
In their little blurbs, these young women expressed many different things, but grief and resentment towards a difficult life were not one of them. Fatimah wrote about her thankfulness towards her mother for always being there for her and her siblings. Sarah wishes that the streets of Cairo were less crowded and Rana wants to change the school system. These are not the remarks of girls who are struggling to live day to day like Firdaus was.
The other five girls, however, seem to have led lives much more similar to Firdaus's. All of them have dropped out of school (usually before even reaching secondary school) in order to help support their poor families. Several of the girls work extremely long shifts in factories and have been doing so since they were as young as six years old.
Reda, a very poor 16-year-old reminded me the most of Firdaus. She was very poor and had to work hard to support her father, a deaf-mute. She admits to having considered running away. The only reason she hasn't, it seems, is that she doesn't know where to go.
This website basically offered information about 2 different types of girls: the educated and the uneducated. Three of the eight girls are either in college or will be attending it shortly. From reading their profiles, I can tell that these young women come from families with money. I can also tell that these women's lives were most likely the complete opposite of Firdaus's life.
In their little blurbs, these young women expressed many different things, but grief and resentment towards a difficult life were not one of them. Fatimah wrote about her thankfulness towards her mother for always being there for her and her siblings. Sarah wishes that the streets of Cairo were less crowded and Rana wants to change the school system. These are not the remarks of girls who are struggling to live day to day like Firdaus was.
The other five girls, however, seem to have led lives much more similar to Firdaus's. All of them have dropped out of school (usually before even reaching secondary school) in order to help support their poor families. Several of the girls work extremely long shifts in factories and have been doing so since they were as young as six years old.
Reda, a very poor 16-year-old reminded me the most of Firdaus. She was very poor and had to work hard to support her father, a deaf-mute. She admits to having considered running away. The only reason she hasn't, it seems, is that she doesn't know where to go.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Woman at Point Zero.
For my independent reading book, I chose Nawal El Saadawi's Woman at Point Zero. This book represented to me an image of a strong woman who has had to deal with life in a world where she is constantly being pushed down. I think that if Firdaus, the main character, had had different living conditions, she could have grown up to be a successful, celebrated woman in whatever career she had chosen. However, since she had the misfortune of being brought up in an extremely conservative and patriarchal Egyptian society, Firdaus goes through many disturbing events, including becoming a prostitute. This, of course, doesn't happen until AFTER she has lost both of her parents, sent to boarding school, forced to married a deformed old man who beats her, and raped repeatedly by a "friend" and his comrades.
The story starts out with narration by the author herself. It tells the true story of Firdaus, a real woman whom she met in prison a while ago while she was doing psychiatric work. Saadawi had heard of Firdaus and she wanted to hear her story. Firdaus was in jail for having killed a man, and was to be given the death penalty the following day. She had barely spoken a word since being admitted to the prison but Saadawi is determined to the story from her, and eventually she is able to talk to her.
The second chapter (which takes up the bulk of the book) is told from Firdaus's point of view. It is basically her life story, from when she was a very young child to the act that put her in jail, going through the horrors she had to suffer growing up in rural Egypt. Many of these events were extremely disturbing, and after reading them, I did not find it hard to believe that she would be filled with enough rage to kill someone.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
suicide bombers vs freedom fighters
I know this is a little bit late, but I'm now doing my post about the YouTube site we were asked to look for and discuss. I chose to look up some more information about suicide bombers in the Middle East (or as some people look at them, Freedom Fighters).
The clip I chose to watch was about a female Palestinian who had somehow become a suicide bomber. Of course, the people who do the bombing rarely look at the situation as committing suicide, they think of themselves as martyrs. What they are doing is for something bigger than themselves, they are Freedom Fighters, hoping to better the world.
In some strange twist of fate, this woman did not end up killing herself or anyone else. She was not successful in her attempt to blow up her Israeli doctor. In my opinion, these suicide bombers are more of a victim than the people they are attempting to blow up. This woman was obviously in some sort of a mental disarray and was not fully aware of the task she took on when she decided to strap a bomb to her body.
She must have been told by someone at some point that strapping a bomb to her chest and killing not only herself, but several other innocent people, would somehow make her a martyr. She therefore went into it thinking of herself as a "Freedom Fighter." However, after giving the idea some thought, it seems that she realized what an extreme task she had taken on and decided that she had made a mistake. At some point, this woman realized that she was not a Freedom Fighter, she was a suicide bomber. Unfortunately, by that point, she was committed and there was no turning back.
Ironically, something went wrong with the wiring of the bomb and it didn't fire. Now this woman is in jail, waiting for her trial, which will probably be unfair. She is now trapped in a jail cell, begging to be let go before she is given the death penalty. She knows she made a mistake, but at this point, there is nothing she can do but face the fate of a failed suicide bomber.
The clip I chose to watch was about a female Palestinian who had somehow become a suicide bomber. Of course, the people who do the bombing rarely look at the situation as committing suicide, they think of themselves as martyrs. What they are doing is for something bigger than themselves, they are Freedom Fighters, hoping to better the world.
In some strange twist of fate, this woman did not end up killing herself or anyone else. She was not successful in her attempt to blow up her Israeli doctor. In my opinion, these suicide bombers are more of a victim than the people they are attempting to blow up. This woman was obviously in some sort of a mental disarray and was not fully aware of the task she took on when she decided to strap a bomb to her body.
She must have been told by someone at some point that strapping a bomb to her chest and killing not only herself, but several other innocent people, would somehow make her a martyr. She therefore went into it thinking of herself as a "Freedom Fighter." However, after giving the idea some thought, it seems that she realized what an extreme task she had taken on and decided that she had made a mistake. At some point, this woman realized that she was not a Freedom Fighter, she was a suicide bomber. Unfortunately, by that point, she was committed and there was no turning back.
Ironically, something went wrong with the wiring of the bomb and it didn't fire. Now this woman is in jail, waiting for her trial, which will probably be unfair. She is now trapped in a jail cell, begging to be let go before she is given the death penalty. She knows she made a mistake, but at this point, there is nothing she can do but face the fate of a failed suicide bomber.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Edward Jayne
Professor Jayne's talk on Wednesday was very informative, but not all that surprising. After he started talking, I could tell how enthusiastic he was about everything in the Middle East, but I could also immediately tell that I would need to be on the look out for some biases (especially when he started saying some of his pretty obviously-prejudiced opinions about Jews). He kept insisting that he wasn't prejudiced, and that he himself was part-Jewish, but I was definitely able to pick up on some slightly-hostile comments (and I noticed Dr. Webb did, too).
That being said, I still found his talk to be very interesting, overall. One thing that definitely struck me was when Professor Jayne told us that the United States has been borrowing money for the War in Iraq from China. This was extremely perplexing to me because I can't seem to understand why we are borrowing money from a Communist nation when we refuse to do business with Cuba because they're Communist. It seems to me that we are against Communism when it's convenient to us.
According to Jayne, we are using money that we currently don't have to fight a war. At the same time, Bush went ahead and made two huge tax reductions for the rich (Professor Jayne compared this to buying a brand new BMW at the same time that you sent your kid off to Yale on your credit card). The government is then turning around and telling us that the war is going to help our economy, when in reality, we will be paying dearly for it in a few decade's time. According to Jayne, what Bush is doing can be compared to what Hitler did during World War II - giving the citizens a prosperous economy at the time and allowing future generations to deal with the debt when he's dead and gone.
It is, in my opinion a little radical to compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler, but at the same time, I have to agree with Jayne. We all like to think that our government is nowhere near what Germany's was in the middle of the 20th century, but according to Jayne, there isn't that much of a difference when it comes to foreign policy. Some of the statements made by Professor Jayne would be enough to open anyone's eyes to the current politics of the United States.
That being said, I still found his talk to be very interesting, overall. One thing that definitely struck me was when Professor Jayne told us that the United States has been borrowing money for the War in Iraq from China. This was extremely perplexing to me because I can't seem to understand why we are borrowing money from a Communist nation when we refuse to do business with Cuba because they're Communist. It seems to me that we are against Communism when it's convenient to us.
According to Jayne, we are using money that we currently don't have to fight a war. At the same time, Bush went ahead and made two huge tax reductions for the rich (Professor Jayne compared this to buying a brand new BMW at the same time that you sent your kid off to Yale on your credit card). The government is then turning around and telling us that the war is going to help our economy, when in reality, we will be paying dearly for it in a few decade's time. According to Jayne, what Bush is doing can be compared to what Hitler did during World War II - giving the citizens a prosperous economy at the time and allowing future generations to deal with the debt when he's dead and gone.
It is, in my opinion a little radical to compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler, but at the same time, I have to agree with Jayne. We all like to think that our government is nowhere near what Germany's was in the middle of the 20th century, but according to Jayne, there isn't that much of a difference when it comes to foreign policy. Some of the statements made by Professor Jayne would be enough to open anyone's eyes to the current politics of the United States.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
AIPAC video
I read most of the Israel Lobby and followed it up by watching the Youtube.com videos that Allen had posted on his syllabus. When I was watching the "Israel Lobby" videos, I was distinctly struck by the second one: "The Israel Lobby: AIPAC" 2-5. I think that Earl Hilliard had some very significant points to make, many of which I agreed with.
I didn't really know who he was or what he had to do with any of this, so I consulted Allen's favorite source of information: Wikipedia. I wasn't particularly impressed with this information provided, so I Googled him. This led me to an very intriguing article.
This man had chosen NOT to support the United States giving money to Israel because of the fact that they are a relatively rich country on their own and they are using that money solely to turn around and build weapons and to kill Palestinians, amongst others. Unfortunately, Hilliard chose the wrong time to be opposing the Israelis and supporting the Arabs: this happened right after September 11th. In the Youtube.com interview, Hilliard himself admits that the ads against him that were run on CNN were great pieces of work. He knew the timing was perfect, and that the American public was very uneducated about the situation in the Middle East. "Most Americans didn't know the difference between Hussein and Kadafia, or Kadafia and bin Laden."
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I completely agree with this statement. Americans (and I fully admit that I am one of them) are extremely poorly educated about the goings-on around the world, so much so that all it takes is a couple of falsely advertised commercials to convince us that a politician supports al-Qaeda. We are often too uneducated to know the difference and to lazy to care, so we are therefore led to believe something that is not entirely true. Yes, Hilliard was opposed to giving money to Israel, but he did not support the Taliban. Someone can be opposed to what the government is doing while still supporting our country as a whole. This is the difference that many Americans are unable to grasp, but this is exactly what makes the difference between us sounding ignorant versus well-informed.
I didn't really know who he was or what he had to do with any of this, so I consulted Allen's favorite source of information: Wikipedia. I wasn't particularly impressed with this information provided, so I Googled him. This led me to an very intriguing article.
This man had chosen NOT to support the United States giving money to Israel because of the fact that they are a relatively rich country on their own and they are using that money solely to turn around and build weapons and to kill Palestinians, amongst others. Unfortunately, Hilliard chose the wrong time to be opposing the Israelis and supporting the Arabs: this happened right after September 11th. In the Youtube.com interview, Hilliard himself admits that the ads against him that were run on CNN were great pieces of work. He knew the timing was perfect, and that the American public was very uneducated about the situation in the Middle East. "Most Americans didn't know the difference between Hussein and Kadafia, or Kadafia and bin Laden."
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I completely agree with this statement. Americans (and I fully admit that I am one of them) are extremely poorly educated about the goings-on around the world, so much so that all it takes is a couple of falsely advertised commercials to convince us that a politician supports al-Qaeda. We are often too uneducated to know the difference and to lazy to care, so we are therefore led to believe something that is not entirely true. Yes, Hilliard was opposed to giving money to Israel, but he did not support the Taliban. Someone can be opposed to what the government is doing while still supporting our country as a whole. This is the difference that many Americans are unable to grasp, but this is exactly what makes the difference between us sounding ignorant versus well-informed.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Peace not apartheid
I definitely learned a lot from reading Jimmy Carter's book (even if I only read the "required" parts). I would like to say that the book was very interesting and that I really enjoyed it, but that would be a lie. I have absolutely no interest in politics, and this is probably the main reason why I used to have no idea what was going on in the Middle East.
However, I can honestly say that Palestine Peace Not Apartheid increased my knowledge of the Middle East ten-fold. The book was an easy read and it didn't make any assumptions about the reader's background knowledge of the issues discussed. I think one of the most helpful aspects of the book was the first chapter because it gave me so much background information. Seeing that time-line really gave me a good image of why the Middle East is in shambles today.
This may sound ridiculous, but before this class I was unable to distinguish between the different conflicts in the Middle East. If you would have asked me a few weeks ago, I would have thought that Palestine and Afghanistan had something to do with one another. In the United States, we often use the term "Middle East" to refer to both the War in Iraq as well at the constant struggles in Palestine, and I was led to believe that these problems are one and the same. Therefore, when I read the time-line, I was somewhat surprised to see that the September 11th attacks were not mentioned.
I think that it is quite obvious why I was unaware of this before reading Jimmy Carter's book. Even though it seems like our news system is constantly talking about the West Bank and Israelis and the Gaza Strip, we never really learn the source of the problems. We only hear what's going on today and from our point of view. And we wonder why people always say Americans are uneducated.
However, I can honestly say that Palestine Peace Not Apartheid increased my knowledge of the Middle East ten-fold. The book was an easy read and it didn't make any assumptions about the reader's background knowledge of the issues discussed. I think one of the most helpful aspects of the book was the first chapter because it gave me so much background information. Seeing that time-line really gave me a good image of why the Middle East is in shambles today.
This may sound ridiculous, but before this class I was unable to distinguish between the different conflicts in the Middle East. If you would have asked me a few weeks ago, I would have thought that Palestine and Afghanistan had something to do with one another. In the United States, we often use the term "Middle East" to refer to both the War in Iraq as well at the constant struggles in Palestine, and I was led to believe that these problems are one and the same. Therefore, when I read the time-line, I was somewhat surprised to see that the September 11th attacks were not mentioned.
I think that it is quite obvious why I was unaware of this before reading Jimmy Carter's book. Even though it seems like our news system is constantly talking about the West Bank and Israelis and the Gaza Strip, we never really learn the source of the problems. We only hear what's going on today and from our point of view. And we wonder why people always say Americans are uneducated.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
wild thorns part II
Besides the theme of isolation, I also noticed the constant references to youth and the "not-so-innocent" aspect of youth streaming through Wild Thorns. Khalifeh constantly referred back to the idea of the youth holding the key to the future, the main instance being when the Arab children were taunting the Jewish soldiers in the street.
The first time Usama meets up with Basil after his return to Palestine, he is very surprised to see how involved the young people are in politics. There is a group of boys sitting around a coffee shop discussing the occupation, and Usama realizes that "It was the first time he'd heard young people discussing issues that never would have occurred to them before the occupation" (Khalifeh 59). I think that this section of the book symbolizes the loss of innocence that the occupation has caused. Normally, young men of Basil's age shouldn't be paying attention to politics, they should be concerned with school and socializing. But now that Palestine's been occupied, they have been forced to grow up much quicker and face reality.
One major problem with the loss of innocence that's occurring is that these boys are beginning to plot terrorist rebellions against the Jewish military. When Usama and Basil go to the market, they speak with Haj Abdullah, who is absolutely terrified of what the boys are plotting because his son, Hani, is one of Basil's friends. Haj Abdullah expresses his feelings to Usama on page 73: " 'I'm afraid, Mr. Usama, that these boys might get in involved in something... You know how many are in prison?... They're a generation only God can control' " (Khalifeh). Throughout this whole conversation, Usama keeps telling Haj Abdullah to "just let them talk," insisting that these boys are merely discussing politics. Finally, though, at the end of the chapter, Basil protests that they don't just talk, although he doesn't admit what exactly they're plotting. This does, however, give away the fact that the boys are no longer boys; they are men planning an attack against the military.
One of the most significant parts of Wild Thorns, in my opinion, was the scene where Basil is arrested. There are children flooding the streets, yelling and laughing at the Jewish soldiers. They are screaming in protest to show their disgust at the occupation.
But children were now emerging from all the houses, at first lurking in dark
corners like mice, starting out at the soldiers and laughing and winking at
one another... The soldiers began to chase the boys, who scampered home,
slamming the doors behind them. Then out they came again. A soldier
caught one of them and started to beat him, and the mothers let loose a
stream of curses on all who'd had a hand in the creation of the state.
(Khalifeh 104)
Just a page later, Basil is thrown into a patrol car and taken to jail for this attack on the militia. I think that this chapter is the symbol of the complete chaos that the occupation has caused. There is absolutely no innocence left in Palestine, even the children are getting arrested.
When Basil is taken off, his father is cold and shows no remorse or sadness that his son is in jail. He merely says, " "But what came over the boy? Does he think he can free Palestine all by himself?' " (Khalifeh 106). I think that that is exactly what Basil thought. Khalifeh is trying to show that the occupation will not be over until everyone pitches in to help. Basil and his friend's attack didn't accomplish much and that is because they received no help from the older men. While the children have lost their innocence, they have not lost their hope.
The first time Usama meets up with Basil after his return to Palestine, he is very surprised to see how involved the young people are in politics. There is a group of boys sitting around a coffee shop discussing the occupation, and Usama realizes that "It was the first time he'd heard young people discussing issues that never would have occurred to them before the occupation" (Khalifeh 59). I think that this section of the book symbolizes the loss of innocence that the occupation has caused. Normally, young men of Basil's age shouldn't be paying attention to politics, they should be concerned with school and socializing. But now that Palestine's been occupied, they have been forced to grow up much quicker and face reality.
One major problem with the loss of innocence that's occurring is that these boys are beginning to plot terrorist rebellions against the Jewish military. When Usama and Basil go to the market, they speak with Haj Abdullah, who is absolutely terrified of what the boys are plotting because his son, Hani, is one of Basil's friends. Haj Abdullah expresses his feelings to Usama on page 73: " 'I'm afraid, Mr. Usama, that these boys might get in involved in something... You know how many are in prison?... They're a generation only God can control' " (Khalifeh). Throughout this whole conversation, Usama keeps telling Haj Abdullah to "just let them talk," insisting that these boys are merely discussing politics. Finally, though, at the end of the chapter, Basil protests that they don't just talk, although he doesn't admit what exactly they're plotting. This does, however, give away the fact that the boys are no longer boys; they are men planning an attack against the military.
One of the most significant parts of Wild Thorns, in my opinion, was the scene where Basil is arrested. There are children flooding the streets, yelling and laughing at the Jewish soldiers. They are screaming in protest to show their disgust at the occupation.
But children were now emerging from all the houses, at first lurking in dark
corners like mice, starting out at the soldiers and laughing and winking at
one another... The soldiers began to chase the boys, who scampered home,
slamming the doors behind them. Then out they came again. A soldier
caught one of them and started to beat him, and the mothers let loose a
stream of curses on all who'd had a hand in the creation of the state.
(Khalifeh 104)
Just a page later, Basil is thrown into a patrol car and taken to jail for this attack on the militia. I think that this chapter is the symbol of the complete chaos that the occupation has caused. There is absolutely no innocence left in Palestine, even the children are getting arrested.
When Basil is taken off, his father is cold and shows no remorse or sadness that his son is in jail. He merely says, " "But what came over the boy? Does he think he can free Palestine all by himself?' " (Khalifeh 106). I think that that is exactly what Basil thought. Khalifeh is trying to show that the occupation will not be over until everyone pitches in to help. Basil and his friend's attack didn't accomplish much and that is because they received no help from the older men. While the children have lost their innocence, they have not lost their hope.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Wild Thorns
When I first began reading Wild Thorns, I was surprised to learn that the book was written by a woman. I was instantly intrigued by this, especially after reading the story, because of the lack of female characters in the book. I decided to look up some more information about Sahar Khalifeh, and I found an article from an Arab magazine in which the author writes about her own life, struggling to survive in a home where it appeared no one wanted her.
http://leb.net/~aljadid/features/0839khalifeh.html
I think that Khalifeh's writing style and chosen themes for Wild Thorns have a lot to do with her past. For example, one main underlying theme in the story has to do with isolation, more specifically isolation while surrounded by many. Khalifeh grew up in a household where she felt isolated much of the time herself. She came from a very big family with eight children, however, only one of these children was a male. Both her mother and her father greatly resented their daughters for not, in fact, being sons. Her mother would cry for days on end and her father virtually ignored Khalifeh and her sisters.
In such a gloomy and hostile atmosphere, I learned the meaning of my existence
and my value in this world. I learned that I was a member of a miserable, useless,
worthless sex. From childhood, I was taught to prepare myself for the risks
associated with being a woman. I was told time and again that I had to train myself
to obey and comply with all kinds of rules that covered every single aspect of my life.
I think that this feeling of isolation and being unwanted can definitely be seen in Wild Thorns. One main time that I can think of when a character is alone while surrounded by others was near the beginning of the story. Usama is trying to go home to Palestine but is held up by foreign officers. They interrogate him and accuse him of wrong-doing, when all he is trying to do is return to his homeland. When Usama finally returns to Palestine, he is surrounded by people, yet he feels so alone. He doesn't seem to fit in there anymore and can't quite get into the rhythm of life under occupation. Even though there were millions of other people going through the same thing all around him, Usama feels alone because no one seems to share his liberating views.
I think this plot line runs a distinct parallel to Khalifeh's life because she was definitely a rebel. In the article I found, she talks about trying to break free of her parents. Her six sisters were just as repressed as Sahar was, but none of them were rebellious like she was. She was constantly surrounded by her sisters who were going through the same injustices, but she was the only one who was trying to do something about the way her parents were treating her.
http://leb.net/~aljadid/features/0839khalifeh.html
I think that Khalifeh's writing style and chosen themes for Wild Thorns have a lot to do with her past. For example, one main underlying theme in the story has to do with isolation, more specifically isolation while surrounded by many. Khalifeh grew up in a household where she felt isolated much of the time herself. She came from a very big family with eight children, however, only one of these children was a male. Both her mother and her father greatly resented their daughters for not, in fact, being sons. Her mother would cry for days on end and her father virtually ignored Khalifeh and her sisters.
In such a gloomy and hostile atmosphere, I learned the meaning of my existence
and my value in this world. I learned that I was a member of a miserable, useless,
worthless sex. From childhood, I was taught to prepare myself for the risks
associated with being a woman. I was told time and again that I had to train myself
to obey and comply with all kinds of rules that covered every single aspect of my life.
I think that this feeling of isolation and being unwanted can definitely be seen in Wild Thorns. One main time that I can think of when a character is alone while surrounded by others was near the beginning of the story. Usama is trying to go home to Palestine but is held up by foreign officers. They interrogate him and accuse him of wrong-doing, when all he is trying to do is return to his homeland. When Usama finally returns to Palestine, he is surrounded by people, yet he feels so alone. He doesn't seem to fit in there anymore and can't quite get into the rhythm of life under occupation. Even though there were millions of other people going through the same thing all around him, Usama feels alone because no one seems to share his liberating views.
I think this plot line runs a distinct parallel to Khalifeh's life because she was definitely a rebel. In the article I found, she talks about trying to break free of her parents. Her six sisters were just as repressed as Sahar was, but none of them were rebellious like she was. She was constantly surrounded by her sisters who were going through the same injustices, but she was the only one who was trying to do something about the way her parents were treating her.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
a hand in the grave
I read "A Hand in the Grave," a story about two young men who attempt to rob a grave in order to get a body to use in their medical class. The story is told in the first person by Nabil, who was told by someone in his class that he needed to bring a corpse for them to study. Nabil and his friend Suhail need seventy-five lire to buy a corpse, and neither has that kind of money. So they set out for a graveyard very early in the morning with the intent of digging up a body to bring to their class.
Nabil's father tries to make him feel guilty for what he is about to do by saying that he is a "Godless sinner" and that he must never have read the Koran. Suhail also shows some doubts, and as they walk to the grave, the two men are terrified. Neither wants to admit that they are scared, so they continue on. When they finally get to the graveyard, the full reality of what they're about to do hits them and they are more hesitant than ever. But Nabil eventually begins digging up a body.
When they get to the casket, Nabil tries to reach his hand in to make sure the body is in there before they continue on. His arm is too big, so Suhail gives it a try. Suddenly, Suhail wrenches his arm out of the grave, screaming with fright. After several minutes of screaming, Suhail finally says:
"My fingers! My fingers! I stuck them in its eyes!"
I was trembling, but more out of fear of Suhail than anything else. I gripped him
by the shoulders and shook him fiercely, shouting:
"You idiot! This is an old grave... it's more than 50 years old!"
He gave me a stupid look; clearly he had not heard me. He started repeating:
"His eyes... I stuck my fingers in his eyes!" (75)
The story goes on to tell us that Suhail was kicked out of the medical faculty, and that it was actually NOT necessary that the first year medical students acquire a skeleton - these men simply wanted to feel like a part of the group. At the very end of the story, Nabil discovers after seven years that the graveyard they were attempting to rob from was actually not even a real graveyard. Therefore there weren't even any corpses in it, and Suhail never did stick his fingers in one's eyeballs.
The main theme of this story, in my opinion, has to do with guilt. These two men feel very guilty for what they have done, and because of it, Suhail imagines that he has done something very disgusting. The whole time the two me were walking to the graveyard, Suhail was probably imagining what could be the worst possible thing that could happen. He was so disgusted with himself and what he was doing, he fabricated a story in his mind. The two couldn't see what was in the grave; they had no way of knowing that that was actually an eyeball that Suhail stuck his finger in. However, they let their guilty consciouses get the best of them and they assumed something terrible had happened.
I think that the moral of this story is something like that of Poe's "Tell-Tale Heart." Guilt will get the best of any man - in this case, it was enough to fabricate an entire story that cost Suhail his job. You will not get away with committing a crime as terrible as grave robbing, because even if you don't get caught, your guilty conscious will get the best of you.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Men in the sun
One of the first things I noticed about Men in the Sun is that it written by a Middle Easterner. I could tell this, not only from Ghassan Kanafani's name, but also from the way the story was written. The stories we have read thus far, for the most part, are written about Middle Easterners from the perspective of Westerners. These stories, including Othello and the Canterbury Tales, are therefore very biased and prejudiced. Men in the Sun, however, is told from the perspective of a Palestinian man in 20th century, making this story different from what we have read so far for two reasons. This is the first time we are looking to more modern times to see what exactly is going on in the Middle East.
Now I have to say that as I read Men in the Sun, I was constantly confused. We were warned that the names would be confusing to keep up with, but I was also completely lost several times because Kanafani kept switching back and forth between present time and things that happened in the past. I was definitely not a fan of his writing style.
One part of Men in the Sun that stood out to me in particular was in the chapter entitled "Assad". On page 21, the wife is driving with the husband (I'm pretty sure it doesn't say their names), and she sees what she thinks is a fox. The husband tells her it is a rat, but the wife insists:
"...This desert is full of rats. What on earth do they eat?"
He answered quietly:
"Rats smaller than them."
"Really?" said the girl. "It's frightening. Rats themselves are horrible, frightening animals."
The fat man who owned the office said:
"Rats are horrible animals..."
A little while later, at the end of the chapter on page 22, the wife says again:
"But take care the rats don't eat you before you set out."
It is very clear to me that the "rats" are actually a metaphor for mankind. The world in which these people are living is a "do-or-die" type of environment. they must do whatever it takes to survive. It is every man for himself. If someone is smaller or weaker than yourself, there is a chance that you will prevail and they won't, simple enough.
I think this whole section of the story was hugely important. It set the stage for the rest of the story, setting up the "weakest link" type of picture we get throughout the rest of the story.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
the Koran
So after reading "Maryam" in the Koran, I have to admit I am still completely lost. I really was confused by the whole story. I felt like some of it would have been at least a little bit comprehensible if I had some sort of religious background (ANY religious background), but I am virtually clueless when it comes to religion. I grew up Catholic, and by Catholic, I mean that we went to church... hardly ever. I was baptized and Confirmed, but I'm pretty sure my parents only had my sisters and I do that so that my Grandmother didn't disown us. I can honestly say that while I have read some of the bible, I do not know any of the stories. However, as I read "Maryam", I had a few light bulbs go on telling me that the information was familiar.
I know that the Koran and the Bible are not the same, but I did pick up on some similarities. The whole story of Maryam ("Mary"?) was obviously familiar to me. The "barren" wife and the older husband were given a child, even when they thought they would never have one.
Many people are of the belief that Christians and Muslims share nothing in common, when quiet the opposite is actually true. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all stem from the same core beliefs. I always knew that, but I still found myself slightly surprised when I was reading "Maryam". Another light bulb went on to signal to me the connection between Christianity and Islam when I read the section about not believing in Allah to be the biggest sin.
SHAKIR: And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.
SHAKIR: But parties from among them disagreed with each other, so woe to those who disbelieve, because of presence on a great Judgment Day!
SHAKIR: How clearly shall they hear and how clearly shall they see on the day when they come to Us; but the unjust this day are in manifest error.
SHAKIR: And warn them of the day of intense regret, when the matter shall have been decided; and they are (now) in negligence and they do not believe.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Poetry
| 20 | And this reviving Herb whose tender Green |
| Fledges the River-Lip on which we lean-- | |
| Ah, lean upon it lightly! for who knows | |
| From what once lovely Lip it springs unseen! |
After analyzing this poem I realized it could have several different underlying meanings. I decided, though, that in my opinion it is referring to independence. The Green River Lip is supposed to mean the other people in our life whom we lean on for help. I think the poem is saying that we can never fully trust anyone or anything because it could all fall out from under you. You should never lean on someone for help without being aware that they could turn on you. People can change, and someone who you once thought was kind and helpful might end up being something completely different than your first impressions.
My attempt at Rubaiyat-style poetry:
Keep my eyes up, for the finish I yearn
My lungs and my legs, oh how they burn.
So much pain, this I cannot escape
Four hundred meters, just one more turn.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Paper 1-- the treatment of women throughout Middle-Eastern Literature
For my paper, I chose to write about the treatment of women throughout the pieces of literature we have read thus far. I chose to focus more specifically on the works of Othello, Canterbury Tales, and one of the 1001 Nights stories, The Husband and the Parrot.
When writing my paper, I wasn't as focused on the mistreatment of women as I was on their treatment overall. Some stories, such as the Canterbury Tales, had examples of both the mistreatment and the positive treatment of women. I thought it was definitely interesting to examine the different ways women were viewed throughout these classic works.
While I was able to find a few examples of women being viewed in a positive light, for the most part, the women in these works were definitely treated very poorly. After comparing the different works we read for class, and looked at the common characteristics they shared, I went on to discuss the implications that these works may have had on modern times. Middle Eastern women are typically not treated with the utmost respect nowadays, and I am without a doubt that this is a direct effect of the way women were viewed in the past.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
the story of the husband and the parrot
*For one of my stories, I chose to read "The Story of the Husband and the Parrot". This was the seventh story in the 1001 Nights, and it was slightly disturbing, to say the least. The first paragraph caught my attention immediately by cluing me in on the sexist (and, according to today's standards, politically incorrect) undertones of the story ahead:
THERE was a certain merchant, of an exceedingly jealous disposition, having a wife endowed with perfect beauty, who had prevented him from leaving his home; but an event happened which obliged him to make a journey; and when he found his doing so to be indispensable, he went to the market in which birds were sold, and bought a parrot, which he placed in his house to act as a spy, that, on his return, she might inform him of what passed during his absence; for this parrot was cunning and intelligent, and remembered whatever she heard.
First of all, the mere fact that a man could be so untrusting of his wife annoys me. He couldn't trust her merely because she was beautiful? Her beauty was enough to make him sure that she would cheat on him? Apparently ugly women aren't capable of committing adultery, so I don't understand why men even bother marrying beautiful women. They obviously can't be trusted. From as far as I can tell, the wife had never done anything to make the husband so suspicious, he is merely described as being "jealous". However, the husband buys a talking parrot to spy on his wife when the time came that he had no choice but to leave her for a couple of days. Basically the husband ends up killing his wife and the bird because of his anger and jealousy. In the end, he is all alone.
The storyline of the parrot was slightly familiar to me, and I'm sure it was to most of the class. It made me think of the Disney movie Aladdin, because there is a parrot in that movie who is used to spy on others. Jafar uses his parrot (named Iago, I'm not sure if it has anything to do with Othello) to get information about the Sultan and Aladdin. Similarly, Jafar's plan ends up backfiring, and of course, the good guys prevail.
*If you can't read the caption to this picture, it says "The husband asking the parrot about his wife's behavior"
Monday, September 17, 2007
the iraq war article and video
After having read the scholarly article on the Iraq War and watched the video, I have to say that I am not even slightly surprised by them. I think it has been pretty obvious over these past couple of years that President Bush is out numbered in his views on the U.S. pulling out of Iraq. When someone only has something like a 25% approval rating, that's their hint that maybe they should start listening to what other people have to say. President Bush keeps insisting that us leaving Iraq would put the world in a "catastrophic situation". However, I fully agree with Bob Herbert, author of "Nightmare is Here", who insists that it's too late; the situation already is catastrophic.
While I did attempt to watch the video you sent us, it had a very difficult time loading. It would play about 10-20 seconds, then get stuck and pause for about a minute and then play 10-20 seconds again. For that reason, I only watched about the first five minutes of the video. But that was enough for me to hear the comment (more or less) "In fact, as with other Bush Administration policy decisions in Iraq, the decision to disband the Iraqi army was made by a group of men virtually unexperienced in any militia decisions."
While I did agree with the article, I have a feeling that the video was just a little too left wing for me. I am without a doubt a democrat, but I think that it is just poor judgment and naivety to think that the Bush Administration has no militia experience. President Bush himself served in the military, and I'm sure many other members of the Bush Administration did as well.
As far as the article goes, though, I can say that it did not surprise me at all. I have mentioned previously that I do not know a lot about the struggle in the Middle East, so basically everything I read and see are news to me. According to Bob Herbert, the government has been virtually lying about the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. Once again, although this is news to me, it is not at all surprising news. President Bush is not getting anywhere near the approval that a president should be getting. It is therefore not at all surprising that he would try to avoid the fact that the majority of the nation is against him by insisting that he is right in his decision to stay in Iraq. It's bad enough that most of the country thinks that we shouldn't even be in Iraq, not to mention the fact that we have cause way more deaths over there than the general public is told to believe. Why wouldn't the government try to cover up or lower the number of Iraqi civilian casualties? It's basically the only hope President Bush is clinging to that he will end his presidency on a good note. Maybe, if the American public can't be swayed on their wanting to leave Iraq, they can at least not think of our government as a murderous villain.
While I did attempt to watch the video you sent us, it had a very difficult time loading. It would play about 10-20 seconds, then get stuck and pause for about a minute and then play 10-20 seconds again. For that reason, I only watched about the first five minutes of the video. But that was enough for me to hear the comment (more or less) "In fact, as with other Bush Administration policy decisions in Iraq, the decision to disband the Iraqi army was made by a group of men virtually unexperienced in any militia decisions."
While I did agree with the article, I have a feeling that the video was just a little too left wing for me. I am without a doubt a democrat, but I think that it is just poor judgment and naivety to think that the Bush Administration has no militia experience. President Bush himself served in the military, and I'm sure many other members of the Bush Administration did as well.
As far as the article goes, though, I can say that it did not surprise me at all. I have mentioned previously that I do not know a lot about the struggle in the Middle East, so basically everything I read and see are news to me. According to Bob Herbert, the government has been virtually lying about the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. Once again, although this is news to me, it is not at all surprising news. President Bush is not getting anywhere near the approval that a president should be getting. It is therefore not at all surprising that he would try to avoid the fact that the majority of the nation is against him by insisting that he is right in his decision to stay in Iraq. It's bad enough that most of the country thinks that we shouldn't even be in Iraq, not to mention the fact that we have cause way more deaths over there than the general public is told to believe. Why wouldn't the government try to cover up or lower the number of Iraqi civilian casualties? It's basically the only hope President Bush is clinging to that he will end his presidency on a good note. Maybe, if the American public can't be swayed on their wanting to leave Iraq, they can at least not think of our government as a murderous villain.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Othello - racial slurs and stereotypes
Act one, scene one of Othello surprised me with some immediate racial slurs and stereotypes. I might not have picked up on as many of these that I did if I hadn't been reading from the Sparknotes website I mentioned in the previous post (while I did try reading the original version, I kept finding myself getting distracted by the translation which read through much faster).
Iago shows some true disrespect for the Othello when he goes to Brabantio to report that he was sleeping with (and secretly married to) his daughter, Desdemona. He refers to Othello, the Moor, as a "Barbary (African) horse" and goes on to say that he will have black, neighing grandchildren if he doesn't get a handle on his daughter. Earlier in the scene, he calls him "Thick Lips," which is clearly a racial slur.
The point I'm trying to make about all of this is that I'm surprised by how this kind of talk was apparently acceptable during Shakespeare's time. I'm sure it was the politically-correct, suburban atmosphere that I grew up in that taught me that it is not acceptable to refer to people in such a way. I guess it is naive of me to think that everyone has always been this way.
I also still can't help but be surprised that, even hundreds of years later, we are still dealing with biracial relationship issues. Wouldn't you think that we would have gotten over this obstacle by now? Seeing Shakespeare write about the types of social problems that we still deal with today really makes me wonder how we can be so slow in accepting the differences amongst the human race. We have made a lot of progress, but seeing the same problems displayed in Shakespearian times really demonstrates the slow rate at which the society of a human race can move when developing acceptance.
In the second scene of Act Two, there is a part that made me directly think of Hollywood nowadays. From lines 64 to 83, Barbantio is on a rant about how Othello needs to be arrested for black magic. How else could a Moor sway his innocent, law-abiding Italian daughter to marry him? This part is definitely straight out of a Hollywood film, where the daughter is told that she simply can't be with the man she loves becauase he is of a different race. In the movie Cruel Intentions, Cecile (a white girl) is told that she can't be with her cello instructor, Ronald simply because he is black. I can't even begin to name off all the movies or television shows out of Hollywood that tackle the race subject. Barbantino is so unwilling to accept the love between his daughter and Othello that he assumes there must be some sort of evil magic being used. Similarly, in Cruel Intentions, Cecile's mother accuses Ronald of acting on a bet instead of simply wanting to be with her daughter.
Iago shows some true disrespect for the Othello when he goes to Brabantio to report that he was sleeping with (and secretly married to) his daughter, Desdemona. He refers to Othello, the Moor, as a "Barbary (African) horse" and goes on to say that he will have black, neighing grandchildren if he doesn't get a handle on his daughter. Earlier in the scene, he calls him "Thick Lips," which is clearly a racial slur.
The point I'm trying to make about all of this is that I'm surprised by how this kind of talk was apparently acceptable during Shakespeare's time. I'm sure it was the politically-correct, suburban atmosphere that I grew up in that taught me that it is not acceptable to refer to people in such a way. I guess it is naive of me to think that everyone has always been this way.
I also still can't help but be surprised that, even hundreds of years later, we are still dealing with biracial relationship issues. Wouldn't you think that we would have gotten over this obstacle by now? Seeing Shakespeare write about the types of social problems that we still deal with today really makes me wonder how we can be so slow in accepting the differences amongst the human race. We have made a lot of progress, but seeing the same problems displayed in Shakespearian times really demonstrates the slow rate at which the society of a human race can move when developing acceptance.
In the second scene of Act Two, there is a part that made me directly think of Hollywood nowadays. From lines 64 to 83, Barbantio is on a rant about how Othello needs to be arrested for black magic. How else could a Moor sway his innocent, law-abiding Italian daughter to marry him? This part is definitely straight out of a Hollywood film, where the daughter is told that she simply can't be with the man she loves becauase he is of a different race. In the movie Cruel Intentions, Cecile (a white girl) is told that she can't be with her cello instructor, Ronald simply because he is black. I can't even begin to name off all the movies or television shows out of Hollywood that tackle the race subject. Barbantino is so unwilling to accept the love between his daughter and Othello that he assumes there must be some sort of evil magic being used. Similarly, in Cruel Intentions, Cecile's mother accuses Ronald of acting on a bet instead of simply wanting to be with her daughter.
othello website
So i read the first three acts of Othello, but I wanted to find a side-by-side translation. I found that Sparknotes had a very helpful one http://nfs.sparknotes.com/othello/page_92.epl
Sunday, September 9, 2007
canterbury tales
I have just finished reading Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and I have to say that the aspect of this story that struck me most was from approximately lines 139 to 160. Constance is about to be taken away and forced to marry a man against her will when she says:
"I, wretched woman, thought I die, 'tis nil.
Women are born to slave and to repent,
And to be subject to man's government."
These lines are basically saying that if a man were to die, someone might notice. But because of the fact that she is a woman, her life is virtually out of her control. Whether she wants to do something or not, it makes no difference. She is under the complete control of the men in her life and what they want her to do.
I'm fairly sure that one main reason that I picked up on this was that I am taking a Women's Studies class this semester. I had just finished my homework for that class before beginning the reading for this class, and I definitely had feminism on my mind.
So, after reading that section, I continued on with the story, expecting to see more examples of women being held at the mercy of men. However, when I got to around lines 196-236, I was slightly surprised. The Sultan's mother is speaking throughout most of these lines. She has the full attention of all of her council (mostly men, I'm assuming), and makes them vow to follow her. She is very upset with the fact that her son is marrying a Christian and says that if they choose to follow her (instead of her son), they will be saved. To my surprise, these men actually agree with her and follow her lead in trying to sabotage the marriage.
After giving it some thought, I realized the reason I was most surprised by the two contrasting ways in which women were treated. When we look to the Middle East today, we see women completely covered from head to toe. These women are mistreated and given limited rights day in, day out. It is therefore common for Americans to assume that since this is how the women there are treated now that this is the way it has always been. On the other hand, America (a predominately Christian nation), provides women with virtually all of the same rights as men.
Given my preconseptions dealing with how women are treated today, I was surprised to see the roles switched in Canterbury Tales. Constance, a Christian woman, was actually the one being persucuted. The Sultan's mother had the full attention of the male council and was actually had orders being followed by them.
I definitely found the power (or lack thereof) that women had hundreds of year ago to be very interesting. Where and when did this shift in power take place? Why are women presently regarded as a lower life-form in the Middle East? I'm sure that if my knowledge of Middle Eastern culture was better, I would know the answer to these questions. However, I am ashamed to admit that I know virtually NOTHING about the present situation over there, let alone the history of how it came to be. I am therefore looking forward to this class and all I might learn from it. As we move through history, I have no doubt that all of my questions will be answered.
"I, wretched woman, thought I die, 'tis nil.
Women are born to slave and to repent,
And to be subject to man's government."
These lines are basically saying that if a man were to die, someone might notice. But because of the fact that she is a woman, her life is virtually out of her control. Whether she wants to do something or not, it makes no difference. She is under the complete control of the men in her life and what they want her to do.
I'm fairly sure that one main reason that I picked up on this was that I am taking a Women's Studies class this semester. I had just finished my homework for that class before beginning the reading for this class, and I definitely had feminism on my mind.
So, after reading that section, I continued on with the story, expecting to see more examples of women being held at the mercy of men. However, when I got to around lines 196-236, I was slightly surprised. The Sultan's mother is speaking throughout most of these lines. She has the full attention of all of her council (mostly men, I'm assuming), and makes them vow to follow her. She is very upset with the fact that her son is marrying a Christian and says that if they choose to follow her (instead of her son), they will be saved. To my surprise, these men actually agree with her and follow her lead in trying to sabotage the marriage.
After giving it some thought, I realized the reason I was most surprised by the two contrasting ways in which women were treated. When we look to the Middle East today, we see women completely covered from head to toe. These women are mistreated and given limited rights day in, day out. It is therefore common for Americans to assume that since this is how the women there are treated now that this is the way it has always been. On the other hand, America (a predominately Christian nation), provides women with virtually all of the same rights as men.
Given my preconseptions dealing with how women are treated today, I was surprised to see the roles switched in Canterbury Tales. Constance, a Christian woman, was actually the one being persucuted. The Sultan's mother had the full attention of the male council and was actually had orders being followed by them.
I definitely found the power (or lack thereof) that women had hundreds of year ago to be very interesting. Where and when did this shift in power take place? Why are women presently regarded as a lower life-form in the Middle East? I'm sure that if my knowledge of Middle Eastern culture was better, I would know the answer to these questions. However, I am ashamed to admit that I know virtually NOTHING about the present situation over there, let alone the history of how it came to be. I am therefore looking forward to this class and all I might learn from it. As we move through history, I have no doubt that all of my questions will be answered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
