As I was following the ridiculousness that is the film called Fitna, I thought to myself that a perfect response to Widlers’s naive cut-and-paste strategy would be to turn it around and make a similar film about the Bible and instances of violence perpetrated by some Christians. The purpose, of course, would not be to argue that the Bible promotes violence, but to reveal the fallacy of Wilders’s shallow cause-and-effect analysis. Even as I wished I had the time and ability to make such a film, I decided that there were certainly many others out there who’d think similarly.
And so I was pleased to discover Schism (click to watch!), through an article on Slate about Saudi blogger Raed al-Saeed who made this film in response to Fitna. Raed is mature enough to not merely retort against Wilders, but to undermine his project itself by applying the same strategy to different content matter. How is it possible, I wonder, that a young Saudi blogger is more sensible than a Dutch parliamentarian? So much for enlightened Europe! (Turns out, by the way, that there was another video response to Fitna, a short film called Almouftinoun.)
Of course, I don’t think the question of religion and violence and causal relationships between the two, if any, are settled. I have actually been planning a series of posts to address this, as I’ve come across a number of interesting readings on the topic. There’s a lot to think about here!
Filed under: Política
Couldn’t help but note Henry Siegman’s op-ed in this week’s Nation. Refreshing to read some sensible commentary in place of the tired old expressions of support for Israel. Siegman, former executive director of American Jewish Congress, escaped WWII as a child and says that his experience helps him identify with the sufferings of Palestinians (here’s a Chris Hedges profile of Siegman). He now writes why things won’t change no matter how many more “peace conferences” they organize in Berlin or wherever:
Given the overwhelming disproportion of power between the occupier and the occupied, it is hardly surprising that Israeli governments and their military and security establishments found it difficult to resist the acquisition of Palestinian land. What is astounding is that the international community, pretending to believe Israel’s claim that it is the victim and its occupied subjects the aggressors, has allowed this devastating dispossession to continue and the law of the jungle to prevail.As long as Israel knows that by delaying the peace process it buys time to create facts on the ground, and that the international community will continue to indulge Israel’s pretense that its desire for a two-state solution is being frustrated by the Palestinians, no new peace initiative can succeed, and the dispossession of the Palestinian people will indeed become irreversible.
The full piece requires subscription access, but e-mail me if you want to read and I can forward a copy.
The senior project of an art major at Yale has waged a storm of controversy across the nation. Chances are, you too (will) find it pretty shocking and/or disgusting. Surprisingly, I didn’t–but we can discuss that later.
For now, I thought I’d offer my take on the Shvarts affair. Firstly, if you aren’t yet aware of the “facts” or details, here’s the YDN article that made the story public three days ago: “For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse.” A follow-up article reports the University’s official statement on the matter, claiming that Aliza Shvarts did not actually do all that stuff. The next day, Shvarts responded with an explanation, reasserting that she did do it. The YDN reported further that the University claims that Shvarts told them she would deny it if the University made her “confession” public. But Shvarts claims that the University is lying to save its reputation.
There’s a reason why I’m making this a he-said she-said story, rather than going into the graphic details (which you can learn anyway from the internet: including any of 400+ news items or 1,900+ blog posts!). I think the key issue here is epistemological: how/do we know whether she did or did not do the inseminations/abortions she claims she did. More importantly, does that even matter? I don’t think so. (more…)
For a nerd like me, a nerd-celebrity like Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak inspires the kind of hysteria that many people would experience when having a chance to meet, say, Angelina Jolie.
Well, last Thursday I got to see Spivak at Harvard Divnity School, where she was the speaker for this year’s William James Lecture on Religious Experience. Contrary to expectation, I did understand at least half of what she was saying. Also contrary to rumors that I’ve heard from no less than two different friends, she does not at all match the profile of a stereotypical fierce Bengali woman. I think she’s really quite adorable. In fact, aspiring academics should collectively recognize her as our goddess (even as I realize that she would probably detest that).
Her talk, titled “Imagination, Not Culture: A Singular Example,” was a Spivakesque take on the 19th century Bengali religious figure, the Holy Mother Sri Sarada Devi, whom Spivak deliberately chose to refer using her non-devotional name, Saradamani. (more…)
That, is the title of a recent article on Wilders’s overly hyped film by Bengali-American lawyer Moushumi Khan, who draws attention to the dialectics of Islamist extremism and Islamophobia:
Watching the entire 15 minutes exposes an uncanny similarity between Wilders’ inflammatory rhetoric and that of fiery preachers caught on tape. Each mirrors the other’s intolerance and blanket censure. Neither leaves room for dialogue or debate. Each assumes the sanctity of their message and shares tactics of incitement with the other. Wilders is as reactionary as those he condemns. (“Geert Gone Wild,” Common Ground News Service)
Khan argues that if the real issue is Muslim immigrants in Europe, as Wilders himself insists, then the problem is not their religion per se. “The more Muslims assert their rights of citizenship, the more the boundaries of European liberalism are tested.” (more…)
Filed under: Cinemático
Several weeks ago, I got to see The Syrian Bride again at a screening at MIT on the occasion of International Women’s Day. I realized that I didn’t blog about the movie when I first got it through Netflix nearly two years ago, but it’s an utterly remarkable movie that deserves mention here–if only to ask people to see it, if you haven’t already. The story is set entirely on the wedding day of Mona the bride, who nonetheless plays a relatively smaller role in the film. The rightful protagonist is the elder sister Amal, played by the preeminent Hiam Abbas–who many of you will recognize from Paradise Now. In fact, much of the cast should be familiar if you’ve seen a handful of Israeli/Palestinian movies. While I think the strongest message of the film is in its critique of the nation-state system and the modern bureaucracy, it offers a rich portrait of this Druze family that simultaneously explores big and complex questions of religion, culture, and politics. The theme of gender emerges as cutting across all of these. With a great balance between serious drama and a memorable sense of humor, the film affects in mutiple and uncertain ways, even as the remarkably powerful ending leaves you in helpless melancholy.
