|
The following text refers to the article
How the Jewish-Zionist Grip on American Film and Television Promotes Bias Against Arabs and Muslims
by Dr Abdullah Mohammad Sindi
See also Wanting to be 'White': A Critique of the Critics
of Arab Depictions in Hollywood and the American Mass Media
A Detailed Commentary on Sindi's Article
by Nabila Harb, FAV Co-Editor
Although Professor Sindi provides a good expose of the Zionist grip on
Hollywood and its deliberate use of propaganda to create Arab-Muslim enemies
in the eyes of Americans and the West, he fails to recognise the extent to
which he himself has been infected by the poison of such propaganda. As we
enter the 21st century, with its emphasis on 'global culture', ethnic pride
has undergone a resurgence throughout the world. As individual cultures
disappear under the onslaught of Western media and influence, and the world
becomes more homogeneous, people are beginning to respect the values of their
own cultural heritage. Desperate attempts are being made to restore ethnic
traditions, and to protect them from total annihilation. And yet, Sindi
evidently has fallen prey to the desire to be perceived as part of the
homogeneous 'modern' Western society. His criticisms of Hollywood's attacks
on Arab and Muslim culture do not address a vital issue: that, in fact, Arab
and Muslim culture is an ancient and proud heritage that should be defended.
Instead, his basic defence against Hollywood and the Zionists is that Arabs
are neither Bedouins nor Blacks.
In point of fact, although it is important to acknowledge the diversity of
Arab culture, and to recognise the influence of ancient metropolitan centres
in the Arab world, it is the brilliant synthesis of bedouin and metropolitan
cultures that is responsible for the unique and universal appeal of Arab
civilisation. When Arab civilisation, in the form of Islam, swept through
the world, it was eagerly embraced by those who came within its sphere
because of its universal appeal. History throughout the ages documents the
emnity between nomadic cultures and settled agrarian or metropolitan
cultures, and yet the Prophet Muhammad took these two cultures and brought
them together under the banner of Islam. Moreover, much of Arab civilisation
is a legacy of the bedouins, from science to poetry.
It is therefore unfortunate when Sindi argues, not that Hollywood's mockery
of an ancient and proud culture is an insult to the Arab Nation, but that
Arabs are not bedouins and not blacks. 'Sand-nigger' is a racist slur no
matter how it is interpreted, but his only point is that Arabs are not
members of the Negroid race. Arabs are not White either. Arabs are a
Semitic people and should be proud of it. The fact that official documents
in the U.S. only give Arabs the option of defining themselves either as White
or Caucasian means that the U.S. system is flawed, not that this changes the
Arab identity in any way.
Nomadic cultures are not restricted to the Arab world. Perhaps Sindi would
be surprised by the degree of ethnic pride that is taken elsewhere in the
world by members of the few surviving nomadic groups. When he protests
against the portrayal of Arabs as:
<< typically uncultured nomads who
live in desert tents.>>
he evidently does so with the conviction that all of these qualities are
negative. In fact, there is NOTHING uncultured about the bedouin existence,
and nothing wrong with nomadic life or living in tents. Continued survival
in a hostile natural environment represents an extraordinary achievement and
the fact is that bedouin societies typically manage to do so while
expressing themselves artistically in magnificent fashion. At present,
bedouin arts are among the most sought after internationally.
In his criticism of Hollywood in its portrayal of Arabs and Muslims as
terrorists, he replies that <"Terrorists" are active all over the world, in
countries as diverse as
Britain, Italy, Ireland, Russia, Germany, Spain, Japan, Israel, and the
United States. > I would submit that this begs the question of what
constitutes terrorism. In fact, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder and
is a virtually meaningless term. The Zionists who target individuals for
assassination from helicopters with long-range weapons are not considered
terrorists, and yet the individual who sacrifices his own life in order to
detonate a bomb is. Is not the individual who fights for the liberation of
his/her homeland from Occupation a freedom-fighter? How many liberation
movements have managed to succeed without a certain amount of armed
resistance? The author does not address this point adequately.
Other examples of the author's evident identification with Western culture
can be seen when he protests againsta depiction of <<an Arab
criminal and a black genie enjoy eating a "centuries-old Arab delicacy,"
a plate of goats' eyes>> and himself describes Arabs as portrayed in film as
<< oddly dressed (often in a red-checkered kuffiyyah headdress, or in
ungainly gowns or robes)>>
Goats' eyes happen to be an ethnic delicacy in many cultures throughout the
world, and indeed were so considered in Western cultures when the West still
had a tradition of hunting. The eyes and innards of animals are soft, tender
and perishable, making them a delicacy that traditionally was reserved either
for the hunter himself or the individual most honoured in the group. The
fact that goats' eyes are not sold in American supermarkets should not be a
measure of their value. And yet, here again, the author is assuming a
Western point of view.
Far worse, however, is the description of traditional Arab (and Muslim)
attire as 'ungainly gowns and robes'. Ungainly? The fact of the matter is
that traditional jalabiahs, kaftans and abayas are possibly the most graceful
of attire, as well as being eminently suitable for hot climates. I would
submit that Western shirts and trousers with their tight collars and
waistbands are far more ungainly, especially when worn by less than slender
males. Where women's garments are concerned, the same holds true. The
traditional thobs, jilbabs and abayas of the Arab world are graceful and
comfortable, and give a woman far more dignity than the tight shorts and midi
tops worn by Western women. In point of fact, Arab and Islamic attire is
designed for ALL men and women and not simply for young women with good
figures. Finally, it is interesting that the author includes the keffiyah in
his example of Hollywood's mockery of the Arab world. The keffiyah has
achieved some fame in the past few decades as it has come to symbolise the
Palestinian struggle for liberation. Who then, I would submit, would not be
proud to wear a keffiyah? It is the symbol of Arab pride and of Arab
identity.
Finally, although the author speaks of Hollywood's anti-Arab and anti-Muslim
propaganda, he does not really address the issue of Islam. He fails to point
out that Islam is a universal religion and although the language of the
Qur'an is Arabic, Muslims come from every race, culture and nation, including
the U.S.
The article does a good job of exposing the underbelly of Hollywood and the
motivations of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda in the media. It is only
unfortunate that he is unaware of the extent to which his own perceptions
have been tainted by this same sort of propaganda. Finally, I would submit
that we as Arabs, will gain more respect from the Western world if we take a
more positive stance with respect to our own cultural heritage instead of
trying to whitewash it with Western homogenised values.
|
%20copy.jpg)