Experiencing the 1000 hills in Rwanda and the bumpy terrain of Uganda
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
A Summary of Winona Stevenson’s Colonialism and Nations Women in Canada First
This review first summarizes Winona Stevenson’s second chapter Colonialism and Nations Women in Canada First of her article Scratching the Surface: Canadian Anti-Racist Feminist Thought. In her article, Stevenson deconstructs the colonization of First Nations women through colonial agencies and their hegemonic subjugation of First Nations women, especially through the imposition of patriarchy. The summary follows Stevenson’s structure: “Chronology of Colonial Relations”, “Colonial Representations of First Nations Women”, “Female Resistance to Christian Conversion”, “Missionary and State Strategies and Collaboration”, and “The Statutory Subjugation of First Nations Women”. To conclude, I end with my thoughts on Stevenson’s statement regarding present colonialism. Stevenson does not expand on her statement: colonialism persists in the present day relationship between First Nations peoples and Canadian citizens, due to her chapter timeline.
Stevenson describes the colonial relationship with North American First Nations,distinct from colonization that took place in countries deemed as third-world today. The fourth-world, based on Stevenson’s definition, differs from the third-world as the indigenous peoples are the minority and disempowered on their own land (Stevenson:1 ). Furthermore, in the fourth-world, colonialism is distinguished from other forms of exploitation as it, “occurred in simultaneous, overlapping, and spatially distinct waves of different European imperial regimes” (Stevenson: 1). These regimes, established by both French and English colonial powers caused First Nations to, “suffer from a lack of political power, economic subjugation, and social and cultural stigmatization” (Stevenson:2).
The French, in the beginning, had no intention of colonization and merely saw the ‘New World’ as a profitable opportunity from extraction of primary goods. However, it was only a matter of time before French Domination. As a result, the fisheries gained importance and drew more fisherman: “soon temporary fish camps turned into permanent villages and inland agricultural settlements sprung up”(Stevenson:2). The French relationships with Aboriginal communities were dictated by economic profit. For example, as the Beothuk interacted with the Europeans and through resistance to the appropriation of their land, “Massacres, combined with starvation and newly introduced European diseases, quickly resulted in the extermination of the entire Beothuk nation” (Stevenson: 2).
It was through the vehicles of mercantilism and Roman Catholicism, the French would solidify its plan of colonization during the fur trade: First by securing Aboriginal Peoples as military allies through trade; second by granting merchants trade monopolies on the condition that some of their profits be used to help establish permanent colonies; and third by promoting interracial marriage as a means to create French nationals to populate its North American colonies (Stevenson: 3): To convert and to assimilate would bring First Nations into French Civility (Stevenson: 4).
The English, conversely used force from the beginning to appropriate Aboriginal land: manifest destiny ideology fueled the war (Stevenson: 4). This did not change until the English needed First Nations peoples to help them fight the French. Then, as the English expanded the fur Trade, the First Nations women became commodified for their labor and sexuality (rarely did a women benefit from this exchange) (Stevenson: 5). Furthermore, the English also tried to create a civilized Euro-Canadian settler population, when in fact they, “exacerbated already existing racial tensions”(Stevenson: 6).
The sexism Aboriginal women experienced through their colonial identities, was unlike that of European women, as it encompassed factors of race. However, this representation still encompassed the myth of feminity; the ideal domestic, docile woman (Stevenson: 8). European women were chaste and dependent on men, while, “Aboriginal women had considerable personal autonomy and independence — they controlled their own sexuality, had the right to divorce, and owned the products of their labour” (Stevenson: 7). As Aboriginal women challenged these euro-feminine ideals, they soon, “functioned as the single most important criterion for contrasting savagism with civility” (Stevenson: 6). From this, drew the binary stereotypes of Aboriginal women: the virginal Pocahontas who is susceptible to conversion, contrasted, with the haggard and toiling savage.
Aboriginal responses to colonialism were not uniform because of differing external factors, “from individual inclination to socioeconomic stress” (Stevenson: 13). The exclusion of women from participating in discussion and economic activity with European settlers, forced women to lose power in their society as their Aboriginal men adopted like mindsets (Stevenson: 10). The first step to converting the women was convincing the men “of the righteousness of the patriarchy”(Stevenson:11). This led to the destruction of polygamy, which meant many women would never be married and have the support of a family structure (Stevenson:11): the men had power and social importance to gain, while women were the most opposed to conversion as they had the most to lose (Stevenson: 13). “The most telling evidence of Aboriginal women's resistance to cultural transformation was their reluctance to send their daughters to mission schools” (Stevenson: 12). “Mission schools posed a threat to the socialization of their children and to the cultural integrity of the community” (Stevenson: 12). While studies of Aboriginal Women resistance may be few, they do demonstrate the development of “resistance tactics ranging from overt violence to covert symbolic acts” (Stevenson: 12). Ironically, women became the false but primary lens through which the fourth-world was portrayed: these victims needed to be saved through colonization.
Starting in 1850 on, colonial legislature, and later the Government of Canada, enforced patriarchy and coerce First Nations women to colonial standards of society (Stevenson: 15). “Through various Indian Acts, and amendments, First Nations women's autonomy in the areas of membership, marriage, divorce, and sexuality were undermined, along with female relations to land and family property, and political “decision-making” to encourage female dependency on male relatives (Stevenson: 22). By 1869 the definition of patrilineage gained importance in determining who was Indian and who was not. If men took a spouse of a different Band or Tribe or even from the European-settler population, she became apart of the Band or Tribe. Alternatively, a women who wished to stay with her Band or Tribe, was expected to marry within it, or lose her status (Stevenson: 16). The intent was to reduce the number of status Indians and further the dominance of the European patrilineage system (Stevenson: 17).
What I found interesting, and very poignant, was the statement that colonialism still takes place today (Stevenson: 1)1. Specifically, I thought beyond land-rights, to the abstract indigenous Intellectual Property Right (IPR) to traditional knowledge. Specifically, I was interested in IPR and its relationship to bioprospecting and, in popular culture, the ever present Moccasin trend. The question should not be whether Aboriginal Peoples should receive IPR, but rather how reciprocity should be enforced and appropriately handled. Unfortunately, this recognition and reciprocity from IPR(a Eurocentric idea in itself) means nothing when North-American First Nations Peoples, “continue struggling to protect their natural resources (lumber, minerals, and water), to protect their traditional ways of life from missionary incursions, currently in the form of Protestant fundamentalism; and to reclaim stolen lands and self-government jurisdictions”(Stevenson: 1).
Stevenson, Winona. 1999. Colonialism and First Nations Women in Canada. In E. Dua and A.
Robertson, eds. Scratching the Surface: Canadian Anti-Racist Feminist Thought. Toronto:
Women’s Press, pp. 49-80.
Stevenson describes the colonial relationship with North American First Nations,distinct from colonization that took place in countries deemed as third-world today. The fourth-world, based on Stevenson’s definition, differs from the third-world as the indigenous peoples are the minority and disempowered on their own land (Stevenson:1 ). Furthermore, in the fourth-world, colonialism is distinguished from other forms of exploitation as it, “occurred in simultaneous, overlapping, and spatially distinct waves of different European imperial regimes” (Stevenson: 1). These regimes, established by both French and English colonial powers caused First Nations to, “suffer from a lack of political power, economic subjugation, and social and cultural stigmatization” (Stevenson:2).
The French, in the beginning, had no intention of colonization and merely saw the ‘New World’ as a profitable opportunity from extraction of primary goods. However, it was only a matter of time before French Domination. As a result, the fisheries gained importance and drew more fisherman: “soon temporary fish camps turned into permanent villages and inland agricultural settlements sprung up”(Stevenson:2). The French relationships with Aboriginal communities were dictated by economic profit. For example, as the Beothuk interacted with the Europeans and through resistance to the appropriation of their land, “Massacres, combined with starvation and newly introduced European diseases, quickly resulted in the extermination of the entire Beothuk nation” (Stevenson: 2).
It was through the vehicles of mercantilism and Roman Catholicism, the French would solidify its plan of colonization during the fur trade: First by securing Aboriginal Peoples as military allies through trade; second by granting merchants trade monopolies on the condition that some of their profits be used to help establish permanent colonies; and third by promoting interracial marriage as a means to create French nationals to populate its North American colonies (Stevenson: 3): To convert and to assimilate would bring First Nations into French Civility (Stevenson: 4).
The English, conversely used force from the beginning to appropriate Aboriginal land: manifest destiny ideology fueled the war (Stevenson: 4). This did not change until the English needed First Nations peoples to help them fight the French. Then, as the English expanded the fur Trade, the First Nations women became commodified for their labor and sexuality (rarely did a women benefit from this exchange) (Stevenson: 5). Furthermore, the English also tried to create a civilized Euro-Canadian settler population, when in fact they, “exacerbated already existing racial tensions”(Stevenson: 6).
The sexism Aboriginal women experienced through their colonial identities, was unlike that of European women, as it encompassed factors of race. However, this representation still encompassed the myth of feminity; the ideal domestic, docile woman (Stevenson: 8). European women were chaste and dependent on men, while, “Aboriginal women had considerable personal autonomy and independence — they controlled their own sexuality, had the right to divorce, and owned the products of their labour” (Stevenson: 7). As Aboriginal women challenged these euro-feminine ideals, they soon, “functioned as the single most important criterion for contrasting savagism with civility” (Stevenson: 6). From this, drew the binary stereotypes of Aboriginal women: the virginal Pocahontas who is susceptible to conversion, contrasted, with the haggard and toiling savage.
Aboriginal responses to colonialism were not uniform because of differing external factors, “from individual inclination to socioeconomic stress” (Stevenson: 13). The exclusion of women from participating in discussion and economic activity with European settlers, forced women to lose power in their society as their Aboriginal men adopted like mindsets (Stevenson: 10). The first step to converting the women was convincing the men “of the righteousness of the patriarchy”(Stevenson:11). This led to the destruction of polygamy, which meant many women would never be married and have the support of a family structure (Stevenson:11): the men had power and social importance to gain, while women were the most opposed to conversion as they had the most to lose (Stevenson: 13). “The most telling evidence of Aboriginal women's resistance to cultural transformation was their reluctance to send their daughters to mission schools” (Stevenson: 12). “Mission schools posed a threat to the socialization of their children and to the cultural integrity of the community” (Stevenson: 12). While studies of Aboriginal Women resistance may be few, they do demonstrate the development of “resistance tactics ranging from overt violence to covert symbolic acts” (Stevenson: 12). Ironically, women became the false but primary lens through which the fourth-world was portrayed: these victims needed to be saved through colonization.
Starting in 1850 on, colonial legislature, and later the Government of Canada, enforced patriarchy and coerce First Nations women to colonial standards of society (Stevenson: 15). “Through various Indian Acts, and amendments, First Nations women's autonomy in the areas of membership, marriage, divorce, and sexuality were undermined, along with female relations to land and family property, and political “decision-making” to encourage female dependency on male relatives (Stevenson: 22). By 1869 the definition of patrilineage gained importance in determining who was Indian and who was not. If men took a spouse of a different Band or Tribe or even from the European-settler population, she became apart of the Band or Tribe. Alternatively, a women who wished to stay with her Band or Tribe, was expected to marry within it, or lose her status (Stevenson: 16). The intent was to reduce the number of status Indians and further the dominance of the European patrilineage system (Stevenson: 17).
What I found interesting, and very poignant, was the statement that colonialism still takes place today (Stevenson: 1)1. Specifically, I thought beyond land-rights, to the abstract indigenous Intellectual Property Right (IPR) to traditional knowledge. Specifically, I was interested in IPR and its relationship to bioprospecting and, in popular culture, the ever present Moccasin trend. The question should not be whether Aboriginal Peoples should receive IPR, but rather how reciprocity should be enforced and appropriately handled. Unfortunately, this recognition and reciprocity from IPR(a Eurocentric idea in itself) means nothing when North-American First Nations Peoples, “continue struggling to protect their natural resources (lumber, minerals, and water), to protect their traditional ways of life from missionary incursions, currently in the form of Protestant fundamentalism; and to reclaim stolen lands and self-government jurisdictions”(Stevenson: 1).
Stevenson, Winona. 1999. Colonialism and First Nations Women in Canada. In E. Dua and A.
Robertson, eds. Scratching the Surface: Canadian Anti-Racist Feminist Thought. Toronto:
Women’s Press, pp. 49-80.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Good Memories : Queen's Players Opening Video Winter 2008
In Winter 2008, I was lucky enough to play Karen Hitchcock (the now former and then current, Dean of Queen's University) in Queen's Players.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Players
I joined Queen's Players Fall 2007 to play a loud, crass robot R2-mother f-ing - D2 in An Inconvenient Truth About Clark and Dog. Then Hitchcock, in Dial Whoopi For Murder (Winter 2008), and finally Jesus Christ Super Star Wars (Spring 2008). For two other years I have also done choreography for 4 shows.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
‘Nationalism and Homophobia go together’: A struggle for Human Rights in Israel and Palestine (A Film Review of Citizen Nawi)
Citizen Nawi, directed by Nissim Mossek, is a documentary film released in 2007 that outlines the struggle to end apartheid in Israel and Palestine, centered around the life of an Israeli Human Rights and anti-apartheid activist, Ezra Nawi. Not only are Ezra’s anti-zionist politics reason for the scrutiny of his Israeli peers, but also his homosexuality, and furthermore his homosexual relationships with Palestinian men. This paper will consist of a film review of the documentary Citizen Nawi; first remarking on the current homophobia in Israel, experienced by Ezra, secondly attempting to summarize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and then outline the current socio-political reality of Israel and Palestine, thirdly discussing Ezra’s homosexuality, anti-zionism, and the intersection of his political and personal sphere through his relationships with Palestinian men, and lastly, conclude by discussing the power of this film as an independent portrayal of the white homosexual man.
As with many religions, Judaism (the religion of Israel), is divided regarding it’s stance on homosexuality. However, the prevalent view among the varying denominations holds that homosexuality is sinful and that sexual acts between people of the same sex, is forbidden by the Torah. This division speaks true not only in Israeli society but down to their National Policy, which, since June 2009, recognizes same-sex marriages, only as a “state-recognized non-religious marriage”. When to be an Israeli, is to be Jewish, this exclusion from religious marriage is an exclusion from one’s society; most other citizen’s having non-religious marriages granted are non-nationals. Furthermore, “Queer uses of time and space develop in opposition to the institutions of family, heterosexuality and reproduction and queer subcultures develop as alternatives to kinship-based notions of community”. As such, LGBT sexual identity can be seen as ‘anti-Israel’, and thus can be seen as a threat to Israel and it’s people’s hopeful ‘victory’.
Israeli homophobia is documented in Citizen Nawi, as Ezra is ridiculed and threatened by his fellow Jews. Specifically, the Israeli Gay-Pride parade depicted in Citizen Nawi, is portrayed as a form of protest and resistance, rather than a celebration of the LGBT community; many Israeli’s came out to protest instead of support. Yet, Ezra embodies the spirit of the gay pride parade in his every day life and fight for human rights and racial equality. As a result of Ezra’s ‘radical’ political thought, sexuality and inter-racial partnerships, he has become a police target. In reality, Ezra is an ‘at-risk’ target of the prevalent homophobic culture in Israel; a culture given international attention this past August (2009), when an Israeli gunman killed two Israelis, wounding ten others, at a gay support center in Tel Aviv
The Israeli-Palestinian apartheid is a religious centered battle, both claiming religious right to the holy land of Jerusalem. The use of the word apartheid, is controversially used to describe the situation in Israel and Palestine. However, as the word apartheid means separation, specifically racial segregation through public policy, I believe this word exemplifies the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis. As Israel celebrated it’s creation and birth of a national identity in 1948, Palestine mourned it’s demise, as thousands of Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, suffering the Nakba (the catastrophe). Ezra and director Mossek show the extensive boarder checks and security measures to keep Palestinians out. Ezra states that “the root of the problem is racism”5, they justify it through religion and nationalism. In 2003, Israel even began the construction of a wall6 to act as a type a barrier along the West Bank dividing the occupied territories (Palestine) and Israel. The wall is also being built within the occupied territories diving the jewish settlements from Palestinian land.
These barriers and protection methods have been put in place as a form of protection from terrorism against the state of Israel, specifically from Hamas. Hamas is an Islamic Palestinian socio-political organization, with a Parliamentary sector that is currently the majority elected government of Palestine. Hamas are classified as a terrorist organization by countries such as Canada and the United States8, with their conception, a retaliation against the Israeli rule in Palestinian territories; It seems obvious that Israel should feel a need to protect itself. Cristina Gallach, the spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, said: “Hamas leaders know that if they reverse their position, renounce violence and enter the political process, they can come off the list.”. However, can we call this position justified when Israel has committed notable acts of ‘terrorism’ in the name of protectionism? A notable media case is that of Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, a Palestinian doctor who has worked for years at an Israeli Hospital in Gaza. While being interviewed live on Israel’s Channel 10 news network about the situation in Gaza, three of his daughters, of his eight children, were killed by an Israeli bomb that hit their home that evening, intended for an alleged sniper seen on the building. Although our history books teach us our side, our bias, in reality, a battle can only occur when it’s ‘justified’ on both sides.
Without a final conclusion to the Palestinian Israeli conflict, it is difficult not to question Ezra’s actions. However, at the base of this fight, lies human rights. The lives of thousands of Palestinians have been irreparably changed, and today, as a population of refugees, they struggle to maintain a livelihood.
Ezra and Mossek draw attention to Israel’s current participation and perpetuation of this societal dichotomy. By capturing the humanity and the cross-cultural commonalities such as children, life, family, surviving, and love, the documentary creates a feeling of senselessness in the audience, regarding the continual suffering. As the old saying goes, ‘with great power, comes great responsibility’. Since Israel holds more political, militaristic and economic power than Palestine, Ezra and Mossek are demanding for the state of Israel to take responsibility.
Ezra reminisces about his adolescence, longing to be part of the youth today, wishing he could have been an active conscientious objector (an Israeli that refuses mandatory conscription based on personal pacifist morality. “Selective refusal” on the other hand is punishable by law). Popular academic discourse discusses the transition of youth from victims to apt abdicators, because from ‘queer experience’ one is more likely to have a holistic view of an argument; as such, “when youth claim multiple subject positions, they are better able to identify, name and work against oppression.” as a result of Queer subcultures producing alternative temporalities, “ by allowing their participants to believe that their futures can be imagined according to logics that lie outside of the conventional forward-moving narrative of birth, marriage, reproduction and death”. It is no doubt, given Ezra’s current ‘radical’ actions and ‘subculture’ lifestyle, that he sees this ‘greener pasture’ in youth activism; “Precisely because many queers refuse and resist the heteronormative imperative of home and family, they also prolong the periods of their life devoted to subcultural participation.”
The documentary encapsulates the intersection of two marginalized communities in Israel, the Palestinian and homosexual, and aligns them through Ezra. As such this film brings into question the ‘gay international’ (or ‘global gay’ defined in Things which aren’t to be Given Names by Shana L. Calixte); the ‘gay international’, a term used to describe the hegemonic and neo-colonial international gay-rights (and human-rights) movement being forced upon the non-western world, specifically the Middle East. While Ezra is not western, European Jews formed the state of Israel, and the Israeli government has a strong political alliance with the United States; there is no doubting the western influence on Israeli society. Like the gay international seeks to “liberate Arab and Muslin ‘gays and lesbians’ from the oppression under which they allegedly live by transforming them from practitioners of same-sex contact into subjects who identify as homosexual and gay”, Ezra can be said to seek to liberate the Palestinian community in more ways than one.
Although the documentary is a short glimpse into the life of Ezra Nawi, he may maintain non-Palestinian gay-male friends, he only had relationships with Palestinian ones; there is a major intersection of his political and personal spheres. However, Western notions of sexuality do not resonate for Middle Eastern peoples because of inherent societal differences. “In the Muslim world male-male sexuality plays an important role. But in these societies there are no ‘homosexuals’ -- there is no word for homosexuality -- the concept is completely unfamiliar. There are no heterosexuals either.”
As Ezra judges his ex-partner, Fuad Mussa, saying ‘I pity him’, one can see this as a lack of understanding; Fuad left Ezra to return to Palestine and marry a woman. He cannot recognize the importance of his partner’s acceptance by his own Palestinian community and it outweighed his love for Ezra. “Those adult men who do not fit readily into prevailing notions of true manhood... are often looked down upon and despised”, referring to lifestyles of homosexuality. However, in this situation one must recognize the deep emotional upset that Ezra was experiencing at the time the comment was made. Ezra’s pride and commitment to what he believes, including being homosexual, is a huge part of Ezra’s character but is not necessarily the nature of his ex-partner.
With such inherent cultural differences, why does Ezra continue to pursue relationships with Palestinian men? “Sexual relations in Middle Eastern societies have historically articulated social hierarchies, that is, dominant and subordinate social positions: adult men on top; women, boys and slaves below” . However, it seems as those Ezra is portrayed in a more dominant, masculine role as the savior and protector of his submissive lovers. With the dominant presence of the Israeli state in the lives of Palestinians, another level exists in the hierarchy chain above the Arab man: the Israeli people; One could even question how he attracts such young and handsome partners.
As such, while this movie differs on many levels via race, culture, and even substance, Black Looks (specifically Chapter 9: Paris is Burning?) by Bell Hooks, contains a review of the documentary Paris is Burning directed by Jennie Livingston, offers loose insights and parallels that are noteworthy regarding the sexuality of Palestinian men. This is because the societies in both films (being American versus Israeli-Palestinian) are experiencing forms of white-supremacist, patriarchal cultural-hegemony. Being so, is it possible to attribute dressing up in drag, and taking on the role of a white-women, and Ezra’s young Palestinian men, taking a submissive, feminine role with him? As his partner, leaves him in the middle of the film to return to Palestine occupied territories and marry a woman, these parallels are potentially not so far fetched. Hooks also states, “if the class, race and gender aspirations expressed by the drag queens who share their deepest dreams is always the longing to be in the position of the ruling-class women then that means there is also the desire to act in partnership with the ruling-class white male”. “Many heterosexual black men in white supremacist patriarchal culture have acted as though the primary “evil” of racism has been the refusal of the dominant culture to allow them full access to patriarchal power, so that in sexist terms they are compelled to inhabit a sphere of powerlessness, deemed “feminine,” hence they have perceived themselves as emasculated”21. While to generalize cross-culturally based on similar levels of the communities’ marginalization is unfounded, it does pose questions of Ezra’s neo-colonial privilege.
While this movie offers an unseen (anti-Zionist and homosexual) perspective on the Israel and Palestine, one could question if the movie would have been as well received if Ezra were a Lesbian. This is another example of “Lesbian subcultures almost never appear at all... women’s involvement... has been left out of theoretical accounts and subcultural histories.”. That this movie is further removing society from being able to “address sexuality without fixed categories of lesbian and gay”, and be more accessible to a Queer community.
To even portray the ‘homosexual’ and ‘Palestinian’, in an Israeli independent documentary form is controversial. As such, this raises the question, ‘how would this film be received in Hollywood?’ As Hollywood’s primary audience is the American people, Ezra’s white-male background, despite his homosexuality, aids the film in being more relatable to the general public. As discussed previously, this stems from prevailing social hierarchies stemming from colonial influences. However these colonial influences could also create animosity, because of Ezra’s inter-racial relationships.
As surprising as it may sound, I believe this movie would be too controversial for Hollywood, not necessarily because of its portrayal of inter-racial homosexuality, but because of its portrayal of the political conflict. With a longstanding alliance with Israel, it is foreseeable that the majority of the American population would question the legitimacy of such an anti-Zionist outlook. It is still a struggle to have this opinion voiced (being that the Israeli conflict is an apartheid, as discussed previously) in ‘the land of freedoms’, where documents like the SHIT-list ( a list of ‘self-hating Israel-threatening’ Jews) are made, to protest and degrade all Jews who are anti-apartheid, and scold them for their hatred of their own people. American President Barack Obama is the first president to ever criticize the Israel government by saying there have been “ ‘years of distrust’ and said both sides needed to make a ‘sustained effort... to respect one another and seek common ground’… describing Palestinians' plight as ‘intolerable’ .”24. Yet, Obama’s actions, or more appropriately his lack of action, speaks louder than his words; Israel continues to receive aid while, as Hamas are still in power, no governments will lend their support; only NGO (Non-Government Organization) support is available.
I believe this film is a powerful portrayal of the struggle to end apartheid in Israel and Palestine. While Citizen Nawi raises concern regarding the narrow portrayal of ‘the homosexual’, in my opinion the director’s intention was to ‘normalize’ homosexuality. While Ezra is ostracized through the movie for his homosexuality, his role as an anti-Zionist takes the forefront. His homosexuality, and relationships with Palestinian men set a ‘human’ backdrop, allowing the audience to connect with the basic emotions of love and heartbreak themselves. In a sense, his homosexuality humanized Ezra, allowing the audience to empathize and relate.
As with many religions, Judaism (the religion of Israel), is divided regarding it’s stance on homosexuality. However, the prevalent view among the varying denominations holds that homosexuality is sinful and that sexual acts between people of the same sex, is forbidden by the Torah. This division speaks true not only in Israeli society but down to their National Policy, which, since June 2009, recognizes same-sex marriages, only as a “state-recognized non-religious marriage”. When to be an Israeli, is to be Jewish, this exclusion from religious marriage is an exclusion from one’s society; most other citizen’s having non-religious marriages granted are non-nationals. Furthermore, “Queer uses of time and space develop in opposition to the institutions of family, heterosexuality and reproduction and queer subcultures develop as alternatives to kinship-based notions of community”. As such, LGBT sexual identity can be seen as ‘anti-Israel’, and thus can be seen as a threat to Israel and it’s people’s hopeful ‘victory’.
Israeli homophobia is documented in Citizen Nawi, as Ezra is ridiculed and threatened by his fellow Jews. Specifically, the Israeli Gay-Pride parade depicted in Citizen Nawi, is portrayed as a form of protest and resistance, rather than a celebration of the LGBT community; many Israeli’s came out to protest instead of support. Yet, Ezra embodies the spirit of the gay pride parade in his every day life and fight for human rights and racial equality. As a result of Ezra’s ‘radical’ political thought, sexuality and inter-racial partnerships, he has become a police target. In reality, Ezra is an ‘at-risk’ target of the prevalent homophobic culture in Israel; a culture given international attention this past August (2009), when an Israeli gunman killed two Israelis, wounding ten others, at a gay support center in Tel Aviv
The Israeli-Palestinian apartheid is a religious centered battle, both claiming religious right to the holy land of Jerusalem. The use of the word apartheid, is controversially used to describe the situation in Israel and Palestine. However, as the word apartheid means separation, specifically racial segregation through public policy, I believe this word exemplifies the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis. As Israel celebrated it’s creation and birth of a national identity in 1948, Palestine mourned it’s demise, as thousands of Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, suffering the Nakba (the catastrophe). Ezra and director Mossek show the extensive boarder checks and security measures to keep Palestinians out. Ezra states that “the root of the problem is racism”5, they justify it through religion and nationalism. In 2003, Israel even began the construction of a wall6 to act as a type a barrier along the West Bank dividing the occupied territories (Palestine) and Israel. The wall is also being built within the occupied territories diving the jewish settlements from Palestinian land.
These barriers and protection methods have been put in place as a form of protection from terrorism against the state of Israel, specifically from Hamas. Hamas is an Islamic Palestinian socio-political organization, with a Parliamentary sector that is currently the majority elected government of Palestine. Hamas are classified as a terrorist organization by countries such as Canada and the United States8, with their conception, a retaliation against the Israeli rule in Palestinian territories; It seems obvious that Israel should feel a need to protect itself. Cristina Gallach, the spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, said: “Hamas leaders know that if they reverse their position, renounce violence and enter the political process, they can come off the list.”. However, can we call this position justified when Israel has committed notable acts of ‘terrorism’ in the name of protectionism? A notable media case is that of Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, a Palestinian doctor who has worked for years at an Israeli Hospital in Gaza. While being interviewed live on Israel’s Channel 10 news network about the situation in Gaza, three of his daughters, of his eight children, were killed by an Israeli bomb that hit their home that evening, intended for an alleged sniper seen on the building. Although our history books teach us our side, our bias, in reality, a battle can only occur when it’s ‘justified’ on both sides.
Without a final conclusion to the Palestinian Israeli conflict, it is difficult not to question Ezra’s actions. However, at the base of this fight, lies human rights. The lives of thousands of Palestinians have been irreparably changed, and today, as a population of refugees, they struggle to maintain a livelihood.
Ezra and Mossek draw attention to Israel’s current participation and perpetuation of this societal dichotomy. By capturing the humanity and the cross-cultural commonalities such as children, life, family, surviving, and love, the documentary creates a feeling of senselessness in the audience, regarding the continual suffering. As the old saying goes, ‘with great power, comes great responsibility’. Since Israel holds more political, militaristic and economic power than Palestine, Ezra and Mossek are demanding for the state of Israel to take responsibility.
Ezra reminisces about his adolescence, longing to be part of the youth today, wishing he could have been an active conscientious objector (an Israeli that refuses mandatory conscription based on personal pacifist morality. “Selective refusal” on the other hand is punishable by law). Popular academic discourse discusses the transition of youth from victims to apt abdicators, because from ‘queer experience’ one is more likely to have a holistic view of an argument; as such, “when youth claim multiple subject positions, they are better able to identify, name and work against oppression.” as a result of Queer subcultures producing alternative temporalities, “ by allowing their participants to believe that their futures can be imagined according to logics that lie outside of the conventional forward-moving narrative of birth, marriage, reproduction and death”. It is no doubt, given Ezra’s current ‘radical’ actions and ‘subculture’ lifestyle, that he sees this ‘greener pasture’ in youth activism; “Precisely because many queers refuse and resist the heteronormative imperative of home and family, they also prolong the periods of their life devoted to subcultural participation.”
The documentary encapsulates the intersection of two marginalized communities in Israel, the Palestinian and homosexual, and aligns them through Ezra. As such this film brings into question the ‘gay international’ (or ‘global gay’ defined in Things which aren’t to be Given Names by Shana L. Calixte); the ‘gay international’, a term used to describe the hegemonic and neo-colonial international gay-rights (and human-rights) movement being forced upon the non-western world, specifically the Middle East. While Ezra is not western, European Jews formed the state of Israel, and the Israeli government has a strong political alliance with the United States; there is no doubting the western influence on Israeli society. Like the gay international seeks to “liberate Arab and Muslin ‘gays and lesbians’ from the oppression under which they allegedly live by transforming them from practitioners of same-sex contact into subjects who identify as homosexual and gay”, Ezra can be said to seek to liberate the Palestinian community in more ways than one.
Although the documentary is a short glimpse into the life of Ezra Nawi, he may maintain non-Palestinian gay-male friends, he only had relationships with Palestinian ones; there is a major intersection of his political and personal spheres. However, Western notions of sexuality do not resonate for Middle Eastern peoples because of inherent societal differences. “In the Muslim world male-male sexuality plays an important role. But in these societies there are no ‘homosexuals’ -- there is no word for homosexuality -- the concept is completely unfamiliar. There are no heterosexuals either.”
As Ezra judges his ex-partner, Fuad Mussa, saying ‘I pity him’, one can see this as a lack of understanding; Fuad left Ezra to return to Palestine and marry a woman. He cannot recognize the importance of his partner’s acceptance by his own Palestinian community and it outweighed his love for Ezra. “Those adult men who do not fit readily into prevailing notions of true manhood... are often looked down upon and despised”, referring to lifestyles of homosexuality. However, in this situation one must recognize the deep emotional upset that Ezra was experiencing at the time the comment was made. Ezra’s pride and commitment to what he believes, including being homosexual, is a huge part of Ezra’s character but is not necessarily the nature of his ex-partner.
With such inherent cultural differences, why does Ezra continue to pursue relationships with Palestinian men? “Sexual relations in Middle Eastern societies have historically articulated social hierarchies, that is, dominant and subordinate social positions: adult men on top; women, boys and slaves below” . However, it seems as those Ezra is portrayed in a more dominant, masculine role as the savior and protector of his submissive lovers. With the dominant presence of the Israeli state in the lives of Palestinians, another level exists in the hierarchy chain above the Arab man: the Israeli people; One could even question how he attracts such young and handsome partners.
As such, while this movie differs on many levels via race, culture, and even substance, Black Looks (specifically Chapter 9: Paris is Burning?) by Bell Hooks, contains a review of the documentary Paris is Burning directed by Jennie Livingston, offers loose insights and parallels that are noteworthy regarding the sexuality of Palestinian men. This is because the societies in both films (being American versus Israeli-Palestinian) are experiencing forms of white-supremacist, patriarchal cultural-hegemony. Being so, is it possible to attribute dressing up in drag, and taking on the role of a white-women, and Ezra’s young Palestinian men, taking a submissive, feminine role with him? As his partner, leaves him in the middle of the film to return to Palestine occupied territories and marry a woman, these parallels are potentially not so far fetched. Hooks also states, “if the class, race and gender aspirations expressed by the drag queens who share their deepest dreams is always the longing to be in the position of the ruling-class women then that means there is also the desire to act in partnership with the ruling-class white male”. “Many heterosexual black men in white supremacist patriarchal culture have acted as though the primary “evil” of racism has been the refusal of the dominant culture to allow them full access to patriarchal power, so that in sexist terms they are compelled to inhabit a sphere of powerlessness, deemed “feminine,” hence they have perceived themselves as emasculated”21. While to generalize cross-culturally based on similar levels of the communities’ marginalization is unfounded, it does pose questions of Ezra’s neo-colonial privilege.
While this movie offers an unseen (anti-Zionist and homosexual) perspective on the Israel and Palestine, one could question if the movie would have been as well received if Ezra were a Lesbian. This is another example of “Lesbian subcultures almost never appear at all... women’s involvement... has been left out of theoretical accounts and subcultural histories.”. That this movie is further removing society from being able to “address sexuality without fixed categories of lesbian and gay”, and be more accessible to a Queer community.
To even portray the ‘homosexual’ and ‘Palestinian’, in an Israeli independent documentary form is controversial. As such, this raises the question, ‘how would this film be received in Hollywood?’ As Hollywood’s primary audience is the American people, Ezra’s white-male background, despite his homosexuality, aids the film in being more relatable to the general public. As discussed previously, this stems from prevailing social hierarchies stemming from colonial influences. However these colonial influences could also create animosity, because of Ezra’s inter-racial relationships.
As surprising as it may sound, I believe this movie would be too controversial for Hollywood, not necessarily because of its portrayal of inter-racial homosexuality, but because of its portrayal of the political conflict. With a longstanding alliance with Israel, it is foreseeable that the majority of the American population would question the legitimacy of such an anti-Zionist outlook. It is still a struggle to have this opinion voiced (being that the Israeli conflict is an apartheid, as discussed previously) in ‘the land of freedoms’, where documents like the SHIT-list ( a list of ‘self-hating Israel-threatening’ Jews) are made, to protest and degrade all Jews who are anti-apartheid, and scold them for their hatred of their own people. American President Barack Obama is the first president to ever criticize the Israel government by saying there have been “ ‘years of distrust’ and said both sides needed to make a ‘sustained effort... to respect one another and seek common ground’… describing Palestinians' plight as ‘intolerable’ .”24. Yet, Obama’s actions, or more appropriately his lack of action, speaks louder than his words; Israel continues to receive aid while, as Hamas are still in power, no governments will lend their support; only NGO (Non-Government Organization) support is available.
I believe this film is a powerful portrayal of the struggle to end apartheid in Israel and Palestine. While Citizen Nawi raises concern regarding the narrow portrayal of ‘the homosexual’, in my opinion the director’s intention was to ‘normalize’ homosexuality. While Ezra is ostracized through the movie for his homosexuality, his role as an anti-Zionist takes the forefront. His homosexuality, and relationships with Palestinian men set a ‘human’ backdrop, allowing the audience to connect with the basic emotions of love and heartbreak themselves. In a sense, his homosexuality humanized Ezra, allowing the audience to empathize and relate.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Cori Hayden & The rise of Bioprospecting in Mexico lead by the U.S. National Institiute of Health and la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
After the Mexican revolution of 1910-1920, Mexico sees a rise of Indigenismo that would influence the “Mexican Miracle”(Clancy 2001): from 1930-1960, Mexico experienced political stability, combined with steady economic growth. The face of the economy started to shift from rural agriculture to urban industrialization, as Mexico attempted to become an industrialized country. However, with the rise of the financial crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, Mexico found itself threatening to default on debt payments in 1982. With this threat, came the emergence of neoliberal reforms and investment advised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (IBD). Among these changes, were “‘market mediated’ conservation and development initiatives that took root in the late 1980s and early 1990s” (Hayden, 361), threatened but not stopped by the Zapitista movement. Bioprospecting encompasses the ‘pharmaceutical companies’ use of plants and “traditional knowledge” as leads for developing new drugs” (Hayden, 359), and it gained momentum when western life-science companies saw this as a valuable shortcut for finding new leads. Then, in 1992, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), redrew “jurisdiction over ‘genetic resources’ and ‘traditional knowledge’ by taking them out of the global commons and placing them squarely within the sovereignty of nation-states” (Hayden, 362). Hence, the CBD validated the International Property Right(IPR) of indigenous knowledge and furthermore mandated drug and biotechnology companies redistribute a portion of the profits derived from bioprospecting, to the source nations and communities: one can no longer ‘take’ without ‘giving’. Bioprospecting would be a fore-runner of these neoliberal initiatives in Mexico, as it seemed a convenient vehicle to drive pharmaceutical discovery and, simultaneously, sustainable development and ‘redistributive justice’ (Hayden, 359). Yet, these initiatives are entangled with idioms of community and market, that have shaped forms of inclusion and exclusion, and have ultimately ensured the failure of bioprospecting as mode for sustainable development and IPR ‘redistributive justice’.
Key players in shaping bioprospecting, particularly in Mexico, were the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) and the U.S. government International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) compared to la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM, Mexico’s National Autonomous University) run by lead ethnobotanist, Robert Bye. In bioprospecting, the real debate is not who benefits but how to choose who benefits and how benefit is distributed. Both the NIH and UNAM bioprospecting methods shaped these relationships differently, yet encountered a similar inability in properly redistributing benefits: “The point where these two models of benefit-sharing diverge is not, then, where they end up but, rather, where they begin” (Hayden, 367).
Marx and Mauss helped cement the idioms of market and community, defining “market as the site of abstraction, commodity transaction, rational actors, and disembedded and disentangled relations”, and, “community as the bearer of gift, home to barter, share values and embedded relations” (Hayden, 360). These ideas have shaped the way in which redistribution has taken place by compartmentalizing, essentializing and separating the idioms of market and community, thus having effect on the inclusion and exclusion of individuals and/or groups as benefit-recipients. Benefit-recipients in bioprospecting initiatives “are those people who can be rewarded for their identifiable input of labor and innovation into, and stewardship of nature”(Hayden, 362), but as discussed earlier, it is easily identifiable by definition and less so in reality.
The NIH invokes the idiom of community through their bioprospecting initiatives, or initiatives being carried out by groups like the ICGB who’s ‘industrial outlet’ (by that Hayden means the NIH that provides power, funding and even legitimacy) dictates their method and goals. The NIH’s focus on community in lieu of the market, is because it is believed that market plants are too far removed from their source. As a result, it is questioned if market plants “produce the right relationships between communities and biodiversity-derived benefits?” thus deeming the market, “an unsettling interruption”(Hayden, 364) in bioprospecting. With community regarded as “an idealized and necessary source or site of quasi-sovereignty, collective authorship and ethical capacity” (Hayden, 368), the NIH proposed community based prospecting to ensure legitimacy and provide a rout for reciprocity. Benefit-sharing contracts were to be used to provide legitimate claim as a benefit-recipient of the bioprospecting program. However, this theory was driven by the assumptions that plants, people and knowledge are found in a ‘package’ a ‘community’. Furthermore, community was limited to those with biodiversity-rich climates but could include privately held ranches, where scientist repeatedly chose to select specimens from. Shortcuts to specimen collection are the implications of the difficult, yet still essentialized, task that recognizes IPR of indigenous knowledge, while fulfilling guidelines, regulations and quotas to maintain project funding.
Robert Bye and the UNAM, on the other hand, first centered their bioprospecting initiatives through urban plant markets. The market replaces the need for benefit-sharing contracts as the contract and benefit is in the sale, mediated by the market forces of supply and demand, and allows for strategic essentialism in order to avoid long-term obligation. Furthermore, “popular plant names and uses, for example, are on vivid display, alongside other key dimensions of ethnobotanical inquiry such as which part of a given plant people consider most useful” (Hayden, 363). While market plants are seen as useful as a result of their industrial potential (their ability to mass-manufacture with their extracts), the potential influx of demand could strain the agricultural process and yields. Ideas of conservation are removed in this stage, as, from the market, each plant’s specific root of origin is too cumbersome to navigate. For this reason, Haden states, “it is impossible to trace this prehispanic-national legacy to particular individuals and communities they have made a bid for redefining the relationship between resource acquisition and benefit-sharing” (Hayden, 365) The UNAM decided to use middle men like NGOs and Indigenous Collectives with like-minded goals and/or projects, to change from direct exchange to a ‘wider’ benefit. However, these like-minded goals imply shared universals, that inhibit the success of sustainable development. Hence, UNAM strategies for prospecting fall short of a full-picture plant origin and ethnographic history, as both strategies continue to essentialize the plant, its significance and the people that grow it.
Both notion of redistribution and compensation from the NIH and Bye, “aim to find ways to enroll the proper kinds of subjects into longer-term projects of stewardship”(Hayden, 367). These idioms and neoliberal mechanism implemented by the NIH and Bye have blindly guided these bioprospecting initiatives into ineffective domains. Notions of ‘us’ and them’ allow bioprospecting initiatives to regard indigenous knowledge, agriculture and resources only so valuable as to identify what each herbal remedy is used for and what plant(s) and strain(s) are contained in said remedy. The hopes and end-goal of bioprospecting lie, instead, in the hands of the educated scientists, who’s work could lead scientific discovery.
Reference:
Clancy, Michael. 2001. Mexican Tourism: Export Growth and Structural Change. Texas: University of Texas Press.
Hayden, C. 2003. From Market to Market: Bioprospecting's Idioms of Inclusion. American Ethnologist. 30(3) August 2003:359-371.
Key players in shaping bioprospecting, particularly in Mexico, were the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) and the U.S. government International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) compared to la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM, Mexico’s National Autonomous University) run by lead ethnobotanist, Robert Bye. In bioprospecting, the real debate is not who benefits but how to choose who benefits and how benefit is distributed. Both the NIH and UNAM bioprospecting methods shaped these relationships differently, yet encountered a similar inability in properly redistributing benefits: “The point where these two models of benefit-sharing diverge is not, then, where they end up but, rather, where they begin” (Hayden, 367).
Marx and Mauss helped cement the idioms of market and community, defining “market as the site of abstraction, commodity transaction, rational actors, and disembedded and disentangled relations”, and, “community as the bearer of gift, home to barter, share values and embedded relations” (Hayden, 360). These ideas have shaped the way in which redistribution has taken place by compartmentalizing, essentializing and separating the idioms of market and community, thus having effect on the inclusion and exclusion of individuals and/or groups as benefit-recipients. Benefit-recipients in bioprospecting initiatives “are those people who can be rewarded for their identifiable input of labor and innovation into, and stewardship of nature”(Hayden, 362), but as discussed earlier, it is easily identifiable by definition and less so in reality.
The NIH invokes the idiom of community through their bioprospecting initiatives, or initiatives being carried out by groups like the ICGB who’s ‘industrial outlet’ (by that Hayden means the NIH that provides power, funding and even legitimacy) dictates their method and goals. The NIH’s focus on community in lieu of the market, is because it is believed that market plants are too far removed from their source. As a result, it is questioned if market plants “produce the right relationships between communities and biodiversity-derived benefits?” thus deeming the market, “an unsettling interruption”(Hayden, 364) in bioprospecting. With community regarded as “an idealized and necessary source or site of quasi-sovereignty, collective authorship and ethical capacity” (Hayden, 368), the NIH proposed community based prospecting to ensure legitimacy and provide a rout for reciprocity. Benefit-sharing contracts were to be used to provide legitimate claim as a benefit-recipient of the bioprospecting program. However, this theory was driven by the assumptions that plants, people and knowledge are found in a ‘package’ a ‘community’. Furthermore, community was limited to those with biodiversity-rich climates but could include privately held ranches, where scientist repeatedly chose to select specimens from. Shortcuts to specimen collection are the implications of the difficult, yet still essentialized, task that recognizes IPR of indigenous knowledge, while fulfilling guidelines, regulations and quotas to maintain project funding.
Robert Bye and the UNAM, on the other hand, first centered their bioprospecting initiatives through urban plant markets. The market replaces the need for benefit-sharing contracts as the contract and benefit is in the sale, mediated by the market forces of supply and demand, and allows for strategic essentialism in order to avoid long-term obligation. Furthermore, “popular plant names and uses, for example, are on vivid display, alongside other key dimensions of ethnobotanical inquiry such as which part of a given plant people consider most useful” (Hayden, 363). While market plants are seen as useful as a result of their industrial potential (their ability to mass-manufacture with their extracts), the potential influx of demand could strain the agricultural process and yields. Ideas of conservation are removed in this stage, as, from the market, each plant’s specific root of origin is too cumbersome to navigate. For this reason, Haden states, “it is impossible to trace this prehispanic-national legacy to particular individuals and communities they have made a bid for redefining the relationship between resource acquisition and benefit-sharing” (Hayden, 365) The UNAM decided to use middle men like NGOs and Indigenous Collectives with like-minded goals and/or projects, to change from direct exchange to a ‘wider’ benefit. However, these like-minded goals imply shared universals, that inhibit the success of sustainable development. Hence, UNAM strategies for prospecting fall short of a full-picture plant origin and ethnographic history, as both strategies continue to essentialize the plant, its significance and the people that grow it.
Both notion of redistribution and compensation from the NIH and Bye, “aim to find ways to enroll the proper kinds of subjects into longer-term projects of stewardship”(Hayden, 367). These idioms and neoliberal mechanism implemented by the NIH and Bye have blindly guided these bioprospecting initiatives into ineffective domains. Notions of ‘us’ and them’ allow bioprospecting initiatives to regard indigenous knowledge, agriculture and resources only so valuable as to identify what each herbal remedy is used for and what plant(s) and strain(s) are contained in said remedy. The hopes and end-goal of bioprospecting lie, instead, in the hands of the educated scientists, who’s work could lead scientific discovery.
Reference:
Clancy, Michael. 2001. Mexican Tourism: Export Growth and Structural Change. Texas: University of Texas Press.
Hayden, C. 2003. From Market to Market: Bioprospecting's Idioms of Inclusion. American Ethnologist. 30(3) August 2003:359-371.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)