Does the Clash Resonate

Rebecca Beaudry
HIS 3105
Does the Clash Resonate?
April 30, 2009

There is a clash of civilizations between the East and the West. This is influenced heavily by history and perceived impressions of people. To understand this clash of civilizations, one must first understand the history behind it.
The Greeks often referred to anybody who was different, who did not speak Greek, as barbarians. As people who were less than them by virtue of belonging to a different culture. The Greeks formed preconceived notions of these people which influenced their writings on the subject and the writings of later people. All of these preconceived notions and clichés built upon one another as time passed. This was certainly not helped by the Moors in Spain nor by the Crusades in Palestine which helped form even more notions of what the East and the West was like. (Lockman 8-10, Said 56-7)
These ideas still exist today and are obvious in popular culture. From Disney films to big Hollywood blockbusters orientalism is incredibly apparent. Take films such as True Lies. The terrorists are incompetent Muslim men from Palestine willing to set off nuclear bombs to make their point while their female accomplice is abused by the terrorists one minute and attempted to seduce the main male character and hero of the movie the next. The terrorist theme is very prominent throughout Western films. Other themes include the seductive Arab woman, the lecherous Arab man obsessed with Western women, and of course portraying Arabs as less intelligent.
One film which took on these stereotypes was American East, about a group of Palestinians living in Los Angeles. However through taking on and diffusing these stereotypes, it also showed a multitude of stereotypes about Americans and Jews. One stereotype about Jews was that the Jewish man’s family was essentially run like a corporation rather than as a family. In the film, most white Americans are portrayed as so single mindedly suspicious of Arabs that throughout the film, many of the Palestinian main characters are accosted by at least one American in one way or the other be it through suspicion of being a terrorist or something else.
The film Aladdin is by far one of the most insidious in its portrayal of Arabs. The film attempts to take the old story and turn it into musical animated film. Yet throughout it, women are portrayed in clothing taken more from clichés and stereotypes of what women wear in the Middle East than anything else. The main protagonist of the film possesses features so stylized that he looks more like a camel than a man. The guards, who are bumbling, somewhat incompetent and sadistic, if their actions toward Aladdin are taken into account, also posses the most ethnically Arab features. Meanwhile Aladdin and Princess Jasmine posses the most western features.
This clash of civilizations is also apparent in the way the United States media speaks about the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Everything is covered from the side of the Israelis. Even though the Israelis are so obviously favored by the U.S., the true situation should be presented. However, generally the Media presents the conflict from the side of the Israelis and goes so far as to dehumanize the Palestinians by use of a very selective vocabulary. Nor is the term occupation generally mentioned in these news reports, given people an even shakier version of what is truly occurring.
Even in Israel, this is obvious. In the documentary about the mothers of two girls who died in a terrorist bombing perpetrated by one of the girls it is surprisingly apparent. The girls were Ayat, the Palestinian suicide bomber and Rachel her unwitting victim. Ayat’s mother is willing to compromise and answer questions, however Rachel’s is not. Rachel’s mother become so obsessed with trying to understand how Ayat could have killed Rachel that she is unwilling to listen to any opinion other than her own. She refuses to acknowledge that what Israel has doen to the Palestinians might have brought Ayat to the point where she felt she had no choice but to do something like that. She also refuses to acknowledge that anybody but herself might have a legitimate opinion.
These worrying views are no doubt influenced by the Imperialism of the past several centuries. Most of the places colonized are generally no long subsidiaries of European power or of the U.S., however the prejudices produced by imperialism still remain. This shows in many ways such as books and films still heavily influenced by this.
The clash dies resonate. It is influenced by historical bias and clichés propagated by people whom it has influenced. It has become apparent throughout this course that there is a clash of civilizations. Sometimes this clash is violent, however many times it is not. Rather the clash can be seen in how the West is portrayed by the East and how the East is portrayed by the West. It is apparent in news reports and in the words people use.


Works Cited

Lockman, Zachary. Contending Visions of the Middle East. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2004.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. United States: Random House, 1979.

Entry 12

The Minister of the Interior from Terrorism and B.B.Q. is fascinating in what he does and does not choose to do. Throughout the film, he is essentially the only person calling for a peaceful resolution of the hostage situation so as to avoid the loss of life. Other government officials continually attempt to railroad the man into decisive offensive action rather than giving the "terrorists" a chance to surrender. In the end, the Minister of the Interior chooses to allow the so-called terrorists to leave. When it became apparent that the "terrorists" were gone from the building, he seems to be the only one to realize that they were likely among the hostages which had just been released. Rather than stop the former hostages, he watches them walk away. it would have been quite easy for him to send soldiers after the hostages to catch them before they were too far away, yet he did not. It was postulated that this was because he did not want to loose face, however my belief is that he chose to allow them to leave because of personal reasons. Whether it was as a subtle form of revenge against his colleagues or perhaps because of sympathy, these reasons are unclear.

Entry 11

The first part of Terrorism and B.B.Q as the name was translated was hilarious. Through an entirely understandable series of events, a man becomes a terrorist holding a government building hostage. The bureaucracy of the government building is reminiscent of the worst nightmares of the DMV combined with the IRS. There seemed to be nothing remotely resembling logic to the running of the building. To get permission for his children to change schools, the main character spent a week or so trying to find out first who he had to see, then waiting for that man to return from his trip, and finally waiting for the man to return from the bathroom. The ridiculousness of the situation knows no bounds. Unfortunately, the main character eventually looses his temper and guards are called to remove him from the building. In an attempt to plead his case, the main character ends up in something of a spinning wrestling match with the guards resulting in him holding one of the guard's guns. Even more unusually, the guards were so terrified that they ran rather than trying to diffuse the situation.

Entry 10

There is a clash of civilizations and there is certainly an "other." Yet this is part of any people. The "other" is necessary for any civilization. There is always something strange or something undefinable, where it be people from another culture or from their own. Part of the problem is the refusal to listen or to try to understand other people and cultures. Because to do so would be to admit that they are not as different as most would want to believe. That said, there is a historical basis for this fear in that people traveled to other countries and areas and wrote about these places. These writings contained preconceived notions and prejudices which were passed on to later writers. This still shapes the way we think about other places.

Entry 9

The conspiracy film on George W. Bush was incredibly frightening because it showed how easily the people of this country were fooled. However, what sticks out in my mind was the entire segment on weapons of mass destruction. I remember this when it was actually happening and how scared everybody was of these weapons of mass destruction. But what is a weapon of mass destruction defined as? Doubtless, numerous people have different definitions, which means that one must further inquire into whose definition is the correct one? What is the definition of "mass destruction?" Is it the ability to destroy or the ability to kill? However, even more frightening was to watch the film and realize how easy it was to silence dissenters by calling them unpatriotic. Is it truly unpatriotic to question what the United States government is doing? Of course not. The Bill of Rights exists for a reason. However, it seems that at the time, the right to use the first amendment was all but suspended in favor of adoration of George W. Bush. I was in high school at this point in time and I remember clearly how until 2003, 2004, it was impossible to question what was happening without starting an argument with classmates and friends.

News Comparisons

Rebecca Beaudry
HIS 3106
Comparing News
April 9, 2009

A United States Container Ship was attacked by Somali pirates. The pirates were repelled by the crew, but not before they managed to take the captain of the ship hostage. The story as reported by Al Jazeera and the Washington Post are vastly different, though both cover the same event.
The Al Jazeera article, “U.S. crew repel pirates off Somalia” focuses on the crew of the ship which had been attacked and the captain of the ship who had been taken hostage. In the Al Jazeera article, only one crew member, the third mate, is mentioned by name in relation to what he had said to the Associated Press about the crew’s attempts to negotiate with the pirates. They also had a quote from Hillary Clinton.
Unlike the Washington Post article, the Al Jazeera article mentions that part of the ship’s cargo is food aid from the United Nations. This food is meant for Somalia and Uganda. The Washington Post article spoke more about the owners of the shipping company and what they intended to do.
The Al Jazeera article also speaks briefly about the United States Navy warship, the Bainbridge, which came to the aid of the crew and later pursued the pirates. It did not speak about the hostage situation beyond that the pirates had escaped with the captain in one of the lifeboats.
At the end of the Al Jazeera article, the rise in piracy, particularly off the coast of Somalia is briefly spoken about. It does not go into detail, rather, it mentions several incidents by name of the ship and country of origins of the ship or the pirates or location of the piracy and various demands for ransom by pirates.
The Washington Post article, titled “FBI Hostage Negotiators Helping Navy With Ship Captain’s Rescue” takes a much different approach. The article focuses on what the United States military is doing in relation to the pirates. Likewise, it focuses on the additional guards added to the crew of the ship to ensure it arrived in Somalia safely.
It is not until halfway through the article that it mentions that the unarmed crew managed to wrest control of the ship from the pirates. The Washington Post article, does not, however, mention that the crew was unarmed as the Al Jazeera article did.
However, it does speak of the hostage situation in detail. It is described so vividly that it can be clearly pictured by readers. However, the description of the situation is such that it raises alarm for the captain of the ship in ways that the Al Jazeera article did not.
Like the Al Jazeera article, the Washington Post article had a quote from Hillary Clinton. However, the Washtington Post’s quote was on how the hostage situation was being closely monitored. The Al Jazeera quote was about how Clinton wanted countries to work together to end “the scourge of piracy.” These quotes give readers completely different feelings. While the Washington Post quote gives one the feeling that the incident is of so little concern that it is merely being monitored, the Al Jazeera quote gives the reader the feeling that piracy is a global problem. The Washington Post begins the article by describing the continuing hostage situation which is the focus of the article for the first two pages. It describes an almost movie like chase right out of Hollywood where the Navy chased down and cornered the pirates in the lifeboat they’d stolen. Even the quote from Capt. Joseph Murphy reflects this. He describes something out of an old western where the pirates have “nowhere to run; there’s nowhere to hide.”
The United States has a history of glorifying piracy even as it vilifies it. This is reflected by how the Washington Post described the pirates. They were referred to as “shrewd businessmen” or “daring opportunists” making piracy seem almost acceptable. Even with the mitigating effect of the word “opportunists,” the word daring makes them seem much more worth emulating. The piracy is even decribed as “spectacular,” although this seems to be more in relation to how they pulled off their acts of piracy than anything else.
Yet still the descriptions make it clear that though piracy is a bad thing, it is also something to be emulated. It makes it clear that the author is, if only subconsciously, comparing these pirates to the pirates American culture has turned into heroes. The article sends mixed messages in that it uses words which makes piracy sound good and heroic, yet essentially says that piracy is bad.
Unlike the Washington Post, Al Jazeera does not make piracy sound heroic. However, neither does it vilify piracy. Rather, it makes it clear that piracy is wrong and criminal without going overboard in either direction. It makes it sound like a virulent global problem. Yet it is still presented almost as a force of nature.
The Washington Post ends their article in the same manner Al Jazeera did, by talking about the recent upsurge in piracy on a global scale. However, the Washington Post makes it seem as if piracy is merely an increasing problem off the coast of Somalia, rather than world wide. Ti describes numerous incidents off the coast of Somalia while making it clear that the United States Navy does not have enough ships to patrol the waters while making it seem almost as if it is the fault of the leader of Somalia that there is so much piracy.
The Somali president is described as a “moderate Islamist.” This description alone is problematic. Considering how little information they gave about the man, it is inappropriate to mention that as if it would explain everything about his political views and the like.
The Al Jazeera article serves only to inform people about an incident of piracy while the Washinton Post article both vilifies and praises piracy. What the articles chose to cover and how they chose to do so adds to these opposing views.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/04/20094823514902293.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040901304.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Entry 8

Loose Change 9/11 was horrifying. Though it was a conspiracy film produced to question the facts of 9/11 according to the government and imply something suspicious had occurred, that they were able to find that much information was incredibly suspicious and raises questions. if the government was being completely truthful, would they have been able to gather this much information? Though they spoke only passingly of the Patriot Act, the film raises questions about it as well. The Patriot Act was one of the worst things to happen to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in quite a while, yet it was still passed because of how frightened voters, and as a result, the people they'd put into office were about terrorists. Was the system in place so bad that this backstep in civil liberties was necessary? People were scared because of the image presented by the media and the President. If you say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction enough, maybe they'll magically appear. If you imply that exercising your right to free speech by protesting is unpatriotic, people will believe that to be true. To even suggest that the US is good and everybody who stands against it evil is horrifying.

Entry 7

The film American East was about Muslims living in Los Angeles in a post 9/11 United States. The most heartbreaking character was the cab driver and aspiring actor. During the film, he asked his pregnant girlfriend to marry him because he thought he was in a more stable position having gotten a part on a TV show for which he was scheduled to appear seven times. However, the script was completely rewritten and he was left to play the part of terrorist. Though it obviously bothered him, he said he would do the part. However, after agreeing to do this, he tells his agent that he won't do this sort of part again. As the film goes on, the actor is recognized in a coffee shop by some rather stupid young men who think that he really is a terrorist rather than consider that what they saw had been a promotion. After quite understandably yanking their chain by saying he really was a terrorist, he ends up being arrested and missing his chance to audition for a part that he really wanted. By this point, the character is quite understandably depressed and fed up. After loosing his job as a cab driver because his boss needed somebody who would work full time, he tries to explain to the director of the television show that he was uncomfortable playing the part of a terrorist only to have the entire situation devolve into a hostage situation where he is eventually killed. The worst part is that his pregnant fiance was speaking to him on the phone whenhe is shot by a sniper.

Film Analysis

Rebecca Beaudry
HIS 3105
Film Analysis
March 19, 2009

The 1999 film, The Mummy takes place in Egypt during the 1920s. This film tells the story of an ancient Egyptian priest and his attempt to break free from the curse he was under and bring the woman he loved, Anck-su-namun back to life. The heroes of the movie accidentally aid Imhotep, the priest, in breaking free of his prison only to spend the rest of the film attempting to right the wrong they had committed.
The film opens on Anck-su-namun and Imhotep together. It quickly becomes apparent that the two are having an affair. This is confirmed when they kill the Pharaoh so that Anck-su-namun can be free of him. Unfortunately, they are caught and Anck-su-namun kills herself after telling the guards that it was she who killed the Pharaoh. This was done with the intention of having Imhotep bring her back to life, however, in the middle of the ceremony, Imhotep and his fellow priests are caught. Their punishment for this crime was to be mummified alive in the case of the priests and in the case of Imhotep to be buried alive with a swarm of flesh eating beetles after his tongue was cut out.
The next seen is set in the early 1920s, where the French Foreign Legion preparing for a fight in the ruins of the fictional Egyptian city of Hamunaptra. It is later revealed that this particular group was so enamored with the legend of Hamunaptra that they walked all the way to Egypt from Lybia in search of it. After the French Foreign Legion looses the battle, the main male character, Rick O’Connell wanders off into the desert. From there, he eventually ends up in Cairo where an artifact he had stolen from Hamunaptra is stolen from him in a bar by the brother, Jonathon, of the female lead, Evy Carnahan.
Realizing that this the artifact is important and that within it is a map to the legendary city of Hamunaptra, which was supposedly the City of the Dead, an ancient burial ground, Evy insists on meeting the person who had originally possessed the artifact. Eventually, she is forced to barter with the lecherous Egyptian warden of Cairo Prison to free Rick before he is executed. Said warden then pushes his way into their expedition to Hamunaptra to ensure that he receives his portion of the profits.
Throughout this film, the Medjai, a group of warriors desended from the secret guard which protected the Pharaoh killed by Anck-su-namun and Imhotep follow the heroes and alternately attempt to stop the expedition to Hamunaptra and aid the heroes of the film after they accidentally free Imhotep. It is Ardeth Bay who aids Rick, Evy, and Jonathon. Though Ardeth Bay is by far the most competent character in the film, it is Rick and Jonathon who, despite their blunders and bumbling save the day.
In the opening scene, it becomes apparent that Anck-su-namun is concubine of the Pharaoh. The impracticality of her clothing, or lack there of is amazing. She spends her only living moments in the film wearing a loincloth and lines of ink painted upon her body. The Pharaoh knew Ank-su-namun had cheated on him when some of these ink designs upon her arm had become smeared. Neither he, nor any of the other characters stopped to think that the only way Anck-su-namun could avoid smearing the ink was to stand. To sit or lay down, or even to lean against a wall would have hopelessly smeared the ink. Even accidentally moving her body in the wrong way would have smeared the ink.
When the boat they were traveling upon was burned down by the Medjai, Evy and the other characters had to escape with the clothing upon their back. In the case of Evy, this meant she was in a nightgown. Left with no other choice, she is forced to buy clothing from the locals. Once she dons this clothing, including a veil, she is looked upon by Rick and the lecherous prison warden as a sex object. That is not to say that neither was attracted to Evy before then, rather that putting on this clothing made her all the more attractive to them.
The prison warden is portrayed as dirty, lecherous, and greedy throughout the movie. He barters with Evy for the release of Rick, only satisfied when offered twenty five percent of the cut of the profits made by the expedition to Hamunaptra. However, before Hamunaptra was revealed, he attempted to feel Evy up only to be rebuffed. When Jonathon is describing why he hates camels on the way to Hamunaptra, it is not a close up of the camels they are riding that is shown, but one of the warden, instead. Jonathon’s explanation that camels are dirty, smelly, and that they spit fit the warden exactly during this scene. Later on in the film, it is the warden’s own greed which kills him. Having wandered off from the group, he begins to pry the remains of flesh eating beetles from a wall, thinking them to be jewels. It is one of these beetles which burrows under his skin and eventually kills him.
After his death, Imhotep becomes something of an evil spirit, trapped until Evy accidentally releases him. From there, he goes on a quest to make himself whole using the body parts of the thieves who stolen the jars which held his internal organs. He is aided in his quest by the cowardly Beni, who betrayed at one point or another every major character in the film. When confronted with Imhotep, Beni begins to pray to any and all forms of God, including holding out a star of David to protect himself and praying in Hebrew. Imhotep assumes Beni is a Jewish slave and takes him as his head minion.
Though Imhotep was not originally evil, beyond his regicidal urges, something about how he died and then resurrected himself turned Imhotep evil. He eventually kidnaps Evy and attempts to kill her to bring Anck-su-namun back to life. Eventually, Imhotep is killed by being made mortal by a spell said by Evy and then set upon by the mummies of the guards which had killed him originally.
There are many examples of orientalism in the film The Mummy, from the portrayal of the seductive Ank-su-namun to the portrayal of Imhotep. The heroes of this movie are not Ardeth Bay or the Medjai, who have been watching over Imhotep to ensure he remained imprisoned for generations, but rather the bumbling heroes who loosed Imhotep in the first place.

Entry 6

So, am I the only one who was disappointed by where we stopped in Aladdin? We didn't even get to his big entrance as a prince, which surely would have sparked much discussion (particularly in the way Aladdin made up his princely name). Anyway, my big issue was the way all the women old enough to be considered sex objects dressed. This essentially amounted to the stereotypical flowing pants and a top which could double as a bra. Admittedly, they all put something on over themselves when they left their houses, but that doesn't change that most of the women in this children's movie are running around in what amounts to a bikini top and a pair of pants. Even Jasmine, the princess, runs around wearing this clothing. They put her in a purple dress that covered a lot more later on in the movie. Why can't she wear that instead of the bikini top and pants? She's a princess, not some cliched harem girl. Why is it a law that Jasmine has to marry a prince before she reaches a certain age? Can't she marry a member of the nobility? An important soldier? And why didn't her father arrange a marriage for her long before this? Surely he would have thought of it by then. Why when she reached that age? Did she become an old maid the day after she turned however old it was? This seems doubtful. Jasmine looks like a teenager.

Entry 5

Not Without My Daughter was an interesting film. It was written by a woman named Betty and based off of her real life experience in Iran. It is, perhaps, the fact that she wrote it herself which makes it the most interesting . What did and did not really happen is sketchy, however, it is clear that Betty and her daughter went to Iran with Betty's husband on a vacation and were essentially trapped there by her husband. They did eventually manage to leave the country through illegal means. Everything else seems to be open to interpretation. Despite the largely negative view of Muslims, particularly women perpetuated by the film, it is the women of the film who are the strongest and most sympathetic characters. When Betty's husband tries to coerce information from their daughter on where she and Betty had been that day, it is one of the female relatives who takes the child away to relative safety. The women who teach at the school Betty's daughter attends are the most sympathetic. They request that Betty spends her days at the school because of how upset her daughter becomes. Though they are restricted by rules and regulations, they do explain to Betty ways for her to get around these rules, such as arriving at school late. They cannot allow her to leave the school with the child unless her husband accompanies her, however that is very understandable. They not only have themselves to think of, but also the other students. When Betty's husband beats Betty at the school because he rightly suspects that she and their daughter were late arriving because they were somewhere else trying to find a way to leave the country, it is these women who take Betty's daughter away and do what they can to protect her by bringing the girl into a classroom.They could not have interfered in the beating, but they could and did protect their student.

Entry 4

I'll admit, I was more than a bit disapointed when we did not watch Aladdin last week. I was looking forward to watching, and picking apart that movie. not to mention that catchy songs were just what I needed to deal with my work load for this week. But hopefully we'll see Aladdin this week instead. The film about the Coolies was insteresting and disturbing. I learned more about the subject in one hour than I had known before. What sticks out to me is when the captain of a ship recorded the various deaths at sea. When he wrote it down, he added descriptions and other things which suggested that he had had at least passing familiarity with these people. But what I found disturbing was the mention of old laws in what I think was Tahiti being enforced once again. Laws that had essentially been debunked decades before. It raised the question of what had been happening in that country which would lead to something like that. The documentary did not mention the cause of these laws being reinstated, and did not have the time to do so, however to bring the subject up and then not explain it fully was disapointing. It seemed as if nearly a century was skipped over very quickly at the end of the documentary, and perhaps they should have found some other way to do that. Or have made the documentary into two hours instead of just one hour.

Orientalism Paper

Rebecca Beaudry
HIS 3105
Orientalism
Feb. 19, 2009

Orientalism is the depiction of the East by Western writers and artists. Edward Said defines Orientalism in a much harsher fashion. According to him, it is the hostile and disparaging view of the East. This was, according to him, influenced by centuries of colonialism and imperialism.
This view of the meaning of Orientalism is supported by numerous films and books. In the film Peace, Propaganda, & the Promised Land: US Media and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the focus is on how the United States media favors Israel over Palestine. While the film was biased in favor of Palestine, it brought up numerous points and raised equally numerous questions. These questions included why the US favored Israel and why Palestinians were so vilified in the media. The only reputable source mentioned in the film which depicted the area relatively accurately was the BBC.
This bias against the Palestinians resulted in the true conditions in Palestine not generally coming to light in the United States media. This included many of the check points and the all Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. The US media also rarely mentioned that the historical basis for why the Israelis were in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Nor did the United States media mention that the Israelis were illegally occupying Palestinian territory.
The film also mentioned how even when deaths or bombings in Palestine were mentioned, the Palestinians were essentially dehumanized. In one instance, children killed by a landmine were blamed for their own deaths, while the people who placed the bomb were essentially exonerated. Despite the fact that this was in a relatively residential area.
Likewise, the documentary, To Die in Jerusalem favored the Israeli woman. However, by the end of the film, it was the Palestinian woman, not the Israeli woman who looked better by the end of the film. This film focused on the mothers of two girls who died in a suicide bombing. One girl, Ayat, was the suicide bomber, the other, Rachel, was the only other person to die in the attack. Rachel’s mother cared little for what Ayat’s mother had to say, and did not care about the conditions in Palestine.
Instead, she tried to vilify both Ayat and her mother, rather than face the problems caused by her own government. When Rachel’s mother went into Palestine to meet with Ayat’s mother, she was so terrified, that she left. Several of the camera men had been arrested and Rachel’s mother honestly fear for her life, yet still she refused to see how the conditions in Palestine may have influenced Ayat to do what she did.
When Rachel and Ayat’s mothers finally speak face to face, Rachel’s mother dominates the conversation. She all but ignores anything Ayat’s mother has to say, instead choosing to all but accuse Ayat’s mother of raising Ayat to be a suicide bomber. She ignored the points Ayat’s mother tries to bring up, such as the man and child Ayat had seen die when she was young and the conditions Palestinians faced on a daily basis.
It was incredibly hypocritical that Rachel’s mother so vehemently refused to acknowledge the conditions Palestinians faced, yet had all but fled in fear of her life from Palestine. She refused to acknowledge what she obviously knew to be truth, instead hiding behind perceived superiority. When she visited a prison to speak to Palestinian inmates, she refused to hear their side of the story as well and began to lecture them, as if she knew all the answers. It was obvious by that point that she looked down upon Palestinians and rather than being oblivious to what was occurring in Palestine, she was well aware.
A third film was on the Coolies. These Indians were essentially indentured servants sent to various parts of the British Empire and treated almost the same as slaves had been treated. England had recently abolished slavery within its colonies and had need of cheap labor. So they turned to the old practice of indentured servitude. People, who likely had very little understanding of what they were agreeing to signed away years of their lives to working on plantations or in other such industries.
Labor conditions were harsh, and many people died. Likewise, many of the plantation owners treated the Coolies horribly and worked them much as they would have worked their slaves. Numerous people died during the trip from India, and losses were expected. Many times, the Coolies were sent to live in the former slave quarters. The conditions in these areas were appalling. Due to the conditions these people were forced to live in, nearly two thirds of infants died. Yet, it was their mothers who were blamed, for not having proper motherly instincts, rather than the plantation owners who forced people to live in such unsanitary and harsh conditions.
The film Reel Bad Arabs focused on the portrayed of Arabs in films and media. The speaker mentioned the mythical Arabland, which according to him is where much of the portrayal of Arabs in film takes place. In this place, there was more Hollywood mythology than truth. Arabland, according to the narrator, was a conglomeration of Hollywood myths, stereotypes, and clichés of what the Middle East was like.
He pointed out how regularly Arabs were used as villains and how on many occasions, Arab men were portrayed as lecherous or, as in the case of the film True Lies, incompetent. Women, according to him, were portrayed as either sexual symbols or heavily veiled and all but without individuality. They were often portrayed as unintelligent or barabaric, or were insulted in passing. Another example used in the film was the popular children’s movie, Aladdin. In this movie, even the opening song was horrifyingly racist, calling the area barbaric, and then further explaining that the barbarity was essentially acceptable because it was “home.”
Orientalism is how the West depicts the East in any and all media. According to Said, Orientalism is the negative depiction of the East by Westerners, as influenced by colonialism and imperialism.

Entry 3

The documentary, To Die in Jerusalem was at times very disturbing. It was about the mothers of two girls who had died in a suicide bombing. One of the girls, Ayat, was the bomber, and the other, Rachel, the only other person to died during the attack. It struck me how young Ayat was. She was, according to the documentary, just eighteen when she did this. Ayat's mother clearly had no idea this was going to happen, and neither did her friends. All of them were, it seemed, quite shocked that she would choose to do this. Ayat was so young and it made me remember a lot of the incredibly stupid things I did when I was eighteen and how unlike me, Ayat would never have a chance to regret doing them. I'm not sure why, but Rachel did not quite evoke as much sympathy from me. I think it's because my view of her is colored by her mother. Much of the film focused on Rachel's mother, who was determined to speak to Ayat's mother. As the documentary went on, she became less and less put together as her daughter's death almost seemed to consume her life. Admittedly, I have no idea what it is like to loose a child, but Rachel's mother seemed to be quite extreme at times. It was as if the only opinion that mattered to her was her own. Likewise, she was sure that Ayat's mother had known about what Ayat was planning. When the two women finally spoke, it became clear that Rachel's mother was only willing to listen to her own opinion and refused to listen to Ayat's mother, who was trying to bring up several very good points.

Entry 2

The film, Edward Said: On Orientalism, really helped to clarify the book reading. However, it seemed to be a quick overview with little detail, unlike the book. This is understandable as it was just a relatively short recording. In contrast, Stuart Hall: Representation and the Media, was incredibly repetitive. It raised several good points on the subject, and then devolved into a reiteration of points already mentioned. I found one image to be somewhat questionable, although that might have been his point. It was subtle, and may wall have been imagined, but when Hall used the image of two women to show communication, it was the blonde woman who looked straight at the viewer confidently while the brunette with darker skin looked away from the viewer and down, in what could be considered a nervous pose. This could well be imagined, or it could be a subtle point Hall was trying to make. The book by Lockman was particularly useful. the reading assigned gave a good overview of the historical background for Western views on the East, starting with the Greeks. It was very interesting , and though it skimmed over major events, it gave a good analysis of what had happened and how that had shaped various views.

Entry 1

Though interesting, Peace, Propaganda, & the Promised Land showed a very one sided view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not to say that it is untrue, but that the film cared little about the Israeli views of the conflict and focused on the Palestinian almost to the point of exclusion of all else and spent a great deal of time outlining the failings of U.S. Media. The video, did, however, introduce me to things I'd never considered before and told me more about events I only half remembered. I had never before heard the settlements described as they were in this film. Nor had I known what had happened at Camp David in 2000. At the time, I was in middle school and too self absorbed to pay any attention to the news. This is not to say that I completely trust everything said in the film, but rather that when I want information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'll go to the BBC from now on. The film, Reel Bad Arabs, was likewise eye opening. I'd known that only of my favorite films, True Lies was at times very racist, but I hadn't quite realized how racist it was. That doesn't change the fact that I will watch it again, but it does make me see it in a new light. However, though Reel Bad Arabs was well thought out and thorough, it seemed at times as if the speaker was reacting. This does not negate the fact that host brought to light some rather despicable lines and portrayals. I found it particularly interesting when the host mentioned the stereotypes of the rich or lecherous Arab. The same stereotypes were used throughout Europe with some variance to depict Jews. It was amazing, at least to me, how often there were incidents of prejudice and racism in movies I'd seen many times before.