Thursday, October 6, 2011

dance for roadkill

In our city, run over grey squirrels are a regular sight. You better not get too attached to those critters that visit (and sometimes live) in your yard--or house. In my neighbourhood, grey squirrels are always crossing the street, back and forth, up and down, foraging for food, taking risks. Sometimes they cross by squirrelling on the overhead hydro wires that cross the street, but usually they prefer to run across asphalt. Our city is car culture supreme. Cars and trucks are a continuous presence. This squirrel was scampering across Van Norman but, poor thing, it found itself under the tires of a vehicle. Crow notices these sorts of acts of carnage instantly. Crow often comes quick to the spot. Here Crow is doing a dance for roadkill, celebrating supper. However, I warned Crow: watch out, you may be next. Crow kept on dancing, and jabbing in for a peck.

Crow is not he only one who finds roadkill tasty, people dine on it too:
Roadkill enthusiasts in Canada recommend roasting beaver, which should first be soaked in salted water overnight after removing all fat. Squirrel is said to be excellent when broiled on a stick over a camp fire.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

re-reading Dalila

Deception or Samson and Delilah. George Grie, 2008

The story of Sampson and Delilah continues to invite interpretation. Above is a neo-surrealist, gothic, digital visual interpretation of the oft-told tale, that mashes together a digital age, Grecian, Salvadore Dali'an, wilderness landscape, and model-on-the-runway panorama.
Here's a 1949 depiction of the same story, different context, different media, same characters. This is the Samson and Dalila (Sampson and Delilah in English) movie poster for the 1949 film.

It's an interesting film / story to decode for Orientalism, particularly in light of the Palestine/Israel conflict where Palestinians (the victims of oppression and occupation) have been made into violent terrorists--sneaky by nature--through contemporary media representations and discourses.

Along with the way that the characters in the film can be used to support ideas of current Israeli people’s threat from treacherous Palestinians, who are “out to get them” no matter how much the Israelis offer them a chance at peace negotiations, the film has a Biblical mythology encoded, too. The film can be read through these two lenses by drawing on gender, racialization, and power relations.

In short, the film is based on an old testament story; the Old Testament is a Hebrew text that Christianity took up and made part of the Bible. In the biblical story Sampson is an Israelite and Dalila is a Philistine. Neither of these two groups of people exist today. However, many people confuse ancient Israelites with Israelis today and people confuse the Philistines with Palestinians. Both these ancient groups were tribes and while there are some connection to people today, there are many other tribes and ethnic groups that mingled together to evolve into contemporary Jewish people and Palestinians (who by the way also have intermingled). Whatever their complex ethnic origins, the truth is they are both Semites. Family.

Now, it is important to keep in mind that the word “philistine” is a derogatory term that means someone who is uncouth, ignorant and uncivilized. A barbarian. As this word relates to tribes who are one of the ancestors of Palestinians, the connotation of ignorant louts transfers to them.

How can you reason or negotiate with someone who is base?

Base:

a. Having or showing a contemptible, mean-spirited, or selfish lack of human decency.
b. Devoid of high values or ethics: a base, degrading way of life.
c. Inferior in value or quality.

On a gendered level, Delilah is viewed as the seductive woman — the femme fatale — who uses her beauty and feminine wiles to seduce the man, Sampson. She is the dangerous sexual woman who is the downfall of all men. She uses sex to get her man. This is her business. She is a prostitute, an unattached woman. She is an icon that has been repeated over and over again in literature and media. She loves her man, but she’s evil and can’t be trusted. He loves his woman, but she’s evil and can’t be trusted. Lots of movies today repeat this old story in various forms.

And let's not forget Tom Jones belting out "Why, why, why Dee-li-lah?" in 1968 and for many reincarnations afterwards.

In this biblical story that is repeated in a version in the film, because Sampson is powerful, others who want power seek to bring him down. Delilah is sent in--greedily pocketing money-- to find out the source of his power (which is his hair). She cuts it off. There are lots of paintings that show his emasculation at the hands of woman. So, a woman is seen as having the power to wilfully destroy masculine power–make him impotent, powerless. This is a gendered reading.

However, Dalilah (her name is pronounced more like Dalilah in Arabic) is also a “Philistine”– the enemy of the Israelites. Now, the context of viewing and reading shapes what meanings we make; the film was made in 1949, the year after the state of Israel was created by European Zionist Jews who had to make the Palestinians their enemy so they could expel them from the land, wipe out their villages, and ethnic cleanse the cities of Palestinians. It's the story of war: you have to dehumanize the Other "side" so that you can kill them with impunity and go to bed at night with clear conscience.

During these times (and earlier and still to this day) the Zionists were constructing a story about the danger of Palestinians who will seek to “drive them off the land” (I am aware that Zionism is not a monolith and that some Zionists saw themselves as good socialists making a utopia in a new land...except maybe they somehow forgot that the land was being lived on by almost a million people called Palestinians??). But back to the film: the film was based on a book by a Zionist who had written it much earlier (and who did the screenplay), who had been a member of the Irgun, a proto-Israeli terrorist group that went into Palestine to kill Palestinians. These Zionists knew that people had to be removed, by terror, by death.

Sampson pulling down the temple. Looks like his six-pack needs a bit of 21st c personal-trainer-to-the-stars buffing up

In the end, Dalilah not only represents the seductive, treacherous, dangerous woman, but the destructive, treacherous, dangerous Palestinian who by stealth will bring down the power of Israel and all Israeli Jews. After the seductive woman has done her work, the Philistines, in the movie and the biblical myth, cruelly torture Sampson, blinding him. Being a “Man”, however, he is not so easily wiped out (think of the film Rocky here) so he undertakes a feat to show off his power once and for all, show off his superhuman masculine potency, but causes an entire monumental building to fall on him, Delilah, and all the Philistine people, killing them all.

So he gets to be the martyr hero who loses his life but saves his people by killing “the enemy.”

In sum, through the ways the film re-narrates the biblical story at the time of Israel’s establishment (the film was based on a novel by a Zionist, Jabotinsky, who had worked to establish the state; indeed, many institutions and streets are named after him in Israel as he is seen as a “founding father”), Dalilah represents the threat of the Palestinians to bring down the house of Israel. Which is a narrative repeated over and over again in the news media of the West today. The Palestinians are dangerous. The enemy.

Orientalism: Hedy Lamar as Delilah in the 1949 film, Sampson and Delilah.

And in the end, the film and the biblical story can be interpreted to read that only when all the Palestinians are dead is there a chance for Israel to survive.

Maybe the leaders of Canada, the US and Israel, who want to stop the Palestinians' call at the UN to be recognized as a state, have been either

a) watching old Hollywood movies that create simple stories of the good, the bad, and the ugly (with 'the bad and the ugly' being assigned to Arabs), or

b) reading the Old Testament.

Friday, September 30, 2011

divorcing the digital


Hello readers, I apologize for my absence over the months. The reasons are, of course, many as reasons tend to be for each of us and our complex lives. Our lives don't fit into a tweet, although some people do twitter away their lives in little parcels of words, sending them out like a message in the bottle, hoping someone will respond.

Sometimes I divorce myself from parts of myself that seem undivorceable, like divorcing myself from having anything to do with Finnishness. That's those times when I bear witness to and get angry at the narrow-mindedness, racism, and evangelical fervor that closes ranks rather than opening doors. But how is it possible for me to divorce my Finnish 'part'? Of course, it's not, so I always come back.

Anyway, there it is in the mirror, that Finnish part of me lurking behind my increasingly slanting brows whether I decide to divorce it or not.

I sometimes divorce myself from the Arab or Muslim part of my extended identity (for readers of my blog, you will know that I am neither by descent but both by marriage, children, family, and home(s)). That's when I am challenged to re-think and look deep within myself for the Westcentric--and Christian (even though I divorced myself from my Christian upbringing a long time ago)--ideas that hide in my brain like glass shards even though I have done my best to get rid of them. Maybe it's like Kai and the glass splinter in his eye that he can't get out. It just traveled there and so he has to go on a journey, a difficult one, to remove the icy splinter. So it's those times when my Finnish Canadian upbringing gets exposed for the upbringing that it is: Finnish immigrant and Canadian. Need I say more?

And sometimes I divorce myself from being married...actually, I think I've done that a few times over the years. But I have always come back. Sometimes I divorce myself from the university and its increasingly consuming bureaucracy and my fears of being swallowed by "the system" and ending up becoming one of the professors that I was so critical of when I was a student. The ones who lost their creativity and only talk about other people's creativity. The ones who don't do any social activism or justice work but talk about what an important thing it is to do. Whole conferences are devoted to that. And, there are the ones who teach their students about class, sex, and sexuality, but race/racialization is always the ampersand problem.

And sometimes I divorce myself from motherhood, from being a mother. Sometime I wonder if I have indeed done the best I could or was I too busy with my work and my own pursuits? But divorcing motherhood is, of course, impossible because I cannot return to a nullipara womb--and there are those three adult children whose bodily presence speaks of the motherwork I did, moving in and out of my everyday life.
These past months I simply divorced my digital identity. I had had enough of digital existence. It was hounding me everywhere. I couldn't escape it. I felt consumed by it. So, my blog fell into the ditch of neglect. I saw it lying there, an orange icon staring back from my toolbar. But I just left it alone. It neither called me to come and play, nor did it incite me to put on my grammar gloves and punch out my latest rant and rage.

Who knows why people come back? Maybe it's because it is part of who they are and they simply can't get rid of it--whatever that 'it' is-- even if they want to.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

We Are Not All Israel

Boy George....to Shakira. These folks need to take a stand rather than pretend it's business-as-usual.

I hope more people speak out to challenge entertainers, singers, musicians, writers, and celebrities who do not consider the BDS campaign against Israel. The BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement has a lot of support from different groups, including J-BIG (Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods), PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel), Facebook's Don't Play Apartheid Israel, Boycott from Within Israel, and many more.

The list of entertainers et al who support Israel and fail to contribute to dismantling the oppression of Palestinians includes Leonard Cohen, Paul Simon, Margaret Atwood, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Boy George, and now, Shakira.

Well, Najla Said, an American actor and writer, has given Shakira some things to think about.

Najla Said: An Open Letter to Shakira: We Are Not All Israel

June 24, 2011

If only everything was like “Waka Waka,” but unfortunately not everything is as euphonious as a pop song.

By Najla Said

Shakira,

Since your trip to Israel this week was ostensibly one of “good will” and humanity, and since in your speech to the Israeli Presidential Conference you stated that you are “convinced…that investing in education is the best strategy for peace and global stability,” I am going to give you an education. In humanity and solidarity.

Let me start by saying that I was a fan of yours before your mainstream American commercial success. I loved your Spanish albums, and I loved you for seeming like a rebellious little punk who dyed her hair funny colors and sang melodiously along to crunchy “rock ‘n’ roll” guitar riffs about how messed up you were over a boy. You reminded me of the Spanish Alanis Morrissette. When you released your first English language album, I was a little sad that the whole world would know about you, but I was also excited for them to, because you loved to talk about being Lebanese. So even though your English lyrics were laughable and you dyed your hair blonde and became a Britney Spears clone like they all do, you were still you, shaking your hips and banging your drums and telling the world that belly dancing was in your blood, because you are Lebanese. And when Wyclef Jean said, “Let me see you move like you come from Colombia,” as you did your famous hip gyrations, a few of us who are also Lebanese cringed, but we got over it because we were proud of you.

Don’t get me wrong, Shaki, I don’t want you to go back to being your younger self. I am glad that you, like Alanis, grew up and discovered love, peace and happiness, but you might have thought a bit about what it means to be educated before you spoke publicly about how important it is. I don’t expect you to be “political.” I know you are an entertainer and it’s not your job to “be political.” But you made yourself political from day one by showing off your Lebanese-ness.

Here is the thing about being Lebanese or Arab; you kind of have to love us for who we are and what we feel as much as you love us for our hummus and our belly dancing because for the first time in a long time we are proud of where we are from and are able to speak out about injustices that have been committed against us and our loved ones for decades. And here you are, making us feel shitty and hurt. You weren’t an Orientalist before because you seemed to be one of us, but now, my love, you are.

The modern state of Israel shares geography, but nothing more, with the “Abrahamic” religions that may have originated there.

As a UN goodwill ambassador, you maybe should have thought about the hundred or so (give or take) UN resolutions that the State of Israel has defied before hugging their President, Shimon Peres. You might have thought of visiting Gaza instead of one of the rare schools in Israel proper, where Israeli and Arab children, who are fortunate enough to be allowed citizenship, learn together. In 2006, you spoke out against the Israeli war on Lebanon, and called for an end to the fighting. In your statement, you said, “We do not need leaders who create dispute, anger and hate, but rather leaders who care about the people and their needs.” Well, your lips lied on that one, honey. Again, I need only to point to your ridiculous love fest with Peres at the Israeli Presidential Conference yesterday to prove my point. People who actually believe in peace and goodwill do not ignore half the people in the equation when they set out to perform acts of peace and good will. They don’t hug former military leaders (even ones who have a Nobel Peace Prize), and they don’t say things like this:

“I am very happy to be in Israel, because I believe this is the perfect place to talk about how urgent it is to make education a priority. Israel has been a great melting pot of cultures for so many centuries. It will continue to be. In my song ‘Waka Waka,’ I sang how we are all Africa. Today I want to say that as part of western civilization we are all the inheritors of an Abrahamic culture and a soul that has been forged here; therefore, we are all Israel, too.”

We are not all Israel, Shakira, and that’s the point. The modern State of Israel shares geography, but nothing more, with the “Abrahamic” religions that may have originated there. Some of us are Palestinian and cannot be Israeli. Some of us are from Gaza and cannot even go to Israel. Some of us are Lebanese and have been bombed by Israel. Some of us are Jewish and don’t believe in what Israel says and does. That doesn’t mean it has no right to exist; it does, but so do we.

And since you spoke of children and education, I’d like to leave you with something that Alice Walker said the other day about her decision to ride on the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza. It sums up everything I am trying to say much more beautifully than I ever could:

“I see children, all children, as humanity’s most precious resource, because it will be to them that the care of the planet will always be left. One child must never be set above another, even in casual conversation, not to mention in speeches that circle the globe.

As adults, we must affirm, constantly, that the Arab child, the Muslim child, the Palestinian child, the African child, the Jewish child, the Christian child, the American child, the Chinese child, the Israeli child, the Native American child, etc., is equal to all others on the planet. We must do everything in our power to cease the behavior that makes children everywhere feel afraid.”

Thank you for your time, Miss Mubarak (Hey, come to think of it, are you related to the dude who ran Egypt for a really long time? Because that would explain EVERYTHING!).

Love,

Najla

Copyright 2011 Najla Said



Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Strength and Struggle book launch

Please join Rachel Mishenene and Jody Porter as they launch the book Strength and Struggle: Perspectives from First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples in Canada. This book was edited by Rachel Mishene and Dr. Pamela Rose Toulouse. It includes writing by Joseph Boyden, Cherie Dimaline, Richard Wagamese, Jody Porter, Elliot Doxtater-Wynn, Mishene and Toulouse and many more First Nations, Inuit and Metis writers.

The book will be launched on:


Wednesday, June 22 at 7:30 pm

at the Northern Woman’s Bookstore (65 Court St. South)


From the publisher, McGraw-Hill Ryerson:

"Strength and Struggle: Perspectives from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples in Canada is part of McGraw-Hill Ryerson’s iLit Collection of supplementary student resources for high school English courses. This title is a 149-page, soft-cover book that includes a rich array of short stories, poetry, music lyrics, graphic art, articles, essays, and other pieces that will have students laughing, crying, talking, and thinking. It is a true celebration of First Nations, Inuit and Métis writing and art."
from Lakehead University News:

Rachel Mishenene, a contract faculty member and MEd student in the Faculty of Education, was one of two education advisors for McGraw-Hill's Native Studies / Literacy textbook, "Strength and Struggle: Perspectives from First Nation, Inuit and Metis Peoples in Canada." With her co-author Dr. Pamela Toulouse, Rachel selected numerous well-crafted and inspirational short stories, poems, recipes, songs and beautiful visual and graphic art by First Nation, Metis and Inuit people across Canada and then developed rich corresponding lessons.

Hope to see you there!