According to the IMDb and some cookie-cutter journalists, that means Muslims are “outraged” by the movie’s title. Here we go again… those crazy Muslims – always yelling and pumping their fists over something! While I may not be outraged -neither as an Arab nor as a Muslim- I do have mixed feelings about all this…
I can understand Native Americans being outraged by the name of DC’s football team or Cleveland’s baseball team. I can even (grudgingly) understand some Muslims being outraged over the incident with the Danish cartoons (though reactions were overblown, to say the least). But even though I don’t particularly like the name of the movie/novel I don’t see what’s so outrageous. Had it been written by a non-Arab I might understand, but this is the work of an Arab.
“It is unfortunate that a major film studio would choose to exploit an ethnic slur as a sensational promotion for a movie. Mainstreaming a bigoted term in this manner will only serve to legitimize and normalize anti-Muslim prejudice in our society.”
I don’t like the name much – Raghead would have been better, especially given some of the themes of the story – and I wonder what people would think if some other ‘minority’ had written something with a similar title. But the fact that most other US minorities have already assimilated into Hollywood culture means that they don’t necessarily have to. For Arabs and Muslims, that is not the case. We are still portrayed through the lens of that Hollywood culture and we have yet to make our voices heard as loudly as they should be. That’s why there is some validity to the charges of “sensational promotion” here.
Still, I can’t hate. But I will have to see the movie before I make up my mind (not particularly interested in reading the book even though I’m sure it gives a better sense of Eiran’s perspective and purpose). What worries me most is how Hollywood handles the story and whether anything important is lost. Eiran did not work on the script adaptation – this was left in the capable hands of Alan Ball (I really enjoyed American Beauty). I don’t have particularly high expectations, so maybe I’ll be impressed.
Jack Shaheen is a renowned professor who’s written extensively about how Arabs are portrayed in Hollywood. His book, Reel Bad Arabs is a handy reference to see how dirty they’ve been doing us over the years. But as far as I know, he hasn’t written anything yet about this latest movie featuring an Indian actress playing the part of an Arab… I’m interested to hear his take on it, but I won’t wait for it to see the movie (although I’ll wait for the director’s cut – the film that will be released in theaters is 20 minutes shorter than what was screened at Tornoto and Sundance). The last movie I saw that dealt with Arabs was Rendition and I was pleasantly surprised… at least it was better than The Siege, True Lies, and my favorite – Delta Force. I’ll let you know what happens this time around but if you’ve already seen/read it, please share your thoughts.
Related posts:
- Animosity Towards Arab-Americans Declines As Hollywood Writers’ Strike Drags On
- Ha ha… Israeli Assassins are Hilarious!
- O Jerusalem? Oh Puh-leez!!
- REEL BAD ARABS: How Hollywood Vilifies a People
- Brooks Flops
"…Here we go again… those crazy Muslims – always yelling and pumping their fists over something!"I agree; I am so tired of the nasty herd of sheet covered trog's apishly waving a fist and shooting in the air…I have an idea: run the trailors for these "controversial titled movies" during prayer time. That should keep it out of their mass consciousness.
Posted by MooPig_Wisdom | August 26, 2008, 5:57 pmWhy does it matter that she’s “only” half-Egyptian? Perhaps we haven’t gotten away from the belief, after all, that it is important for her to be “full” Arab because there’s an Arab essence or Arab mind of some sorts.
I think CAIR is being extreme here, and it doesn’t hurt any to call them out on it when they deserve it. I wonder if anyone in CAIR (or the reviewer of this debate, who didn’t read the book but decided to carelessly psychoanalyze the author’s daddy issues) knows what “irony” means anymore.
Did anyone at CAIR even read the book? I’ve heard great reviews about it — from “full” Arab friends, since that seems to matter so much around here.
It should be no surprise that she’s “closer to her mother”. Bi-racial children are almost always closer to their mothers, explained largely in the same manner we we can explain why children in general are always closer to their mothers.
To jump to the conclusion about the author’s unpleasant views of her father determining her unpleasant view of all Arabs is an illogical conclusion, at best. It doesn’t make sense for someone who hasn’t read the book say something like that.
I generally like so many of the posts on this blog, and I apologize if my critique seems harsh. This post’s nationalistic tone and left-field analysis will go down among my least favorite things read thus far on KABOBfest.
Posted by Bonty | August 27, 2008, 7:26 amBonty,
I don’t know why you are trying to defent this movie.
All the points you mention are lame excuses at best.
The title is very offensive to us Arabs, regardless what the book/movie contain.
Quit being ethocentric.
Posted by Anonymous | August 27, 2008, 8:20 amYou are offended by a title that is meant to be ironic.
Sarcastic.
Satirical.
KABOBfest rails on politics and culture Chaucer-style all of the time. So now — NOW it is offensive?
Ha.
Posted by Anonymous | August 27, 2008, 9:06 amMuch of the time all “the great offence” over this that and other is guff brewed up by a mixture of militants, PC twats, those with a political agenda and the press. One suspects that half the time ordinary people of whatever persuasion wonder what the fuss is about.
Posted by xoggoth | August 27, 2008, 9:51 amWow, people are stupid. One of us actually manages to make and get Indiewood to support a big-ish feature film about growing up Arab American, and the first thing CAIR does is *attack* it? Are you fucking kidding me?
I hope to God they don’t change the title.
Posted by Saladin | August 27, 2008, 11:03 amLet me clarify my position on a few things…
1. There is nothing about all this that offends me (yet).
2. If they change the movie’s title, I’d be very disappointed.
3. I don’t agree with CAIR.
4. I’m not planning on reading the book because I have many others I want to read first, not because I don’t think it’s worth reading (I’m sure it is).
5. I take my hat off to Alicia Erian.
Regarding the whole half-Arab thing I brought it up because it is central to one of the story’s main themes: identity. While I do not think there is any one “Arab essence or Arab mind” to speak of, I do believe there are degrees at which people self-identify as Arabs that vary based on how much ‘Arab’ culture they’ve experienced. So, someone who grows up knowing both her parents’ cultures has a different perspective than someone who is estranged from the Arab parent.
That being said, I’m not trying to judge Eiran or anyone else. I merely said that what I know so far leaves me wondering. I don’t know what to think and I’m not passing judgment. I’ve also heard good things about the book and I;m glad that it made it to Hollywood no matter what (despite the fact that they couldn’t find an Arab girl to play the starring role).
One thing I should have made clearer in the original post is my stand on the whole CAIR thing. I think there is a time and place for everything, but this time they missed the point. Not only are they wrong, but they are doing a disservice to us by complaining in this instance. Had it been a non Arab who wrote the book, I’d understand (even if he or she was less than ‘half’ Arab)… although any KABOB eater would be cool…… remember the first victim of post 9-11 violence was a Sikh.
Posted by Kalash | August 27, 2008, 12:57 pmCAIR is clearly overreacting to a tile that is meant to be ironic, and not racist. There is plenty of real, dangerous racist propaganda against Arabs and Muslims to complain about without getting worked up over a movie title. If CAIR wishes to have any credibility, it should take pains to avoid becoming an Arabic version of the ADL, whose shrill and predictable whining is not taken seriously by any thinking person in the US or anywhere else.
The Danish cartoons by contrast are a fine example of intensely racist cartoons whose sole purpose was to outrage and anger Muslims, and unfortunately, some extremist Muslims took the bait and delivered a propaganda victory to the Islamophobes. Interestingly Muhammad is depicted in one of those cartoons as a Sikh with a Sikh turban and beard and a bomb in his turban, which neatly illustrates the “towelhead” stereotype of turban = Arab = Muslim = terrorist. This stereotype led to many Sikhs being victimized in racist attacks after 9-11 as they were assumed to be Arabs. So I don’t think a movie that hopefully will explore just what it means to be seen as a “towelhead” in American society is something to be condemned because of its title.
Posted by Sean | August 27, 2008, 2:30 pmDunno about intensely racist Sean. In some cases that is probably correct but then also is it not reasonable to make the point that, in our own society, we have a right to abide by our own rules?
Islam is hardly being singled out here, if you look at political cartoonist’s treatment of major western figures it is not any more charitable. So, ok it’s their prophet, not just a president or celebrity. There is a point here too, to oppose the total irrationality of such reaction. If atheists like me are wrong and Allah is real then I am sure he will deal with us unbelievers in his own good time.
I do not believe in giving offence just for the sake of it but I think you are ignoring the stated aims of the cartoons, to challenge the threats to those attempting even serious depiction of a historical character. In our own countries, in our own cultures, we have a right to follow our own ideals.
Posted by xoggoth | August 27, 2008, 4:17 pmIn our own countries, in our own cultures, we have a right to follow our own ideals.
Really?
And what is YOUR country, xoggoth? How many years until you let it be OUR country too? Look where Israel is. Do you really want to play demographic games in America also?
Posted by Anonymous | August 27, 2008, 8:01 pmBonty….I think you’ve gone after a few strawmen in your criticism of this post. Unintentionally, perhaps?
The article makes only a single, descriptive reference to the protagonist being “half” Arab. The point regarding potential anti-Arab biases on her part obviously had nothing to do with a lack of “Arab cred”; indeed, the post even refers to her as an “Arab” in the third paragraph. Rather, it centered around the reasonable point that a Western kid who has had bad experiences with an Arab father might be inclined to project their dad’s shortcomings onto Arabs generally. Certainly this is debatable, but it was hardly the firm conclusion of the post. And besides, as a half-Arab American myself, I think that it’s very easy to form stereotypes about an unfamiliar culture when one parent’s membership in that culture is amplified by a contrast with the other parent’s more familiar cultural roots. At the very least, then, I don’t see why the post’s speculation is so outrageous.
You only dug yourself deeper with your point about bi-racial children. If the post’s speculation about the protagonist’s “daddy issues” was out of line, why are you speculating about why any particular child is closer to their mother or father? This is a circumstantial question, of course, as the post recognized. For someone accusing the author of psychoanalysis, you’ve certainly done your fair share of reading your own intuitions into the issue.
I personally thought this was a thoughtful, balanced post. Do you really think that this review, which expressed “mixed feelings” about a controversial movie and emphasized the importance of keeping an open mind about it, really qualifies as “nationalistic” and “left-field”?
Posted by publius | August 27, 2008, 10:27 pmWhat rules do we abide by in our society? The rules that say you can demonize Muslims everywhere as terrorists but can’t criticize Israel? Those rules, which we sanctimoniously refer to as “free” speech? You really have to marvel at the hypocrisy of Europeans who condoned those cartoons as free speech when it is a crime in many European countries to question the official version of the Holocaust.
Some devout Muslims may be upset at any depiction of Muhammad, but what really angered many Muslims was the racist stereotype of “raghead” = terrorist, a stereotype we have been brainwashed with for decades in this country and which served as the ideological underpinning for America’s wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Afghans are dead today because of the same mindset which motivated the authors of those cartoons. The editor who posted those cartoons was an associate of Islamophobic scumbag Daniel Pipes, and he posted them for the sole purpose of provoking outrage among Muslims.
We do not, as a society, condone blatant racism or anti-Semitism as acceptable free speech, though we don’t necessarily censor it, either. But anti-Muslim bigotry seems to be fair game in “our” culture, and it gets a little tiresome seeing anti-Muslim bullshit like those cartoons defended as free speech. Those cartoons were not a legitimate criticism of Islam or of “Islamic” terrorism, but flat out racist propaganda and it is shameful that so few in the West condemned it as such.
“In our own countries, in our own cultures, we have a right to follow our own ideals.”
What ideals are those? That anti-Muslim bigotry is fair game? Those aren’t my ideals. I believe in free speech, but I believe in social responsibility and the pursuit of truth and justice as well, and the authors of those cartoons were interested in nothing but slandering Muslims as terrorists and generating fear and hate against them. That they chose a Sikh with a Sikh turban and beard as a stand-in for Muhammad only reveals the depth or their ignorance of Muslim culture.
Muslims are part of our culture, and are entitled to be treated with dignity any respect same as any other citizen.
Posted by Sean | August 27, 2008, 10:30 pmPublius:
The author edited his post after receiving less than flattering feedback, changing his language substantially.
For instance, he tried to assign CAIR credit in their unwarranted claims to racism when he intitially wrote “Okay, to be fair, she is only half-Egyptian….” to “In this case, Alicia Erian who penned the novel is half Egyptian.”
Posts as originally written are stored on RSS feeds.
Posted by Bonty | August 28, 2008, 4:46 amBonty,
Regarding that change, fair enough – though it seems to me the change is more geared to clarification than alteration. But even assuming the post was cutting CAIR a little slack because the author was “half-Arab”, I just don’t see why that’s an outrage. I certainly don’t know the specifics of Erian’s upbringing, but I do know from my own experience that there is a big difference between having two Arab parents and having just one. Even if you have a loving family, any sense of “belonging” to a culture is very much discounted when you are raised by someone outside of it, and particularly if your one example from that culture is a bad parent.
Posted by publius | August 28, 2008, 5:37 amI did change the wording in one sentence of my post, not because of ‘unflattering’ comments, but because I see how it gave off the wrong impression. The fact that you thought I was cutting CAIR some slack confirms I was right in making that edit.
Again, I give no credit to CAIR in this instance and regret not having made that clearer form the beginning.
Thanks for your comments.
Posted by Kalash | August 28, 2008, 8:13 amI would argue that the edit was not only a “clarification” in language as you say, but a dramatic shift in tone, which I initially found condescending. Now it seems he changed it to sound “balanced” and even “thoughtful” as you say — thoughtful it was certainly not.
He was writing about something that he knew nothing about. Simply reporting MSNBC or Fox News style, which is always a waste of time to listen to, not in the very least because of the lack of any analysis and inability to say anything by the time we’re all done.
I don’t understand why you’re hung up on the author’s upbringing, which seems to be trying to say that she has no credibility on having Arab identity. Many Arabs in the U.S. were often seen as “white” and were labeled as such until 9-11 when the difference was constructed.
It’s the title that this debate centers on. The title is ironic. She was called a towelhead in school and teased by her classmates for being Arab. To me, that’s the most interesting part of all of this — the title and the fight over it speaks to the lack of understanding of identity constructions in a country living under white supremacy.
This post (and especially in its original form) was not only boring but uninteresting. Again — MSNBC-style. Zero analysis along with that Liberal need to be “balanced” (eg. “to be fair…. she’s only half-Egyptian”) What does that have to do with anything? That’s where the author thought the debate should revolve? On what counts as Arab? On what counts as a category? Hasn’t that been the overarching problem all along?
It seems to me we need to get over this type of thinking ourselves before asking others to do it. Many “Arabs” didn’t seem to have a problem with these sortings when they thought of themselves as white. I would argue that many of us still don’t care about other injustices that have nothing to do with Arabs, Islam, or the Middle East.
Posted by Bonty | August 28, 2008, 8:17 amI’m starting to feel like we’re not even referencing the same post anymore, Bonty. What about the author’s indication that he made this change because he thought it gave the wrong impression makes youthink that he was making a “dramatic shift” in tone, or even trying to be balanced? I think you’re hung up on this minor change because it lets you paint the post as endorsing the CAIR view, a view which any fair reader would not take away given that the poster says multiple times that he doesn’t see any reason to be outraged.
You may not have noticed, but it isn’t me that’s hung up on the author’s identity – it was you. I only discussed it because I thought it was amusing that you would criticize the post for speculating about how the author’s experiences with her father might affect her attitude toward Arabs, and then do some armchair psychology of your own about bi-racial children.
I certainly agree that the debate is about the title, which is why I think it’s so funny that you keep pressing this irony issue – the poster obviously wasn’t offended by the title. His point, which perhaps you didn’t grasp, was that the controversy over the title demonstrates the degree to which Arab Americans have not been assimilated into our culture, and thus are more likely to be viewed externally, as the subject of inquiry, as opposed to acting internally as creators of their own unique story. Hence the post’s reference to the casting of an Indian-American actress to play the protagonist: this would be much less likely to happen if Arabs had a voice in Hollywood.
You’re reading the tea leaves even more when you say that the post was being nationalistic, or even uninteresting, in discussing the author’s half-Arab background. The point was obviously not to say that a half-Arab can’t comment meaningfully. It was to note, descriptively, that such a person faces the added difficulty of having even less immersion in an alien culture, and might have more difficulty forming a view about that culture. I find that to be quite an interesting point, and I think you’re reading the tea leaves to facilitate your idea that somehow, the post is endorsing the view that half-Arabs (or half-Anythings) have nothing to contribute.
It may be fun to adopt an extreme, unreasonable interpretation of one phrase in a post and proceed to use it to lambast the whole thing as “MSNBC”. Unfortunately, it’s not productive for anyone else actually trying, in good faith, to understand the point of the post. No big deal though…perhaps we’ll agree the next time around.
Posted by publius | August 28, 2008, 2:02 pmI don’t understand why you prefer “raghead”?
Posted by pali-american | August 28, 2008, 2:15 pmNobody’s talking about the same post anymore because the post changed.
There should be a rule that bloggers follow for some common courtesy: please don’t change or modify a post if people have already commented on those things you want to change. (In other words, change those things you wish you hadn’t written).
If you’re going to make such major changes (if they’ve been referenced and debated, they are major), then please note it somewhere on the post as a courtesy.
I can’t follow anything that has just been said here in the comments.
Posted by Anonymous | August 28, 2008, 2:21 pmThat’s a good rule – though I really don’t think the minor changes here are worth all the fuss. Just because someone throws a fit over a change doesn’t mean it actually matters.
The only change that has been brought to light is laid out by Bonty above in the comments, 8/28/08 4:46:00 PDT – hope that helps.
Posted by publius | August 28, 2008, 2:46 pmbonty,
It’s the title that this debate centers on. The title is ironic. She was called a towelhead in school and teased by her classmates for being Arab. To me, that’s the most interesting part of all of this — the title and the fight over it speaks to the lack of understanding of identity constructions in a country living under white supremacy.
So, only whites call Arabs “towelhead”, eh? Or is it more likely that it is only politically correct to accuse whites and whites only of racism? Aren’t you engaging in the same kind of shallow surface analysis that you complain about? Whites are probably the least racist ethnic group in the United States. You don’t have to look very closely to see the truth of that. Hang out at any ethnically mixed high school for a day or two. And be sure to find out what people are really saying in Spanish, Cantonese, Arabic or whatever.
Posted by programmer craig | August 28, 2008, 8:20 pmI prefer raghead because it sounds better (and it’s more accurate). But I was trying to show that while there are some people taking it seriously, CAIR’s complaint is really something to joke about.
Again, the change was made (‘To be fair’ became ‘In this instance’) for purposes of clarity. The original sentence was being misunderstood (case in point that anyone would think I was being condescending).
bonty- you know very little about me or my family… if you knew more I think you’d be singing a different tune. I guess that doesn’t really matter though.
Posted by Kalash | August 29, 2008, 12:15 amI think it’s fine for CAIR to take issue with the title. Many African Americans take issue with members of their community using the word n—-r. Many feminists take issue with other feminists using “bitch.” It might be an attempt of reclamation or humor, sure. But making a slur part of the mainstream discourse is not a cut and dry issue.
Posted by argolis | September 1, 2008, 1:17 pmYY2ojq ldxvstscmpaj, [url=http://jshixlinjidj.com/]jshixlinjidj[/url], [link=http://taybtzrmojpu.com/]taybtzrmojpu[/link], http://sbbmaldteinm.com/
Posted by chxyfbmoazi | June 9, 2009, 4:56 pmIn America, we need to fight their demands while we still can because once they get their foot in the door, they start pushing. At first they are civil and as they grow larger in population to where they are about 10% or so, they go off on riots over any little thing. I think this way because of several news articles just recently. For example, JihadWatch, AtlasShrugged. Here's one about Spain with an informative comment at the end: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-yakima/hu…
Posted by Claire | September 19, 2010, 8:15 am