Tabitha.B

Blog Feedback

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:40:48 -0500

Immediately I noticed that a lot of us commented on the same news and were interested in the same readings – Al Jazeera, Dubai, and Sami Yusuf were key blog stories. A lot of us, myself included, were happy to take this class for the mere reason that we were so unknowledgeable before. We have all learned that the problems we are facing now have much to do with history. We all challenge the ideas of modernity in terms of exactly where the Middle East stands – it is not as “backwards” as the West perceives it to be. Another huge news story that was commented on was the Mumbai attacks. Again, I know I felt betrayed when it happened, and I was interested to know how everyone else felt or what everyone else did. We analyzed the media with such scrutiny, on how they reported the Mumbai attacks, and none of us were surprised by what the Western media had to say.
I also noticed our nearly-anti-Western sentiment. So many of our friends didn’t know what Al Jazeera was (I was surprised by this too, I had friends who had never heard of it), We also criticize the history we’ve learned (or not learned, if you will), and have begun to see ourselves a little differently. I think that’s important for us to know… so many of us are young and jaded, it’s good to be grounded with what’s really happening in the larger world around us.
The bulk of us related our personal stories well with the works read in class – surprising how themes of Western dominance and demonizing our enemies is so common in our everyday lives. A huge change from the start of all the blogs to the finish is our perspective. We mainly started with confusion, and as time went on, we began to understand and think for ourselves, using what we saw in the news and what we were reading in class. It was also great to see what people were thinking – I know I speak for myself but probably for others; it’s incredibly daunting to speak up in a class when you feel like you are just 50% sure of what you’re saying. It’s even more daunting to come off racist or orientalist, so it was just easier to keep our mouths shut and write about stuff on our blogs.
I also think it’s funny how much we’ve changed. A lot of the blogs had a final thoughts section and reading them over, it’s just so obvious that we’ve learned so much about our world that we have no choice BUT to think differently. I know I feel like like I’ve completely changed my views on some issues, and I’m glad others feel the same. For instance, my views on Israel and Palestine: I used to be so pro-Israel, and now I’m just not so sure. I want to say I’m pro-Palestine, but it will be difficult for them to be their own country without Israel. Everything is much more complicated, and now that we’ve all learned that much more about our world, we can acknowledge the complications yet form our own opinions.
In the end, I think it’s safe to say that we all generally feel the same – we are ever more wary of the Western media, and we’ve all realized that, although there are many problems in the Middle East, we are in fact all meshing together in a globalized world of modernity.

Report on Arab Television

Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:13:05 -0500

Download file

New York City...

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:26:22 -0500

So not only were there al-Qaeda attacks in Afghanistan and Mumbai, but also threats in New York City. Today I had to go see my family in Chinatown for Thanksgiving, and I actually asked my parents to pick me up because I was frightened of the subway system.

What's ironic is, because of this class, I've had a new empathy for the "Middle East." Yes, al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but I've made so much progress in my thinking that I made some assumption that others thought so too. I've learned so much about Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, North Africans that I just assumed the rest of the world thinks the way I do. With my new found empathy and knowledge, I felt like everything was going fine, that America would learn and solve its problems. Plus with the new president elect, I thought we gained some credibility worldwide. And reading articles by others saying that we're not all that different... I don't know.. my worldview changed.

Nowadays, I've learned so much that I can almost carry a long-winded conversation. Actually, ironically enough, my roommate, as I think I've mentioned before, is Algerian, and she and I are so comfortable with race in general, that I crack jokes on how she's Arab/Muslim/Iraqi all the time. And she in turn calls me a communist/Confucius. The other day, she asked if I could make her some chicken lo mein, and I told her I couldn't give her food unless she gave me oil. Not that racist jokes are funny, but I think we've reached a level of comfort and understanding, where things that are considered "taboo" are okay with us. I wish the rest of America didn't problematize the Middle East/North Africa.

But with the new news and my new fear of the subway, I wonder how much has really changed. I'm scared. I felt almost betrayed when I read about Mumbai and Afghanistan. Here, in my mind, I thought there was progress, since I was so fortunate to read both sides of our conflict. But I felt like I was reading Bernie Lewis all over again.

I still believe that there is a clash, but not between two worlds or between two cultures with indelible differences. I hope that in my lifetime, I can see some change. I guess all I can say is I hope that the change Obama promises will include relations with the Middle East. We're really not that different.

Afghanistan...

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:03:07 -0500

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-AS-Afghanistan.html?_r=1&hp

Again, too heavy for me to delve into but definitely by the end of this weekend. Is this a coincidence?

India...

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:27:21 -0500

I took a long nap today, from 7:30 until about 15 minutes ago. I go to check my mail, and this is what I see:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081127/ap_on_re_as/as_india_shooting;_ylt=AkkbvbOhs8EczeT5iZENeoms0NUE

I'm so... in shock right now that I can't comment on it. But I will by the end of this weekend. Wow.

Iron Man

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:38:16 -0500

I've really never been into comics and stuff (except for like the stuff we've read in this class hah) and I remember this summer, before I was into learning about our Muslim counterparts, I saw the movie and was not phased by it. I was temping at some event, and this woman was talking about it and I told her it was SUUUUUCH A GOOD MOVIE. And she gave me this look. She said that she couldn't handle it because it was about Afghanistan.

With Iron Man, what I found funny was that yeah, it IS about Afghanistan, but the main bad guy isn't the Afghanis, but it's Jeff Bridges. I'm not sure what I'm trying to delineate here.. but I think my general idea is that in the end, the white guy is still the superior bad guy. Not that I'm okay with Afghanis being depicted as the terrorists... but I think the relationship of the west and the Middle East is seen. I mean, of course the white guy is more bad, since we have more power. It's annoying.

TV, Identity, and Women

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:07:50 -0500

I think the power of media is greatly shown through how we watch TV. At Monday's class, Helga mentioned that since commercialism is still in its incubating stage, people haven't used products to define who they are. Identity hasn't been established through watching TV - yet - in the Muslim world. Identity and TV is a funny thing to me - I remember in Media & Identity (Stacy Rosenberg's class), if a certain kind of person isn't represented in the media, one starts to question him or herself. I can't say it's positive or negative, but I think it's funny that we need a TV representation to establish who we are, what we want, who we want to be, etc.

I think that's why women on TV is such a big deal. Until satellite TV and new technology, women were greatly underrepresented. And now they're on TV, on talk shows like "The View," and some men think it's anti-Islam. That makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps portrayals of men on TV in the Islamic world are so strong that women are overshadowed, but clearly there are Muslim women who have opinions and jobs... and these women need to be on TV to show other Muslim women, whether they are in burqahs or hijjabs, that they exist. That they exist regardless of what they wear.

Just an afterthought - I know I left class early, so I'm not sure where the conversation went, but I do remember this summer's Media & Globalization with Ted Magder... we found out that in Europe, there are barely any women in the TV production side. I don't know if this is "backwards" or just DIFFERENT, but even content in Europe is different. I was surprised to hear that there were cooking shows and perhaps like a Food Network in cable TV in the Middle East only because the Dutch kids said that nothing like that existed in the Netherlands. I wonder why that is... Perhaps technology is a field that we take so much for granted. Perhaps we take it so much for granted that we, the West, think we're so ahead... and perhaps others are recognizing it to its full potential and using it in those ways...

Amr Khaled

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:54:53 -0500

Amr Khaled proves that globalization is a two-way street, even though I learned that it was last year. In Morocco, when I went last year, the phones there were SO HOT. My friends and I took a train to Fes and we shared this cart with a buncha kids, and one of the kids had the coolest Nokia phone that played MP3s. That doesn't sound like a big deal now, but I remember it being pretty new last year in the US, and this was in March 2007. His phone was way hotter than mine, and he kept playing "Everytime We Touch" by Cascada. I mean I guess we can argue that it's globalization both ways, since Nokia is western (based in Finland), but it did reach Morocco before it reached the US, and I was impressed.

With Amr Khaled, on the other hand, it is the fact that he is not only shown in the Muslim world, but also shown through to Muslims in other places. His rhetoric, I'm sure, rings true not just for Islam, but for a better way of life. The fact that he focuses on poverty, health, and unemployment.. I mean, these three entities are social issues, not Islamic ones. I think he can be understood widespread because his ideas are translatable everywhere in the world. Every country has poverty, health, and unemployment - even as "great" a country as the US is.

As to why I'm curious about his televangelical evolution... this summer I had a conversation with one of my friends, Steve. He's a devout Christian. He told me about this Korean motivational speaker (who I can't remember - I'll have to facebook him for his name) who used to be a drug dealer. I'm gonna call him Joe. Apparently, Joe's friend was gonna do a deal with someone so they could deal them... and when his friend got the weed, he was gonna throw it to Joe and Joe would run, so that they wouldn't have to pay for it. SOOOO Joe had a really bad feeling about this. He said that when the drug transaction happened, he was there, and he was scared. So he prayed for the first time. And when his friend went to throw it at him, Joe felt someone pulling him along, and his friend looked right through him, as if he weren't there... and the only way he could explain it was through God. So... I wonder what inspired Amr. Maybe that would legitimize his authenticity to those skeptical religious scholars.

Reactions...

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:40:05 -0500

This morning in my Modes of Listening class, Martin Scherzinger invited Martin Daughtry to talk about listening and how it has changed for soldiers and civilians alike in Iraq. Though he focused on listening, there were a couple of things that I felt I wanted to post on this blog, since it's somewhat relevant.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/03/22/sot.ban.ki.moon.mortar.affl?iref=videosearch
In case that link doesn't work (which it didn't for me a couple of times):

What happens in this video is that there is a bomb blast during a press conference with Nouri al-Maliki (Iraqi Prime Minister) and Ban Ki-Moon (UN Secretary General). As they are speaking, a bomb goes off in near proximity. Ban Ki-Moon ducks, and Nouri al-Maliki doesn't even bat an eye, and he says that it's "not a problem, nothing to worry about" under his breath in Arabic. In class, Daughtry explained that it was because people who hear bombs and gun battles frequently are the ones that become numb to it. Rather than listening harder, they listen less.

I was immediately reminded of this Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations episode. Anthony Bourdain is like one of my favorite people in the world - he's a chef and a writer, raised in New Jersey (went to Dwight Englewood, my sister's high school!) and lives in New York. He has a Travel Channel show where he visits countries to eat their food and learn more about different cultures. He's great. He's in no way derogatory and is incredibly genuine in every episode. It's a great show, I watch it all the time. Anywho, he travels to Lebanon in 2006, and his first day in Beirut, he is being shown around by a Lebanese guy. They had wrapped up talking about the Civil War, and moments later, there are gunshots in the distance. Immediately, his companion's face changes - not to one of fear, but embarrassment. Here's a link to what Tony said about his time spent in Beirut: http://offthebroiler.wordpress.com/2006/07/14/no-reservations-the-shwarma-and-shrapnel-episode/
Through the course of the episode, he and the other Americans with him are hiding out in northern (?) Beirut, at a hotel. Rather than being able to see the city, they are stuck there. Days later, they take an American ship to one of the USA military bases. Tony talks about it in that link, but basically Hezbollah and Israel were having issues in Lebanon.

This reminded me of this class mostly because they are regions that we talk about, but regions that we talk about in terms of ideology. But seeing firsthand accounts, it just reminds me that this is so human and that no matter what our governments do, it does seem like nobody cares about the people. The fact that the Lebanese guy and al-Maliki show embarrassment/apathy (respectively) rather than fear is something a human does not need to go through. Ever. If I ever heard bombs or gun shots in New York City, I would probably duck and hide and never leave my house. I can't believe they are so used to living that way that it doesn't scare them that they could die. It scares me. A lot.

"Typical" Middle Easterners

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:21:11 -0500

Tabitha Basa-Ong
ILA: Islam, Media, and the West
Helga Tawil-Souri
October 29, 2008
"Typical" Middle Easterners
Until this class, most of the texts I had read were written by professors and experts, and their works are usually full of jargon and ideologies. Reading texts, from comics to blogs, opened a window where we could learn and understand from a “normal” person, living life as “we” do. The graphic novels, short story, and blog we read were manifestations of a personal experience within times of conflict and war. After reading their personal experiences, it was difficult for me to forget them: each had an effect on me, whether it was sympathy, pain, or just knowledge. I felt that these works were meant to show that Palestinians, Iranians, Iraqis, and Muslims are “just like us,” which I find problematic. “Us” assumes that there is one norm, usually the West, and that in it of itself is orientalist. Also, the majority of these texts show a clear East vs West, whether the eastern country is Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, etc. The West, because of recent events and its influence worldwide, is undoubtedly America. I do not think the texts are “clash of civilizationalist.” Each author presents a political conflict, like land or war, not innate, indelible cultural differences. Additionally, each of the authors may or may not be exceptions to what the rest of the public is like in their countries; without further research and information, I do not think we can make assumptions about entire countries just from one person’s account of it.
The orientalist influence in all of these texts were counter-displayed, except for in Arab in America. I believe that the idea of orientalism was most obvious in Arab in America, as el Rassi clearly delineates how he was constantly singled out, and in some cases berated, for being Arab: on page 16, he lights a cigarette for a guy who, at first, assumes he is Spanish, and then assumed he was a terrorist. I was actually sick to my stomach when I read this because a lot of Americans are this ignorant, and it is embarrassing. This to me was a perfect example of orientalism because the West is clearly against the East – without any proof of el Rassi being a terrorist, since he looked similar to the other Arabs on TV, the man made an assumption. Even in describing his experience at college: on page 26, he discusses how another Caucasian student who “came from wealth and privilege” wanted to organize the students again war. She assumed, because he was Arab, that he would immediately side with her, but he found her naïve. This is also orientalist because it seems like she is imposing a superiority over him with her views on war protest. El Rassi acknowledges that a war protest would not make anything easier, but since she is the Caucasian Westerner, she belittles him saying, “Man, Toufic I thought you were smarter!”
In the rest of the works, orientalism was shown through what was said and particular situations. In Persepolis, Satrapi attended a French school, then travels to Austria, both of which are of Western origins. Satrapi compares the West with Iran, and Iran seems to be portrayed as backwards: on page 116, she illustrates a scene when she tells her friends that she has already had sex. They basically call her a whore and perceive her to be a product of Western civilization, even though they wear their hair and clothes in a “western” way. Their disproval of her losing her virginity is a “backwards” way of thinking, and Satrapi clearly disagrees with their reaction. This separation of herself is orientalist because it follows the idea the Iran is so different than a Western country like Austria.
Although there is a common theme of “us” (in these cases, Islam) versus “them” (in these cases, the West), the clash of civilizations that Lewis defined is not really portrayed. Arab in America immediately defies the monolithic definition of Islam versus the West since el Rassi lives just outside of Chicago. Lewis’ clash of civilizations does not acknowledge that there are various races and nationalities within the large worlds of Islam and the West, and el Rassi is an example of an Arab who lives in America. Another example is Salam Pax’s blog. On November 2, 2002, he discusses getting visas to other countries in the Middle East. He lists Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and Syria, and gives reasons why, as an Iraqi, cannot move to such places (30). Similarly, in the Lebanon-based texts “A Happy Childhood” and “Memory for Forgetfulness,” both of these discuss a conflict between the peoples of Lebanon in Lebanon. Clearly there are clashes within the frames that Lewis defined, whether it is between Middle Eastern nations or in a nation itself. None of these texts attribute their disputes to a historical, innate difference that cannot be changed or solved. Moreover, as Said formerly discussed, each text acknowledges the humanity of such conflicts. A clash of ideas and historical differences should not excuse humans from terrorizing and killing other humans, which I feel is quite obvious in Palestine.
Although these texts opened my eyes to life in Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq, I think it is dangerous to assume that an individual experience can reflect that of an entire nation. Considering the authors of each of these texts, it is difficult to pin them as “typical” Iranians or “atypical Iraqis.” Just as there is no such thing as a “typical” American, since we are all from different places, experience different things, speak different languages, there is really no such thing as a “typical” Lebanese. Even though many of the authors might share similar experiences with other citizens of their country, I think it is too reductionist to make assumptions on an entire country. For instance, Sacco’s representations of many of the Palestinians were the ones who were in jail or have been shot. I am sure that many of them have had this happen, but Sacco was specifically looking out for the Palestinians with violent stories. We should not assume that all Palestinians have been in jailed or have been terrorized by the Shin Bet.
I do believe that it was a benefit to read such firsthand accounts from these “controversial countries.” The one main idea I extrapolated was that I felt the west was wrong. I feel like a hypocrite living in America, loving Israel, and ignoring issues in the Middle East and Iraq. The fact that such works could have such a profound effect on me is incredible. I do not think that el Rassi, Satrapi, Sacco, Darwish, Kerbaj, and Pax should make us see that they are “just like us,” but I believe that these stories should show everyone that they are human. They are people with feelings, who have funny, crazy, and sad stories, and can relate to violence and war because of situations their government (and our government) have put them in. Each have opened my eyes to a world that I never knew much about, and knowing that these were written by people who have been to/are from the countries that they are talking about just gives us a new perspective, and shows what is not being shown in our news media today.

Works Cited
El Rassi, Toufic. Arab in America. San Francisco: Last Gasp, 2007.
Pax, Salam. Salam Pax: The Clandestine Diary of an Ordinary Iraqi. New York: Grove Press, 2003.
Satrapi, Marjane. Persepolis 2: The Story of a Return. New York: Pantheon Books, 2004.

Bibliography
Darwish, Mahmoud. Memory for Forgetfulness: August, Beirut, 1982. Trans. Ibrahim Muhawi. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
Kerbaj, Mazen. “A Happy Childhood.” Words Without Borders: The Online Magazine for International Literature. 12 Oct 2008.
Sacco, Joe. Palestine: The Special Edition. China: Fantagraphics Books, 2007.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.

Hackensack

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:41:11 -0500

I've thought about it through and through and I'm trying to figure out, still, why Hackensack looks the way it does.

Without Wikipedia-ing it, Hackensack is the county seat of Bergen County, which is one of the most affluent counties in New Jersey (and in the USA?). Hackensack is actually considered a city; lots of the towns in Bergen County are like townships or villages even, but Hackensack is a full-blown city. We have a Main Street, which used to be the place to go to at the turn of the 20th century, but now there's only like a YMCA, a library, and a bunch of little delis and inexpensive boutiques. The south part of Main Street is predominantly in Spanish - there's a large Latino population in Hackensack.
There's another main road, River Road, that looks a little more industrial (it's to the east of Main Street). River Road has Target, Sears, Dunkin Donuts, a county magnet high school called Bergen County Academies, and other larger restaurants and chains. At the south side of River Road, there's the Ice House (ice skating rink) and Bowler City.
The rest of Hackensack is residential. The north side of Hackensack is all houses, medium-sized to large. We have a street called Summit Avenue which is known to have the biggest houses in Hackensack - it's the best street to go Trick-Or-Treating on. The south side of Hackensack has some houses, but has large apartment buildings, especially on a street called Prospect Avenue. Hackensack High School is also in the south side.

Now why does it look the way it does? Perhaps I've taken too many classes with cynical professors, but I think it's a class and racial issue. The higher class people live in the north, and the lower class people live in the south. At first, Hackensack was a predominantly Caucasian neighborhood, but when I was in middle school, it was clearly more African-American and Latino (I was one of like four Asians in my school). The white people tend to live in the north, and the African-Americans/Latinos tend to live in the south. Moreover, Hackensack definitely looks the way it does because of its proximity to New York City; the streets are grid-like, but the rest is still quite suburban. Upon driving through Hackensack, my 4-year-old-NYC-raised cousin pointed out, "Look - farms!" because he wasn't used to seeing actual houses.

Shia LaBeouf

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:02:51 -0500

As I am a huge Shia LaBeouf fan, it was no surprise that I went to see Eagle Eye within the first week of it being out. I had no idea what the movie was about, but I didn't care, since I love Shia.

The opening scene is a covert US mission, tracking Middle Easterners. There are children in the little kasbah area, men in headwraps, women in long dresses, the whole shebang. We see that the USA government is tracking a bunch of Middle Eastern men, thinking that one of them is the main terrorist. He looks like Osama Bin Laden.

Anyway, the computer scans his face and scans his voice to see if he's THE terrorist. His face is only a 76% match, and his voice a mere 51%. The men are actually going to a funeral. I remember seeing a funeral procession while I was in Marrakech. A large group of men carry the body, which is wrapped, in the streets. That is basically what they were doing, after they got out of their cars. So, then the secretary of defense calls the president, telling him that the computer thinks they should abort the mission (they've already violated the Geneva convention), but the president tells them to attack anyway, even though the man they THINK is the terrorist probably ISN'T the terrorist. So they bomb this guy and his friends at the funeral. They got the wrong guy.

Watching this part of the movie, I was infuriated, until I realized that this was not the type of movie that targeted Arabs. In fact, the president is the wrong one in this case. I was happy to know that, since Arabs usually equals terrorist in many American action movies. This time, they were seen as the victim. I thought that was quite interesting. Another factor of this is that the president isn't actually George W. Bush, but I think it's a huge statement on what he's done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although kind of a subplot to what's happening in the movie, the 10-minute beginning of the movie really intrigued me.

A few nights after watching Eagle Eye, I also watched Transformers. There's a part in the movie when they are in the desert of Qatar (which was really filmed in New Mexico), and a desert transformer starts attacking the military guys and the people who live in this desert village. Suddenly, all the men have machine guns and are attacking the transformer back. I found this narrow-minded and racist. I visited a few kasbahs in Morocco and I did not get the impression that everyone hid guns in their houses, like the men in Qatar did in this movie. Even though Transformers wasn't about the Middle East, that tiny detail is what keeps reinforcing the idea that the people who live there are violent.

You're Not Oriental Unless You're a Rug

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:15:12 -0500

Tabitha Basa-Ong
Islam, Media, and the West
Helga Tawil-Souri
October 8, 2008
You’re Not Oriental Unless You're a Rug
I had never heard of the term “Oriental” until I was in elementary school. Being of Chinese/Filipino/Spanish descent, I had never known that what I was was considered Oriental to others around me. As I grew up in my predominantly African American/Latino suburb, I came to realize that I was only Oriental in the eyes of someone who was not “Oriental” like me; if someone asked me what I was, my answer would never have been Oriental. Edward Said’s Orientalism describes my understanding of Orientalism in more depth. To Said, the idea of Orientalism is quite problematic. Orientalism is a European invention, a way of coming to terms with an area that is based on its ideological place in the European-Western experience (Said 1). Said’s book is actually a critique on the term Orientalism and its representation through Western eyes. Like every author or scholar who attempts to label and separate the world in which we live, there are convincing yet problematic arguments about Orientalism. Said provides general ideas and hypotheses for the tension between the East and the West, while Jack Shaheen and Toufic el Massi use modern concrete examples to prove this dichotomous relationship. Orientalism, then, is quite similar to the argument of the clash of civilizations, even though the opposing sides are not exactly Islam versus the West, but the East versus the West. It seems that the media plays a large role in supporting stereotypes, even though individuals have the agency to disagree.
Although Said never clearly delineates what he believes the Orient to be, he labels it the “East.” There is the Far East (China and Japan) and the Near East (Middle East), but his argument might have been more clear if he listed all the countries that he thought the “Orient” comprised of, not just China and Japan (Said 1). This east is inevitably opposite of the West, which he defines as mainly the British, French, and Americans, all of which were superpowers in their own time (Ibid). When I think of Oriental, I do not think of Arabs or Muslims, I think of Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, etc., as I am living 30 years after he published Orientalism. Perhaps only China and Japan were in the West’s “radar” in the 70’s, since other countries were in some other sort of turmoil.
As a child, I thought Orientals were Asians that looked like me, not the Asians that looked like Indians or Middle Easterners. Said complicates my definition of Oriental by pitting it against the West/Occidental. His main argument on Orientalism is that it is a Western construction and in using such a term, previous stereotypes and its own backwardness are acknowledged and even enforced. In the ideology of Orientalism, the East is the West’s “greatest and richest and oldest colonies,” and helps define Europe (or the West) as its “contrasting image, idea, personality, experience” (Said 1, 2). Basically, the term “Orient” implies that it is everything the West is not, and not just geographically. The term “Orient” defines the East as inherently culturally, personally, and socially opposite from the West. It also connotes a Western superiority, a Western style that is “dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” (Said 3).
As this argument is very similar to Lewis’ clash of civilizations, its strengths and weaknesses are also very similar. The Orientalism point of view includes colonialism in its ideology, which is essential to understanding why the East is viewed so differently than the West. Colonists become notorious toward the colonized, which would explain such vast differences between the East and the West. Another strength is that it becomes easy to accept a tension without giving reasons for it. Said’s argument against this idea is that we are all humans and we have the agency to act: “history is made by men and women, just as it can also be unmade and rewritten” (Said xviii). Here, my last strength of the Orientalism point of view is that it can easily be changed, since each era has different people who live during those times.
Said’s list of weaknesses is much longer than its strengths. The first that I found most important was because of former British and French imperialism, the Orient became a “pre-eminent thing… and [was not considered in] its mere being” (Said 5). The colonized states became colonized because they could have been, and they are only viewed as the Orient through Western eyes. This aspect narrows the argument of Orientalism, since the Western colonizers are considerably smaller, in number, than the others. Not many would agree that the Orient exists since many more live outside of the West. Another weakness is that the notion of Orientalism ignores countries that are not the colonizers or the colonized. For example, countries like South Africa would not be considered the East or the West. The concrete examples of weaknesses in this argument are best seen through El Rassi and Shaheen. El Rassi uses his personal experience as a frame of Orientalism: though growing up in the United States, many Americans viewed him as the enemy outsider. He brings in the use of the media and how Arabs and Muslims were horribly mis-portrayed as heartless, violent terrorists. The strength of the media was a huge theme in Shaheen’s article, where he discusses 900 movies and their negative, stereotypical portrayals of Arabs and Muslims. Movies like Rules of Engagement and True Lies dehumanize Arabs, making all of them villains (Shaheen 175-177). Americans watching the movies then feel united against the common enemy, but that is only because the audience is American. Shaheen was offended, as it can be assumed that El Rassi would have been as well. The weaknesses of the Orientalist argument clearly outweigh that of its strengths, and Said’s critique was greatly supported by El Rassi and Shaheen’s experiences and studies.
Said offers a critique on Orientalism, which I believe to be a continuation of Lewis’ clash. Because he wrote 30 years ago, he fails to recognize the major weakness of the Orientalism point of view, which is the role of media. Perhaps stereotypes would not be so strong if small groups of Western individuals felt a certain way toward Orientals, but having the media verify such stereotypes exacerbates Orientalism. The media has an inexplicable to sway an audience, and hopefully, Said’s optimism on how men and women have agency and create history, will be kept in mind for us to improve our future.

Work Cited
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.
Shaheen, Jack G. “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 588. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc: 2003.

Bibliography
El Rassi, Toufic. Arab in America. San Francisco: Last Gasp, 2007.

American Life

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:57:43 -0500

Have you even heard of the song "American Life" by Madonna? I won't lie, not a huge Madonna fan, so I hadn't heard of it. Last week, one of my make-up classes for Modes of Listening was a lecture given by someone who worked closely with Madonna at MTV. He showed us a version of "The American Life" music video, which she withdrew after the 9/11 attacks.
The video was a bunch of women dressed in army clothes, being juxtaposed with bombings in the Middle East. The women are in a runway show and two little Middle Eastern kids come out on the runway as well. At the end of the video, Madonna throws a grenade out into the audience, which is caught by "President Bush." He opens the grenade, which is actually a lighter, and lights a cigar.
The video has vivid, violent images, but we discussed how the portrayal of the Middle East is problematic. In trying to seem sympathetic, Madonna really just supports the negative stereotypes of the Middle East, as if the Middle East is all bombs and men and women in traditional clothing. The two children look quite sad and are clearly out of place - what is their purpose? Just to show that we are affecting children by bombing their homes? Perhaps.

The lyrics of the song read:
Do I have to change my name?
Will it get me far?
Should I lose some weight?
Am I gonna be a star?

I tried to be a boy, I tried to be a girl
I tried to be a mess, I tried to be the best
I guess I did it wrong, That's why I wrote this song
This type of modern life - Is it for me?
This type of modern life - Is it for free?

So I went in to a bar, looking for sympathy
A little company - I tried to find a friend
It's more easily said, it's always been the same
This type of modern life is not for me
This type of modern life is not for free

American life (American life)
I live the American dream (American dream)
You are the best thing I've seen
You are not just a dream (American life)

I tried to stay ahead, I tried to stay on top
I tried to play the part, but somehow I forgot
Just what I did it for and why I wanted more
This type of modern life - Is it for me?
This type of modern life - Is it for free?

Do I have to change my name? Will it get me far?
Should I lose some weight? Am I gonna be a star?

American life (American life)
I live the American dream (American dream)
You are the best thing I've seen
You are not just a dream (American life X2)

I tried to be a boy, tried to be a girl
tried to be a mess, tried to be the best
tried to find a friend, tried to stay ahead
I tried to stay on top ...

Do I have to change my name? Will it get me far?
Should I lose some weight? Am I gonna be a star?

I'm drinking a Soy latte,
I get a double shotte,
It goes through my body,
And you know I'm satisfied
I drive my Mini Cooper
And I'm feeling super-dooper
Yo they tell I'm a trooper
And you know I'm satisfied
I do yoga and Pilates
And the room is full of hotties
So I'm checking out the bodies
And you know I'm satisfied
I'm digging on the isotopes
This metaphysics shit is dope
And if all this can give me hope
You know I'm satisfied
I got a lawyer and a manager
An agent and a chef
Three nannies, an assistant
And a driver and a jet
A trainer and a butler
And a bodyguard or five
A gardener and a stylist
Do you think I'm satisfied?
I'd like to express my extreme point of view
I'm not Christian and I'm not a Jew
I'm just living out the American dream
And I just realised that nothing
Is what it seems

Do I have to change my name
Am I gonna be a star
Do I have to change my name

The song has not much to do with the Middle East conflict, but Madonna loves to show controversy. I am glad she pulled the video - I think it was a polite gesture.

The Lion King

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:47:31 -0500

There are a couple of things that I've wanted to comment on but wasn't coherent enough to voice it out well. This topic was so relevant though that it beats everything else. Hopefully tomorrow or Wednesday I can sit down and write about Madonna's "American Life" video.

So last night, after I finished writing the paper, I decided to watch "The Lion King" with some people on my floor. One of the people, the RA on duty, is a film major and kept nitpicking at racist points in the movie. Although the movie isn't about Islam vs the West, with Said's critique on orientalism (which I was reading as we were watching the movie), it was a funny concrete example of his text. There are huge stereotypes in the film! The hyenas are considered the low citizens and the lions are the superior. Even though this movie is in Africa, Simba is very obviously white (his voice is Matthew Broderick!!!). Another huge portrayal was that of Rafiki, who comes off as some drugged-out crazy witch voodoo doctor in monkey form. Rafiki can only be found in such a movie because he is in Africa and, hello, all older African "tribal" men are mystical and crazy like that (I hope you can sense the sarcasm in my writing..). The RA on duty voiced that the pivotal point in the film was when Mufasa tells Simba that he needs to be reminded of who he used to be - a white, superior king. At first I thought he was stretching it, but it's true. Simba hangs out with Timon and Pumbaa, who are clearly lower class. In Mufasa's speech in the clouds, he reminds Simba that he is better than them.
Thusfar, then, I agree with Said's view that orientalism is shown through western media and is so innate that it shapes our perception. Having not watched "The Lion King" since I was a child, I had no idea that there were so many stereotypes on "The Other."

Granted this film was made 14 years ago, in 1994, and perhaps the media target then were African Americans. Clearly nowadays, we have a new target.