|
|
|
Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire, have Turned Justice Mute
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire, have Turned Justice Mute
|
|
|
The *FREE ARAB VOICE* (http://www.freearabvoice.org) August 13, 2001 ########################################## 1) Wanting to be ‘White’: A Critique of Jack Shaheen and the Critics of Arab Depictions in Hollywood and the American Mass Media Following the pioneering work of Jack Shaheen, hundreds of articles and several books have tackled over the last two decades the vilification of Arabs and Muslims in the American entertainment industry. Typically, instances of stereotyping Arabs as “Billionaires, Belly-dancers, and Bombers” in Hollywood movies and TV series are documented thoroughly and dissected for the racist propaganda they are. However, the theme that runs like an uninterrupted thread in these articles and books is indignation, not at the stereotypes themselves, but at the stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims. The difference is crucial. The stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims seem to be a problem to many of their critics, not because they are wrong as a matter of principle, but because they form barriers in the way of melting in the mainstream, and being like everyone else in the homogeneous western society. Hence, they seem to emanate from the urge to avoid oppression by being like the oppressor. "We need to see American Muslims on television, in films, ACTING LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE and to date we don't. They are invisible. And I think that is part of the problem. THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE CULTURAL MAINSTREAM, they are not visible in popular culture and therefore they do not exist", said Jack Shaheen, the foremost critic of Hollywood vilification of Arabs. [Posted on Radio Free Europe in reference below] http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/05/F.RU.990517135956.html In a recent article in the LA Times, Shaheen was quoted on American TV: "You never see Arab families. You never see people who look like and act and behave like other people." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/printedition/calendar/la0 00061889jul30.column?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalendar But who said that Arabs and Muslims have to ‘act like everybody else.. in the cultural mainstream’ to be stereotype-free?! What’s wrong with just being themselves?! Of course, the problem here is that ‘other people’ simply means ‘white’ or ‘mainstream’. In an earlier piece that echoes much of the same sentiments, Shaheen writes: “It is also easy to recognize "TV Arabs" because they are always dressed oddly: In belly dancing costumes, headdresses "which look like tablecloths pinched from a restaurant," veils, gowns and robes, and sunglasses. In short, ARABS ARE PORTRAYED AS PEOPLE WHO NEITHER LOOK NOR ACT LIKE AMERICANS.” (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, February 4, 1985, Page 10). But what is this non-sense about ‘oddly dressed’? Proudly dressed is more like it. And who should get to set the norm for what is and what is not oddly dressed? Why should looking and acting like Americans be the norm that everyone else must follow? Yes, Hollywood churns out racist images of Arabs, not because it makes them dress differently, but rather, because it makes dressing differently associated with ‘bad’. The critics of Hollywood, on the other hand, want Hollywood to dress Arabs like westerners, rather than dress Arabs like Arabs dress WITHOUT THE NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS. Yet the Kuffiyeh (the Arab head dress) and the Abaya and the Jalabiah (the traditional Arab long robes) seem to be objects of constant complaint by well-meaning critics in the dozens of articles reviewed for this piece. It is even set on the same level as the most negative clichés of Arabs. Take for example the following: “Greedy, hook-nosed, vicious, violent, rapacious, turbaned or "kaffiyehed" Iranians and Arabs have replaced the cartoon Jews of Voelkischer Beobachter or Der Ewige Jude.” http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/west_fear_of_islam.htm Putting aside the other denigrations for a moment, the Kuffiyeh is the symbol of a proud heritage, and there is nothing 'ungainly' about the Abaya or the Jalabiah. If that were the case, then why was this attire considered romantic and graceful EVEN IN HOLLYWOOD before the takeover of Jewish influence??? The Sheik' with Rudolph Valentino sent a world of women into delicious fainting spells and films like 'Desert Song' portrayed Arabs in traditional attire as the ultimate heroic ideal. Granted, many Hollywood movies have tended to vilify everything about Arabic culture, including Arab dress. That, nevertheless, should not drive us to disavow traditional Arab dress in order to become what we are not. That should simply drive us to expose the racism against Arabs and its underlying political motives. The desert, camels, caravans, and nomadic life seem to be another source of embarrassment for Arabs eager to fit into the Western mainstream, and to avoid racism by just being ‘white’, that is, by losing their identity. For example, in his review of the Hollywood hit Alladin, “Shaheen complains that even as the movie begins, with a Bedouin riding his camel through the desert [how could it be more terrible! – FAV], the lyrics from the opening song give hint of the stereotypes to come: I come from a land, from a faraway place, Where the caravan camels roam, Where they cut off your ear If they don't like your face. It's barbaric, but hey, it's home.” http://www.webster.edu/~corrigdh/SJR.html#shaheen The defense here, as in the case of the Kuffiyeh, should not be that we do not have Kuffiyehs, nomads, camels, or caravans, but that these are not barbaric, but beautiful. Either way one looks at Arab stereotypes in American movies, one should not depart from the glorification of ‘white’ culture as the standard par of comparison. While the bedu (nomadic) culture is NOT the sum of Arab culture, it is a part of our heritage and indeed, has produced much that is great in art (poetry) and in ethics (chivalry) as well. In fact, part of the brilliance of Arab culture is its synthesis of the nomadic and 'settled' cultures, because both co-existed and lent influence one to the other. While recognizing the enmity between the bedu (nomad) and fellah (peasant), there is no way in which one can separate the two in terms of the Arab legacy to the world. The point remains, though, that the critics of Arab stereotypes in Hollywood have operated on the unconscious assumption that any divergence in the representation of Arabs from the ‘white’ norm constitutes racism. But that perspective is itself racist, because it assumes that ‘white’ is the normal thing to be. These critics are embarrassed for not being ‘white’, where there is nothing to be embarrassed about. They are trying to evade racism, by being racist themselves, by being like the racists, even if unconsciously. In some cases, this tendency to be like the ‘whites’ is expressed somewhat explicitly. The critics complain that Arabs are frequently portrayed with dark hair, eyes, and skin tone. The villains are always dark-looking Arabs. Or they speak with a heavy foreign accent. In his critique of the Mummy, Shaheen said: “It projected Egyptians as BLACK-clad assassins and as lecherous and foul-smelling”. One of the bad characters in The Mummy Returns according to Shaheen was: “the curator's BLACK bodyguard obsessed with killing an 8-year-old child and hundreds of Imhotep's inept and disposable guards”. http://www.progressive.org/pmpsm1001.html Shaheen and others also complained that immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, “knee-jerk TV newscasters who reported immediately after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that the FBI was seeking three males, two of them "Middle Eastern with DARK hair and beards", (from the LA Times article above). The Arab sheik is portrayed as hook-nosed, unshaven, sinister, and heavily accented, said Shaheen in his critique of Disney’s Alladin. In the same vein, Laurie Goldstein wrote: “Arab-American actor Sayed Badreya has had no problem finding work in Hollywood. With his DARK beard and his ACCENTED English, he has had his pick of parts as terrorists, hijackers, kidnappers and Islamic militants.” http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/arbholl.htm Again, the problem revolves around the Arab being dark and accented, not Hollywood’s portrayal of the dark and the accented as evil. Solution: Let Hollywood make more images of light and American-speaking Arabs. Better still, make them part of the establishment. For example, Arab-American actor Tony Shalhoub was given the role of an FBI agent in The Siege whose loyalty gets tested when Arabs in Brooklyn are rounded up and driven into a concentration camp to ‘fend off terrorism’. Shaheen’s reaction on CNN: Shalhoub’s character is a “breakthrough” for Hollywood, but NOT ENOUGH to counterbalance negative stereotyping of Arabs in the Siege and other movies for decades. Read: we need more Arabs playing establishment and mainstream roles! But why can’t Arabs and Muslims be good on their own terms outside the establishment or the mainstream?! http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9811/10/siege/ Of course, Sayed Badreya was rewarded for his services with the role of a ‘heroic Arab pilot’ in the 1996 movie Independence Day, where the U.S. government saves the world! To be fair, there were a handful of Hollywood movies that portrayed Arab characters, as black, or as accented, in a positive light. Examples include the Arab characters in Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves, and The Thirteenth Warrior. But instead of upholding these examples, many critics complain of the mere portrayal of Arabs as dark or accented, when in fact, many of us ARE dark and accented. Even some of the more daring critics of Hollywood fall for this trap. For example, in an article titled “How the Jewish-Zionist Grip on American Film and Television Promotes Bias against Arabs”, Dr. Abdallah Sindi explores at length a sensitive topic that other critics shy away from, namely, the Jewish-Zionist grip over Hollywood. Yet, even he, insists that Arabs be considered ‘white’: “Although officially classified by US government agencies as "White" or "Caucasian," Arabs (and particularly Arab men) are sometimes depicted in American television and movies as Negroid blacks, reinforcing a derogatory image of Arabs as so-called "sand niggers." http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p-2_Sindi.html The problem of course is that such argumentation, rampant amongst Arabs in America, carries the same (or similar) prejudices to those which it tries to expose. Instead of attacking these prejudices ("niggers", dress and eating habits, "terrorism" etc), it merely tries to point out that they don't apply to Arabs, or at least not to all of them. In short, it is trying to point out that, although there ARE Arabs that fit the stereotypes, there are also 'respectable' Arabs. In fact, it does not matter what race we are, and what the U.S. government designates us as. This should be a non-issue. We are who we are and proudly so. Arabs are generally Semites, but they are also a mixture of blond and black. Neither Arabs nor Muslims are racially pure, NOR IS ARAB NATIONALISM A RACIAL IDENTITY. There are some who may argue, on the other hand, that attacking all prejudices at the same time would be ineffective. (‘I have nothing against black people, but even those racists who do, should accept that WE are not black', 'We can't change the way the average American thinks, but we should try to show that, even within the framework of his way of thinking, prejudices against Arabs are irrational') but this is just plain wrong. It is exactly against such 'tactical wisdom' that FAV is fighting in general. ACCEPTING THE PREMISES OF YOUR OPPONENT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR HIM TO ACCEPT YOUR POSITION WILL ONLY DISARM YOU. The doubtful short-term benefit is more than offset by the confusion you spread in your own camp, by the estrangement of your potential allies, and most importantly, by the loss of your own essence. Either way, the characterization of Arabs as ‘Sand niggers’, draws on another fountain of racism against black people. The defense against which is not to insist that we are not black, but to oppose all forms of racism, whether against Arabs or other peoples and races. Absent in the critiques of Hollywood depictions of Arabs as well is an in-depth analysis of the political background of the racism against Arabs in American film and Television. Hollywood does not operate in a political vacuum. Neither is its prejudice against Arabs grounded purely in Zionist control. On the contrary, Arab stereotypes serve a specific political function. Arab stereotypes are closely linked to the objectives of the New and the Old World Orders in the Arab World. A war, especially a war for the subjugation of a people, usually goes hand-in--hand with a propaganda war against this people. The unjust must be made to appear just, and the usual method is to demonize the victim of the aggression. For the last half-century, the Arab people has been under constant aggression from the US and its local ally, Zionism. In order to justify this aggression, an enormous propaganda machine has been put in motion. Laurie Goldstein notes in this regard: “After years of virtual invisibility, Arab-Americans are finally finding prominence in Hollywood movies -- as terrorists and villains. They are only the latest in a long line of ethnic groups and nationalities cast in stereotypical bad-guy roles, from American Indians to Germans to Japanese to African Americans to Russians.” She adds: “Each set of villains reflected the headlines and the anxieties of its era. Each passed into obsolescence as the headlines changed. Now, with Soviet pretensions shattered and aliens from outer space passe, the new cinematic enemy is the Muslim extremist.” http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/arbholl.htm Take the example of The Agency, ‘a new CBS series airing at the end of summer 2001 which is to extol the "heroic" role of the CIA’. It opens with a CIA agent giving a briefing on terrorists "sworn to wage holy war" against the United States and its friends. The rest of the episode shows the CIA fighting back to defeat a plot by Arab "terrorists"’ (www.informationtimes.com, August 2, 2001). Isn’t this show meant to serve a specific political end as propaganda, as well as being a reflection of a real political agenda?! Still, Shaheen displays surprise because the Department of Defense of the U.S. government and the U.S. Marine Corps cooperated with Hollywood on dozens of anti-Arab films. In his critique of one such anti-Arab movie, The Rules of Engagement, Jack Shaheen wrote: “Consider other films showing Americans killing Arabs—“True Lies” (1994), “Executive Decision” (1996) and “Freedom Strike” (1998). Several U.S. government agencies, such as the Department of Defense and its components— the Army, the Marines, the Navy, even the National Guard—provided all of these named films with technical assistance. And the FBI’s New York office aided producers of “The Siege” (1998), a movie showing Americans of Arab heritage and Muslim Arabs attacking Manhattan.” “What’s going on here? Why are U.S. government officials cooperating with Hollywood producers who have purposely set out to pick on real, and friendly, Arab countries and on Arab and Muslim Americans whose taxes are helping to fund the budgets of U.S. government agencies?”, Jack Shaheen wonders innocently. http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/062000/0006015.html Obviously Jack Shaheen is not wondering hard enough about the connections between U.S. government objectives in the Arab World, and the negative portrayals of Arabs and Arab countries in American Film and TV. With Hollywood’s far-reaching arm into theaters and TV channels across the globe, these anti-Arab films do not only justify attacks against countries like Iraq, Libya, or Sudan to the American public, but to a globalized audience, even to the Arabs themselves. Nevertheless, the critics of Hollywood images of Arabs and Muslims fall for the same trap over and over again. They think: let’s condemn terrorism, and insist that we are not terrorists. They do not consider why the “terrorist” label came about, and what specific political ends it serves. Their only concern is to be like ‘everybody else’. But the yearning to ‘fit in’ can be obliged quite easily. For example, take 'The President's Man: Ground Zero', another CBS offering, with famous action hero Chuck Norris who plays the role of a secret operative working for the White House. His aim: to stop "an Islamic terrorist" who is intent on taking out a U.S. city with a nuclear device. In a "concession" to Muslim sentiment, CBS says it has agreed to write in the character of an Arab-American Attorney General.” (www.informationtimes.com, August 2, 2001). So, if you want to be accepted in the mainstream as an Arab or a Muslim, you have to become part of U.S. government plans to combat terrorism worldwide with Chuck Norris! Of course we are not kidding. Jack Shaheen gets that point too, even if he disregards the political connections between Hollywood pushing the need to combat Arab and Islamic terrorism and U.S. government political objectives in the Arab World. In fact, to appease the mainstream, Shaheen talked the talk and walked the walk of the establishment when it came to U.S. policies in the Arab World. Read what follows, unedited: “Shaheen is frequently interviewed to comment on the volatile situation in the Middle East. Shaheen has traveled the area on many occasions. Two Fulbright-Hays Lectureship Grants enabled him to teach journalism at the University of Jordan and the American University of Beirut. Under the auspices of the UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY, Shaheen offers seminars for government officials and journalists in the Middle East.” “Shaheen said he is somewhat UNCOMFORTABLE commenting on U.S. foreign policy in the area, but the inquiries come, nevertheless. He was interviewed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in January shortly after President George Bush AUTHORIZED AMERICAN MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRAQ. The bombings were in response to Saddam Hussein's provocations in nearby Kuwait and his violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions negotiated after the Persian Gulf War.” “SHAHEEN SAID HE SURPRISED SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUES FOR HIS HARD-LINE AGAINST HUSSEIN. HE DESCRIBED THE ACTION AGAINST IRAQ AS THE "RIGHT THING TO DO" TO PRESERVE U.S. INTERESTS IN THE AREA. At the same time, Shaheen noted that the American action would probably be counter-productive, because it would hurt the fragile alliance of America with Hussein's Arab neighbors, and because it would strengthen Hussein's image of invincibility at home.” "I SUPPORT WHAT WE DID because I don't want to see Hussein hurt more innocent people, whether they be Kurds, ISRAELIS or Saudis," said Shaheen. "Saddam is one tyrannical, ruthless son of a bitch. He is an Arab, but he isn't representative of Arabs." http://www.webster.edu/~corrigdh/SJR.html#shaheen Normally, we refuse to downgrade FAV’s quality by quoting pro-imperialist rhetoric of such degenerative caliber. Yet we had to prove the point about the connection between U.S. government objectives in the Arab World and Hollywood images of Arabs, from the horse’s mouth himself, who has been wondering why the Department of Defense and the U.S. Marine Corps assist in producing such anti-Arab movies in Hollywood!! Many critics of negative images of Arabs in Hollywood, like Shaheen, are neither against racism nor against imperialism. Their complaint is that THEY ARE NOT GETTING A PIECE OF IT. They condemn ‘terrorism’ and ‘the lunatic fringe’ with the earnest hope of becoming PART OF THE SYSTEM. But again what is ‘terrorism’?! And who gets to decide what terrorism is and what it is not? Is the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with the sanctions weapon in a futile attempt to force a change of the regime in Iraq to one more compliant with the dictates of the U.S. not terrorism?! Is supporting Zionism not terrorism?! Is the destruction of pharmaceutical factories in Sudan not terrorism?! Is the bombardment of Libya not 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? These are the questions that Hollywood images of Arabs are meant to mask, and some of the critics of these images have been part of the charade. Conclusion: An effort to undercut the prejudices without attacking them head-on, shows a misunderstanding as to the origins of these prejudices. If these prejudices are conceived of as just intellectual constructions which CAUSE anti-Arab behavior, one could choose to wage isolated attacks against specific aspects of these prejudices, in order to destroy them, and consequently the behavior that flows from them. But if one understands that these prejudices are the side-effects of the real fight waged against the Arab world, that they are the RESULTS, not the CAUSES of anti-Arab behavior, it naturally flows from this understanding that the prejudices can only be fought head-on, in the framework of the fight for Arab liberation. We cannot just cut the branches - as long as the roots stay intact, they will spawn more branches. Thus, for example, instead of explaining that not all Arabs are 'terrorists', and that there are even more Jewish 'terrorists', we should explain the difference between the two kinds of terror: That one is a weapon in the hand of the oppressed fighting for his liberation, the other is a weapon in the hands of the oppressor fighting to continue the oppression. Instead of accepting the enemy's notions which are used to obscure reality (violence/non-violence, terror/anti-terrorism, war/peace) we should advance our notions in order to clarify it (oppression/liberation). The Editorial Board of the Free Arab Voice Note: for a psycho-political perspective on the factors that makes one want to become like his or her oppressor, please go to the first part of the following article - ADC & Arab Intellectuals between Public Relations and Self-Alienation: http://www.freearabvoice.org/onDefectiveStrategies.html ########################################## 2) How the Jewish-Zionist Grip on American Film and TV Promotes Bias against Arabs: a poignant analysis by Abdallah Sindi, with a detailed critique by Nabila Harb of the Free Arab Voice. http://www.freearabvoice.org/ZionistGripInAmericanFilmAndTV.html For A Detailed Commentary on Abdallah Sindi's Article above by Nabila Harb\FAV: http://www.freearabvoice.org/CommentsOnArticleBySindi.html ########################################## 3) An Arab Defending American Policies in the Arab World: A Political Case Study of Wanting to be ‘White’. The Text of the Debate on Al Jazeerah Satellite TV (in Arabic) between Muhammad Qunnawi, an Egyptian journalist defending American policies in the Arab World, and Ibrahim Alloush, the editor of the Free Arab Voice. Debate on Al Jazeerah http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/jazeerah.htm ########################################## Check out the Mothers of Palestine Website at: http://homepages.about.com/umfalastin/mothersofpalestine/ ########################################## Zionist Plans to Retake PA Areas: Truth or Deception, A Point of View by Hammad Hammad http://www.freearabvoice.org/zionistPlansToRetakePAarea.html ################################################ ################################################ The Free Arab Voice is an alternative newsletter that comes out only in cyberspace. For other FAV issues, please visit: http://www.freearabvoice.org/favPrevIssues.htm Sign a real right of return petition at: http://www.freearabvoice.org/A-RealRightOfReturnPetition.htm Check out a special slide show on Palestine at: http://www.freearabvoice.org/RememberPalestine.htm Read the In Response to Defeatist Thought series at: http://www.freearabvoice.org/InResponseToDefeatistThought0.htm To read on Arab contributions to civilization, click on: http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabCivilMain.htm For Palestinian Poems in English, go to: http://www.freearabvoice.org/rhythmsOfTheStorm.htm The Free Arab Voice welcomes your comments, suggestions, and submissions. If you do not wish to be on FAV's mailing list, please indicate as much by writing to us. |
| FAV Editor: | Ibrahim Alloush | Editor@freearabvoice.org |
| Co-editors: | Nabila Harb | Harb@freearabvoice.org |
| Muhammad Abu Nasr | Nasr@freearabvoice.org |
FAV Home Page - > Please click on the logo above, and we'll FAV you there :)
%20copy.jpg)