Write a brief biography of the young girl (Gaby) in The Official Story. She would now be in her mid to late twenties.
Gaby was raised by her mother, Alicia, and grew up in a loving family--her mother, her grandparents, her uncle, her cousins, and her Nana Sara. She remembers little of her father--just that she sang to him over the phone for a while after she no longer lived with him, and he would call her the love of his life. Afterward, when she would ask about him, her mother would tell her that her father would be with her if he could--that he could not help going away, and no, she could not lie about it, he would not be back. Later, when she was older, she learned he was involved in some questionable business dealings and disappeared. Her mother believed that the government had something to do with it, but she could not prove it. She would not discuss it beyond that because she had no proof of the truth of her belief.
Over the years, Gaby's grandparents have died, and her mother has been ill with lung cancer. Nana Sara takes care of her after her treatments, even though Nana has arthritis and can't move around very well. She is often in pain, but always has a smile for Gaby, whom she calls la luz de mi vida--the light of my life. When Gaby was 18, she learned that Nana Sara was her grandmother by blood; the story of her mother being someone other than the woman she always called Mama stunned her at first, but she later became intrigued by the four photographs Nana Sara showed her. Nana Sara explained everything gently, truthfully, and Gaby eventually accepted that there had been another woman who had loved her but could not keep her, and that she was blessed to have the love of so many people. She also learned of the "dirty war"--much of it from her mother's friend, Anna, who told her about it when she felt Gaby could deal with the truth.
The truth is what Gaby has been taught by her mother to always look for, but not the truth as others say it is; she knows she must think for herself and not close her mind to what is going on around her. Her mother has kept her from the church, telling her that the truth cannot be found there--that it must be found between her head and her heart, and that at times nothing is more painful than finding it.
Gaby is now a graduate student at a local university. After starting as a music major, she is concentrating on being a history teacher, like her mother. She is planning to get a doctorate and teach at the university level; she believes in open and free discourse, and wants to encourage this in young people. She has boyfriends, but no one serious; she admits being afraid to become too close to a man because she feels abandoned by her father, regardless that he could not help leaving her. She is as beautiful a young woman as she was a child; she has the same smile as the young woman in Nana Sara's picture.
In her room at the university, up on a shelf, she keeps a baby doll that her father gave her, and sometimes, when she has no studying to do, she will stare at it, and softly sing a song she used to sing to her parents: "In the land of I-Don't Remember / I take three steps and I am lost /One step this way / I wonder if I may / One step over there / Oh - what a big scare / because I no longer know where / my other foot will go." After that, she always calls her mother and her Nana Sara to ask how they are because she knows she will not have them too much longer. She is 29, and she tries always to face the truth.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Attorney for the Defense
Your honors:
I am here representing the government of the United States of America in its defense against charges that it had a subversive role in the 1973 coup in the country of Chile and that it was complicit in the death of an American citizen living there, one Charles Horman, originally of the city and state of New York. A brief summary of this defense, based on evidence at hand, follows:
I would first argue that the notes of Charles Horman, presented as evidence for the prosecution, have no bearing without their author's verification, and, unfortunately, Mr. Horman is deceased. Mr. Horman was a creative young writer, taking copious notes on everything that surrounded him. He also drew cartoons and illustrations, showing an imaginative mind. He was also known to be aware that the country in which he was living was unstable as to its government. Further, he had made a choice to live in that country rather than the one where he was born, raising conjecture about his feelings toward the United States. One could make a logical assumption that his notes might reflect an exaggerated imaginative belief that he had uncovered a covert plot in which there was US involvement in the 1973 Chilean coup. His notes, however, do not constitute facts without his direct testimony. Words of implication on paper do not attest to the truth of the larger situation at issue here, and we do not accept the testimony of his companion as anything but emotional and subjective hearsay, particularly since no one has been able to locate the person to whom Charles allegedly spoke. I'm withholding that person's name here until we are able to find and subpoena him.
Second, I would argue that it was logical for the ambassador of the American embassy and his staff to presume that Charles would more likely be in hiding than be missing for any other reason. While known as a creative person, Charles also contributed his art and writing to a leftist publication known as "Fem." According to Mrs. Beth Horman, his wife, he was known to have spent as many as 18 consecutive hours at a time helping to get the paper published. While his friends and family attest that Charles was not himself a political activist, his mere association with this publication would, of course, knowingly make him a target of the new government, causing him to do the logical thing during the turbulence following the coup: to flee. It follows that the logical view of our staff there would pursue that possibility first, since others were known to have fled and later returned to their homes.
I would add that the ambassador and his staff, all available for first-hand testimony, will tell you that they did everything possible under those trying circumstances to find out if the body of Charles Horman was among the thousands of victims of the coup. Given that the Hormans aren't the only family adversely affected at the time and place at issue, I will be arguing that they did recieve what could be called preferential treatment at the expense of other American citizens who needed the embassy's assistance, due in large part to Mr. Edward Horman's political connections as a wealthy businessman.
Finally, and most important, we will address the egregious charge that our government was somehow complicit in the death of Charles Horman. Your honors, our embassy staff exists to help--not harm--our country's citizens. Charles Horman wasn't a minor player in what went on in 1973--he wasn't a player at all. You will not find in any of the prosecutor's so-called "evidence"--meaning the notes mentioned before that cannot be construed as any type of evidence--anything that ties our government to a role in the death of Allende and the installation of Pinochet in order to benefit our country. That is not the American way. We are a democracy. Unfortunately, in the chaos that ensued in Chile in 1973, we could not keep track of--much less protect--all of our citizens, and young Charles Horman was executed without our knowledge, much less--and here is where the accusation becomes truly outrageous--our approval. Why would we aprove of the execution of this young man, your honors? Why? While we grieve for the Horman family in the loss of their only child, justice demands that we absolutely refute their allegation that Charles, as an American, could not have been executed for knowing too much about our government's activities without the approval of our government. This the conjecture of a grieving family, your honors, and the government of the United States of America will argue, through the first-hand testimony of our representatives who were present during Edward and Beth Horman's search for their son and husband, that their concern was properly directed toward finding Charles, not killing him. This, then, is the summary of our defense.
I am here representing the government of the United States of America in its defense against charges that it had a subversive role in the 1973 coup in the country of Chile and that it was complicit in the death of an American citizen living there, one Charles Horman, originally of the city and state of New York. A brief summary of this defense, based on evidence at hand, follows:
I would first argue that the notes of Charles Horman, presented as evidence for the prosecution, have no bearing without their author's verification, and, unfortunately, Mr. Horman is deceased. Mr. Horman was a creative young writer, taking copious notes on everything that surrounded him. He also drew cartoons and illustrations, showing an imaginative mind. He was also known to be aware that the country in which he was living was unstable as to its government. Further, he had made a choice to live in that country rather than the one where he was born, raising conjecture about his feelings toward the United States. One could make a logical assumption that his notes might reflect an exaggerated imaginative belief that he had uncovered a covert plot in which there was US involvement in the 1973 Chilean coup. His notes, however, do not constitute facts without his direct testimony. Words of implication on paper do not attest to the truth of the larger situation at issue here, and we do not accept the testimony of his companion as anything but emotional and subjective hearsay, particularly since no one has been able to locate the person to whom Charles allegedly spoke. I'm withholding that person's name here until we are able to find and subpoena him.
Second, I would argue that it was logical for the ambassador of the American embassy and his staff to presume that Charles would more likely be in hiding than be missing for any other reason. While known as a creative person, Charles also contributed his art and writing to a leftist publication known as "Fem." According to Mrs. Beth Horman, his wife, he was known to have spent as many as 18 consecutive hours at a time helping to get the paper published. While his friends and family attest that Charles was not himself a political activist, his mere association with this publication would, of course, knowingly make him a target of the new government, causing him to do the logical thing during the turbulence following the coup: to flee. It follows that the logical view of our staff there would pursue that possibility first, since others were known to have fled and later returned to their homes.
I would add that the ambassador and his staff, all available for first-hand testimony, will tell you that they did everything possible under those trying circumstances to find out if the body of Charles Horman was among the thousands of victims of the coup. Given that the Hormans aren't the only family adversely affected at the time and place at issue, I will be arguing that they did recieve what could be called preferential treatment at the expense of other American citizens who needed the embassy's assistance, due in large part to Mr. Edward Horman's political connections as a wealthy businessman.
Finally, and most important, we will address the egregious charge that our government was somehow complicit in the death of Charles Horman. Your honors, our embassy staff exists to help--not harm--our country's citizens. Charles Horman wasn't a minor player in what went on in 1973--he wasn't a player at all. You will not find in any of the prosecutor's so-called "evidence"--meaning the notes mentioned before that cannot be construed as any type of evidence--anything that ties our government to a role in the death of Allende and the installation of Pinochet in order to benefit our country. That is not the American way. We are a democracy. Unfortunately, in the chaos that ensued in Chile in 1973, we could not keep track of--much less protect--all of our citizens, and young Charles Horman was executed without our knowledge, much less--and here is where the accusation becomes truly outrageous--our approval. Why would we aprove of the execution of this young man, your honors? Why? While we grieve for the Horman family in the loss of their only child, justice demands that we absolutely refute their allegation that Charles, as an American, could not have been executed for knowing too much about our government's activities without the approval of our government. This the conjecture of a grieving family, your honors, and the government of the United States of America will argue, through the first-hand testimony of our representatives who were present during Edward and Beth Horman's search for their son and husband, that their concern was properly directed toward finding Charles, not killing him. This, then, is the summary of our defense.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Petition to Block Paradise Now from the Academy Awards
Do you agree with the petition to have the film removed as an award nominee or with the counter-petition? What are your reasons for favoring one over the other?
The film's success [stems] from the world's recognition that the Palestinians deserve 'liberty and "equality unconditionally.'"
- Hany Abu Assad, Palestinian director of Paradise Now
"First and foremost the movie is a good work of art. But if the movie raises awareness or presents a different side of reality, this is an important thing."
- Amir Harel, Israeli producer of Paradise Now
_____________________________________________
I can't begin to write about my opinion without first saying that my heart breaks for Yossi Zur, whose young son Asaf was killed on a bus blown up by a suicide bomber. I can understand her point of view; she has lived with the consequences of the conclusion of Paradise Now. However, while removing my approval of the film as superb cinematic art for the time being and focusing instead on the points of her argument, I cannot agree with her petition for the removal of its nomination for an Oscar based on the reasons she gives.
Speaking of Islamic terror, Zur says, "We don't need to understand it ... We need to end it." Yes, it needs to be ended, but how can that be done without understanding it? And understanding it means going back to its seeds, which found root in the Jewish immigration to Palestine at the turn of the twentieth century. Undeniable abuses of Palestinians by Jewish settlers (buying thier land cheaply and then paying them cheap wages to work it is an example) and the continuing and growing influx into Palestinian lands of Jews who identified themselves as Zionists--those wanting to establish their own homeland--exacerbated tensions. The influence and meddling of outside countries in the takeover and loss of Palestinian lands, especially by England, added to the problems. There was a Palestinian riot in the mid 1930s in protest; the effect of the "Six Day War" in 1967* was to begin the PLO's retaliation using terrorism as a counterforce; the backlash continues today in the form of suicide bombings. The above is admittedly too simplistic in its explanation, but I hope it serves to make the point that the terrorism that has claimed so many lives over the course of more than a century did not start in a vacuum; it is the effect that came from a cause, and it must be understood. (*A small note: I worked as a secretary in a small law firm on 43rd Street and Fifth Avenue in New York City in the late '60s. The firm's four lawyers were Jewish. When the Six Day War was won by Israel, these normally sedate men were practically dancing with joy; they whooped and hollered. And from our windows overlooking Fifth Avenue, I could see that there was literally dancing in the streets.)
In her petition, Zur claims that the murderer is not human and that he has no doubts. I feel that Said and Khaled are both as human as they come--carrying baggage from the conflict that is painful and internalized because of the fates of their fathers due to the Israeli occupation. They both are involved with their families; love and affection and concern are there; Said kisses Suha, yielding momentarily to his understandable attraction to her. These show the universal essence of humanity. And there are doubts. After the botched initial attempt, Said asks, "Are we doing the right thing?" Kahlid answers, "Under the occupation, we are already dead." Said then asks, "Is there no other way to stop them?" Kahlid asks back, "Do you see your life like on a video?" This reflects the characters' doubts and concerns about what they have agreed to do; there is no blind rush to commit an atrocity. In the end, Said chooses as his victims a bus full of soldiers, who have themselves chosen to be part of the occupation, rather than civilians, while his friend backs out of the plans completely. They are indeed human.
Zur asks if an award would be considered for a film glorifying the acts of the bombers of the Twin Towers--learning how to fly an airplane, preparing themselves through Islamic rituals, and then crashing into the Twin Towers. I see no comparison between this and the situation of the young men in Paradise Now. The acts of the 9/11 terrorists were well organized and well financed; twenty young men were trained and prepared well in advance of what they did, and they had months--perhaps years--to fine tune their deadly plan to killed thousands of people. Said and Khalid, conversely, are auto mechanics who have no plans to commit terrorism until they are pulled in the course of a day into a small, albeit deadly, plot to detonate suicide bombs among Israeli crowds. Granted, they had agreed to it beforehand; however, it was not part of their lives until they were called on.
Zur claims that granting an award to this kind of movie gives the filmmakers a seal of approval to hide behind and that they can then say that the world sees suicide bombing as legitimate, by extension becoming part of the chain of terror. I would argue instead that the Oscar and other awards are not granted to promote causes; rather, I would agree with the counter-petition that states Paradise Now is a movie that attempts to explain the other side of the story and how a life of desperation can lead to an act of desperation--it cannot be stated better than that. I would also guess that if people from the general population were randomly selected and asked about the history of this conflict, most of them, of those who knew anything, would cite Jewish oppression and historic victimization. My response to that would be framed in the words of the counter-petition: We cannot deny the historical or present existence of the Palestinians. We need to know both sides of the story. We need to be open to other points of view, particularly political and religious ones. We need to avoid censorship of art because of preconceived notions and controversy about its subject. We need to be fair.
This is the petition I would sign, while still understanding the grief of Yossi Zur.
The film's success [stems] from the world's recognition that the Palestinians deserve 'liberty and "equality unconditionally.'"
- Hany Abu Assad, Palestinian director of Paradise Now
"First and foremost the movie is a good work of art. But if the movie raises awareness or presents a different side of reality, this is an important thing."
- Amir Harel, Israeli producer of Paradise Now
_____________________________________________
I can't begin to write about my opinion without first saying that my heart breaks for Yossi Zur, whose young son Asaf was killed on a bus blown up by a suicide bomber. I can understand her point of view; she has lived with the consequences of the conclusion of Paradise Now. However, while removing my approval of the film as superb cinematic art for the time being and focusing instead on the points of her argument, I cannot agree with her petition for the removal of its nomination for an Oscar based on the reasons she gives.
Speaking of Islamic terror, Zur says, "We don't need to understand it ... We need to end it." Yes, it needs to be ended, but how can that be done without understanding it? And understanding it means going back to its seeds, which found root in the Jewish immigration to Palestine at the turn of the twentieth century. Undeniable abuses of Palestinians by Jewish settlers (buying thier land cheaply and then paying them cheap wages to work it is an example) and the continuing and growing influx into Palestinian lands of Jews who identified themselves as Zionists--those wanting to establish their own homeland--exacerbated tensions. The influence and meddling of outside countries in the takeover and loss of Palestinian lands, especially by England, added to the problems. There was a Palestinian riot in the mid 1930s in protest; the effect of the "Six Day War" in 1967* was to begin the PLO's retaliation using terrorism as a counterforce; the backlash continues today in the form of suicide bombings. The above is admittedly too simplistic in its explanation, but I hope it serves to make the point that the terrorism that has claimed so many lives over the course of more than a century did not start in a vacuum; it is the effect that came from a cause, and it must be understood. (*A small note: I worked as a secretary in a small law firm on 43rd Street and Fifth Avenue in New York City in the late '60s. The firm's four lawyers were Jewish. When the Six Day War was won by Israel, these normally sedate men were practically dancing with joy; they whooped and hollered. And from our windows overlooking Fifth Avenue, I could see that there was literally dancing in the streets.)
In her petition, Zur claims that the murderer is not human and that he has no doubts. I feel that Said and Khaled are both as human as they come--carrying baggage from the conflict that is painful and internalized because of the fates of their fathers due to the Israeli occupation. They both are involved with their families; love and affection and concern are there; Said kisses Suha, yielding momentarily to his understandable attraction to her. These show the universal essence of humanity. And there are doubts. After the botched initial attempt, Said asks, "Are we doing the right thing?" Kahlid answers, "Under the occupation, we are already dead." Said then asks, "Is there no other way to stop them?" Kahlid asks back, "Do you see your life like on a video?" This reflects the characters' doubts and concerns about what they have agreed to do; there is no blind rush to commit an atrocity. In the end, Said chooses as his victims a bus full of soldiers, who have themselves chosen to be part of the occupation, rather than civilians, while his friend backs out of the plans completely. They are indeed human.
Zur asks if an award would be considered for a film glorifying the acts of the bombers of the Twin Towers--learning how to fly an airplane, preparing themselves through Islamic rituals, and then crashing into the Twin Towers. I see no comparison between this and the situation of the young men in Paradise Now. The acts of the 9/11 terrorists were well organized and well financed; twenty young men were trained and prepared well in advance of what they did, and they had months--perhaps years--to fine tune their deadly plan to killed thousands of people. Said and Khalid, conversely, are auto mechanics who have no plans to commit terrorism until they are pulled in the course of a day into a small, albeit deadly, plot to detonate suicide bombs among Israeli crowds. Granted, they had agreed to it beforehand; however, it was not part of their lives until they were called on.
Zur claims that granting an award to this kind of movie gives the filmmakers a seal of approval to hide behind and that they can then say that the world sees suicide bombing as legitimate, by extension becoming part of the chain of terror. I would argue instead that the Oscar and other awards are not granted to promote causes; rather, I would agree with the counter-petition that states Paradise Now is a movie that attempts to explain the other side of the story and how a life of desperation can lead to an act of desperation--it cannot be stated better than that. I would also guess that if people from the general population were randomly selected and asked about the history of this conflict, most of them, of those who knew anything, would cite Jewish oppression and historic victimization. My response to that would be framed in the words of the counter-petition: We cannot deny the historical or present existence of the Palestinians. We need to know both sides of the story. We need to be open to other points of view, particularly political and religious ones. We need to avoid censorship of art because of preconceived notions and controversy about its subject. We need to be fair.
This is the petition I would sign, while still understanding the grief of Yossi Zur.
Dear Madeleine: How Can We Stop Genocide?
Is this ironic? In a recent issue of the Parade Magazine Sunday supplement, I found this under "Newsmakers." Madeleine Albright, of all people, withholder of help to the victims of the Rwandan genocide, supposedly gives advice on how to stop genocide. Check out her newest position title.
*****
HOW CAN WE STOP GENOCIDE?
Ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is co-chair of the new Genocide Prevention Task Force. She spoke with us about today's toughest diplomatic problem.
Why does the world seem too paralyzed to act when atrocities begin?
Organizing an outside military intervention is challenging. Nations are reluctant to risk troops' lives in a struggle remote from their own territory or direct interests.
Are the countries where genocides occur receptive to action from the outside?
Governments typically invoke the principle of sovereignty to block external interference. Other countries allow this to stand because they don't want their own human rights records scrutinized. We've seen this in Darfur.
But there has been a huge global outcry about Darfur. Why hasn't this pressure forced an end to the killings?
There are ongoing international efforts, but these continue to be obstructed by the Sudanese government and its allies. The lastest example is the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force, which is faced with Sudanese interference as well as logistical and operational challenges.
*****
My reaction to this is that we know there are problems out there (the recent killings in Kenya are as ghastly as what we've learned about those in Rwanda and sound as though they could be ongoing). Her responses to the questions sound as much like excuses as they do reasons. What are the ongoing international efforts? Have they all failed for the same reason? Which countries are helping? Which countries are not? Are any countries abetting the genocide? How can we stop genocide? She certainly hasn't answered the title question.
I know this article is limited because of space, but I don't think it really tells us much. I'd like to see it get one of those two-page treatments, with tough questions posed. I'll write to Parade and suggest as much.
*****
HOW CAN WE STOP GENOCIDE?
Ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is co-chair of the new Genocide Prevention Task Force. She spoke with us about today's toughest diplomatic problem.
Why does the world seem too paralyzed to act when atrocities begin?
Organizing an outside military intervention is challenging. Nations are reluctant to risk troops' lives in a struggle remote from their own territory or direct interests.
Are the countries where genocides occur receptive to action from the outside?
Governments typically invoke the principle of sovereignty to block external interference. Other countries allow this to stand because they don't want their own human rights records scrutinized. We've seen this in Darfur.
But there has been a huge global outcry about Darfur. Why hasn't this pressure forced an end to the killings?
There are ongoing international efforts, but these continue to be obstructed by the Sudanese government and its allies. The lastest example is the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force, which is faced with Sudanese interference as well as logistical and operational challenges.
*****
My reaction to this is that we know there are problems out there (the recent killings in Kenya are as ghastly as what we've learned about those in Rwanda and sound as though they could be ongoing). Her responses to the questions sound as much like excuses as they do reasons. What are the ongoing international efforts? Have they all failed for the same reason? Which countries are helping? Which countries are not? Are any countries abetting the genocide? How can we stop genocide? She certainly hasn't answered the title question.
I know this article is limited because of space, but I don't think it really tells us much. I'd like to see it get one of those two-page treatments, with tough questions posed. I'll write to Parade and suggest as much.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Small Legend of Xiu Xiu
Imagine that you are the daughter of one of Xiu Xiu's female compatriots at the village where they started out. You were born in 1975 in Beijing, and you have grown up there hearing the story of Xiu Xiu from your mother and her friends and acquaintances. When the Tianamen Square protests begin in 1989, you are 13. Do you take part in the protests? Why or why not? What are your thoughts about the protests against the backdrop of what you know of China's past, especially the Cultural Revolution and Xiu Xiu's experience?
One thing I would need to know before assuming the persona of a 13-year-old Chinese girl would be exactly what she heard about Xiu Xiu from her mother and her mother's friends and acquaintances. What stories did they tell? That Xiu Xiu was a whore who gave herself away to many men? That's as far as the nearest community's story went in the film, and the only person who could attest otherwise, Jao Lin, died with Xiu Xiu. Or was the reality of her situation--her desperation to return home and what she felt she was forced to do to get the paperwork to do so---seen in its proper perspective by then? Was she then used as an example of a plan gone badly awry, isolating the country's youth and in many cases separating them from their families forever? If I were to take the latter position--that Xiu Xiu was harmed by the Cultural Revolution and its need to control the country's youth with such extreme measures, and became a small legend in a small circle because of it, I would have to say that I would be among the protesters at Tianamen Square.
Being a young girl hearing the story of another young girl manipulated by nationalism, idealism, and Chairman Mao's skewed plan that meant taking and abandoning hundreds of thousands of young people all over the country after using them as a force against his enemies, I would be wary of my government, even if leadership had changed. The government's economic policies under Deng Xiaoping in 1989 favored the party "elite," distributed the country's wealth unevenly and unfairly, let workers be treated with impunity, disregarded the integrity of the land, and operated with the same corruption as that which led to Mao's takeover of the country decades before. Having that sense of idealism and the energy that comes with youth, and with the knowledge of what a government can do to its people, as in the case of Xiu Xiu, I can imagine being 13 and being swayed by rhetoric that would lead me to the Square to protest the corruption in the interest of my own and my country's future.
China is unimaginably large in both land and population, and its history has been one of internal and external conflict; its governance requires compliance on the part of the people. I would think it natural that people question their government, even if it means risking jail or worse, if that government serves its own ends rather than the people's and its corruption is evident and far-reaching. Those might not be the words a 13-year-old would use, but it certainly could be what she would feel. Knowing how ill-used Xiu Xiu was could be a further inspiration to protest against a governing power before that power controls absolutely, as it did in the Cultural Revolution (even turning children against their families, unheard of in any other time).
Yes, I would be in the Square--perhaps not brave enough to stand in front of an oncoming tank, but I would be raising my fist and shouting out, and perhaps thinking of how different things would have been for Xiu Xiu had she been allowed to have a voice in her own future as I would fight to have in mine.
One thing I would need to know before assuming the persona of a 13-year-old Chinese girl would be exactly what she heard about Xiu Xiu from her mother and her mother's friends and acquaintances. What stories did they tell? That Xiu Xiu was a whore who gave herself away to many men? That's as far as the nearest community's story went in the film, and the only person who could attest otherwise, Jao Lin, died with Xiu Xiu. Or was the reality of her situation--her desperation to return home and what she felt she was forced to do to get the paperwork to do so---seen in its proper perspective by then? Was she then used as an example of a plan gone badly awry, isolating the country's youth and in many cases separating them from their families forever? If I were to take the latter position--that Xiu Xiu was harmed by the Cultural Revolution and its need to control the country's youth with such extreme measures, and became a small legend in a small circle because of it, I would have to say that I would be among the protesters at Tianamen Square.
Being a young girl hearing the story of another young girl manipulated by nationalism, idealism, and Chairman Mao's skewed plan that meant taking and abandoning hundreds of thousands of young people all over the country after using them as a force against his enemies, I would be wary of my government, even if leadership had changed. The government's economic policies under Deng Xiaoping in 1989 favored the party "elite," distributed the country's wealth unevenly and unfairly, let workers be treated with impunity, disregarded the integrity of the land, and operated with the same corruption as that which led to Mao's takeover of the country decades before. Having that sense of idealism and the energy that comes with youth, and with the knowledge of what a government can do to its people, as in the case of Xiu Xiu, I can imagine being 13 and being swayed by rhetoric that would lead me to the Square to protest the corruption in the interest of my own and my country's future.
China is unimaginably large in both land and population, and its history has been one of internal and external conflict; its governance requires compliance on the part of the people. I would think it natural that people question their government, even if it means risking jail or worse, if that government serves its own ends rather than the people's and its corruption is evident and far-reaching. Those might not be the words a 13-year-old would use, but it certainly could be what she would feel. Knowing how ill-used Xiu Xiu was could be a further inspiration to protest against a governing power before that power controls absolutely, as it did in the Cultural Revolution (even turning children against their families, unheard of in any other time).
Yes, I would be in the Square--perhaps not brave enough to stand in front of an oncoming tank, but I would be raising my fist and shouting out, and perhaps thinking of how different things would have been for Xiu Xiu had she been allowed to have a voice in her own future as I would fight to have in mine.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
We wish to inform you....
"What distinguishes genocide from murder, and even from acts of political murder that claim as many victims, is the intent. The crime is wanting to make a people extinct. The idea is the crime. No wonder it's so difficult to picture. To do so you must accept the principle of the exterminator, and see not people but a people."
- Philip Gourevitch, We wish to inform you that
tomorrow we will be killed with our families (201-02)
"An animal will kill, but never to completely annihilate a race, a whole collectivity. What does that make us in this world?"
- Edmond Mrugamba, in We wish to inform you that
tomorrow we will be killed with our families (239)
Philip Gourevitch's We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families is a masterfully written account of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 (genocides in Rwanda, we learn from him, have years attached to them). By compiling and combining information about Rwanda's history and especially the effects of colonization, its culture, its geography, first-hand accounts of victims, interviews, conversations, anecdotal information and records, and what he saw himself, he has produced a book that can be trusted as to its truth and its integrity. Unfortunately, it also leaves one with the feeling that 1994 won't be the last year in which Rwanda will experience genocide.
Gourevitch does a wonderful job of mixing the above in a way that informs us and pulls us along. He starts with his first-hand account of what he saw in a church a year after a massacre had occurred there; the bodies were left as they were at the time of the massacre (15), establishing its reality. He also draws us in to the importance of conformity: "Conformity is very deep, very developed here...In Rwandan history, everybody obeys authority," says a lawyer Gourevitch questioned (23). Early on, we are given a key to the seemingly senseless behavior tht follows. The "Hutu Ten Commandments" (including "Hutus must stop having mercy on the Tutsis") (88) are particularly chilling, but worse is the Hamitic theory of John Hanning Speke, which would have ramifications more than a century later. Under this meaningless theory, simplified here, Tutsis are seen as stately and superior, while Hutus are seen as dark peasants (50). Even though Rwandans themselves admit they cannot themselves tell a Hutu from a Tutsi, the Belgian colonizers exploited the differences, favoring the Tutsis (55). It was only natural that the ensuing Hutu resentment (Hutus being the majority population) would result in backlash. In a brief paragraph, Gourevitch says much:
"Apparently, Hutu and Tutsi identities took definition only in relationship to state power; as they did, the two groups inevitably developed their own distinctive cultures--their own set of ideas about themselves and one another--according to their respective domains. Those ideas were largely framed as opposing negatives: a Hutu was what a Tutsi was not, and vice versa. ... Rwandans who sought to make the most of these distinctions were compelled to amplify minute and imprecise field marks, like the prevelance of milk in one's diet, and, especially, physical traits (50).
Gourevetich lets others tell their stories through him, such as Odette, the Tutsi doctor, who had numerous harrowing encounters as she and her family survived death threats and moves around and in and out of the country. She later learns that another doctor, a Hutu who has the same name as hers, was imprisoned, tortured, and executed because she was though to be Odette the Tutsi (84). When it is over, she says, "This life after genocide is really a terrible life...the trauma comes back much more as time passes..." (236). Bonaventure Nyibizi relates how he tries to save his family by taking sanctuary with in a Catholic church, only to be betrayed by a priest who lets the interahamwe--the brutal and lawless Hutu bands of killers--massacre many of the thousands seeking refuge there (124-25). Many pages later, he returns to his hometown of Kigali, and finds few people he knows left (230). Particularly poignant is the story of Laurencie Nyirabeza, who must face the fact that the Hutu man who killed most of her family, most of them her children and grandchildren, is back in town Ironically, she has lost her home, while the killer has returned to his (303-05).
I'm sure most of the reports will cover the historical and political background Gourevetich gives us and the shameful behavior at all levels (he gives a good concise listing of reasons for the genocide on page 180): the ethnic manipulation of the colonizing Belgians, themselves a split country because of language; the willingness of the Hutus to kill without question their neighbors, friends, and even family members; the deliberately orchestrated powerlessness of the United Nations and is forces; the unbelievable meddling and misguided behavior of the French; the consequent displacement of the Hutus, with the same genocidaires and interahamwe carrying their mission of death with them to the camps; the attitudes of the aid workers, who flee at the first sign of trouble; and, most shameful of all, the lack of willingness of the United States, through Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton, to acknowledge what was happening in Rwanda. Although they make the appropriate apology later (350-352), they have hundreds of thousands of possibly preventable deaths on their consciences.
It is hard to do justice to all the aspects of Gourevitch's book in such a short space, so I'll just focus on a few more things before closing. First, the symbolism of the radio and the machete cannot be overlooked. Going back to the statement above about the cultured obedience of Rwandans, the power of the voices on the Hutu Power radio is stunning in its implication. Visually reinforced in the movie Hotel Rwanda, we see how it is the single most important determinant in starting and maintaining the genocide. Gourevitch gives it its full due in his book. The machete, horrible in its simplicity, effective in its murderous intent, accomplished more than bullets could--and more cheaply, also. These two things remain singular to me; among the complexity of the many names and places and dates and people and events that Gourevitch lays out for us to digest, they to me are the symbols of the genocide.
Also, I was surprised when, at the end, Gourevitch mentions the book McTeague by Frank Norris. I read this for a class years ago, and its movie version can be seen from time to time on movie channels. However, it is for the most part obscure now--it's very old--but worth looking into, even though Gourevitch has revealed the ending. Its symbolism is appropriate here.
Finally, after several hundred pages of being emotionally pushed and pulled and having to stop reading from time to time to get away from the horror, I thought that the height of Gourevitch's accomplishment with this book was its ending: a simple tale of the courage of school girls, "those brave Hutu girls who could have chosen to live, but chose instead to call themselves Rwandans" (353). Gourevitch deserves the prizes he has received for his writing about something so large and incomprehensible and putting it together in such a readable way; his tribute to a few girls who would not give in to the madness around them perfects and completes his efforts.
- Philip Gourevitch, We wish to inform you that
tomorrow we will be killed with our families (201-02)
"An animal will kill, but never to completely annihilate a race, a whole collectivity. What does that make us in this world?"
- Edmond Mrugamba, in We wish to inform you that
tomorrow we will be killed with our families (239)
Philip Gourevitch's We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families is a masterfully written account of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 (genocides in Rwanda, we learn from him, have years attached to them). By compiling and combining information about Rwanda's history and especially the effects of colonization, its culture, its geography, first-hand accounts of victims, interviews, conversations, anecdotal information and records, and what he saw himself, he has produced a book that can be trusted as to its truth and its integrity. Unfortunately, it also leaves one with the feeling that 1994 won't be the last year in which Rwanda will experience genocide.
Gourevitch does a wonderful job of mixing the above in a way that informs us and pulls us along. He starts with his first-hand account of what he saw in a church a year after a massacre had occurred there; the bodies were left as they were at the time of the massacre (15), establishing its reality. He also draws us in to the importance of conformity: "Conformity is very deep, very developed here...In Rwandan history, everybody obeys authority," says a lawyer Gourevitch questioned (23). Early on, we are given a key to the seemingly senseless behavior tht follows. The "Hutu Ten Commandments" (including "Hutus must stop having mercy on the Tutsis") (88) are particularly chilling, but worse is the Hamitic theory of John Hanning Speke, which would have ramifications more than a century later. Under this meaningless theory, simplified here, Tutsis are seen as stately and superior, while Hutus are seen as dark peasants (50). Even though Rwandans themselves admit they cannot themselves tell a Hutu from a Tutsi, the Belgian colonizers exploited the differences, favoring the Tutsis (55). It was only natural that the ensuing Hutu resentment (Hutus being the majority population) would result in backlash. In a brief paragraph, Gourevitch says much:
"Apparently, Hutu and Tutsi identities took definition only in relationship to state power; as they did, the two groups inevitably developed their own distinctive cultures--their own set of ideas about themselves and one another--according to their respective domains. Those ideas were largely framed as opposing negatives: a Hutu was what a Tutsi was not, and vice versa. ... Rwandans who sought to make the most of these distinctions were compelled to amplify minute and imprecise field marks, like the prevelance of milk in one's diet, and, especially, physical traits (50).
Gourevetich lets others tell their stories through him, such as Odette, the Tutsi doctor, who had numerous harrowing encounters as she and her family survived death threats and moves around and in and out of the country. She later learns that another doctor, a Hutu who has the same name as hers, was imprisoned, tortured, and executed because she was though to be Odette the Tutsi (84). When it is over, she says, "This life after genocide is really a terrible life...the trauma comes back much more as time passes..." (236). Bonaventure Nyibizi relates how he tries to save his family by taking sanctuary with in a Catholic church, only to be betrayed by a priest who lets the interahamwe--the brutal and lawless Hutu bands of killers--massacre many of the thousands seeking refuge there (124-25). Many pages later, he returns to his hometown of Kigali, and finds few people he knows left (230). Particularly poignant is the story of Laurencie Nyirabeza, who must face the fact that the Hutu man who killed most of her family, most of them her children and grandchildren, is back in town Ironically, she has lost her home, while the killer has returned to his (303-05).
I'm sure most of the reports will cover the historical and political background Gourevetich gives us and the shameful behavior at all levels (he gives a good concise listing of reasons for the genocide on page 180): the ethnic manipulation of the colonizing Belgians, themselves a split country because of language; the willingness of the Hutus to kill without question their neighbors, friends, and even family members; the deliberately orchestrated powerlessness of the United Nations and is forces; the unbelievable meddling and misguided behavior of the French; the consequent displacement of the Hutus, with the same genocidaires and interahamwe carrying their mission of death with them to the camps; the attitudes of the aid workers, who flee at the first sign of trouble; and, most shameful of all, the lack of willingness of the United States, through Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton, to acknowledge what was happening in Rwanda. Although they make the appropriate apology later (350-352), they have hundreds of thousands of possibly preventable deaths on their consciences.
It is hard to do justice to all the aspects of Gourevitch's book in such a short space, so I'll just focus on a few more things before closing. First, the symbolism of the radio and the machete cannot be overlooked. Going back to the statement above about the cultured obedience of Rwandans, the power of the voices on the Hutu Power radio is stunning in its implication. Visually reinforced in the movie Hotel Rwanda, we see how it is the single most important determinant in starting and maintaining the genocide. Gourevitch gives it its full due in his book. The machete, horrible in its simplicity, effective in its murderous intent, accomplished more than bullets could--and more cheaply, also. These two things remain singular to me; among the complexity of the many names and places and dates and people and events that Gourevitch lays out for us to digest, they to me are the symbols of the genocide.
Also, I was surprised when, at the end, Gourevitch mentions the book McTeague by Frank Norris. I read this for a class years ago, and its movie version can be seen from time to time on movie channels. However, it is for the most part obscure now--it's very old--but worth looking into, even though Gourevitch has revealed the ending. Its symbolism is appropriate here.
Finally, after several hundred pages of being emotionally pushed and pulled and having to stop reading from time to time to get away from the horror, I thought that the height of Gourevitch's accomplishment with this book was its ending: a simple tale of the courage of school girls, "those brave Hutu girls who could have chosen to live, but chose instead to call themselves Rwandans" (353). Gourevitch deserves the prizes he has received for his writing about something so large and incomprehensible and putting it together in such a readable way; his tribute to a few girls who would not give in to the madness around them perfects and completes his efforts.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Earth - Indeed Unforgettable
Who among the reviewers did you agree more with, and why?
After viewing the film Earth, I find myself agreeing with Zarminae Ansari rather than C.J.S. Wallia in their reviews of this superior film. Wallia seems to be demanding documentary-style accuracy in this movie, calling it simplistic in its treatment and distorting in its view of the complexity of the Indian partition. However, Ansari does not avoid this complexity in her analysis of the film; rather, she notes that "the movie will undoubtedly offend both sides, since it spares neither, nor holds one as morally superior to the other." Wallia's perspective seems biased and offputting at the very beginning, when he introduces this review by noting that Mehta's previous film (the first in a trilogy) was "severely criticized for presenting a distorted view of Hindu culture." Ansara doesn't duck making a statement about the contoversy, but introduces this film more as something intriguing to be seen, rather than something to be prejudged in the light of its predecessor.
I agree with Ansari that Lenny is the best narrator--a Parsi child not subjected to family prejudices who thus would tend to see things without the coatings of understanding and misunderstanding that an adult of a certain culture or religion might bring to a point of view. She is not a "simplistic" character; she is a simple person. By being with her as she sees what's going on around her, we can see Ansari's view that this film is "a romance, a tragedy, a history, and a comment on the human heart: its tenderness and the beast that hides within." While the history behind the story might be vastly complex, the aim of this film is not to dramatize that complexity but rather the complexity of the lives of the people as this history overtakes them. As Ansari says, the child's confusion embodies the confusion of the millions who are eventually affected by it. We can see from there the enormity of the consequences of the partition.
Wallia's scathing review makes the film seem like a failure ("simplistic," "[Lenny's] viewpoint too limiting for the subject," "the characters are poorly developed," "the roles of the [factions] are oversimplified...distorted," and the film "viciously distorts the...role of the Sikhs in the...struggle") I can't see any of that, and would argue that this is a story told to tell a greater story, and in that it succeeds--and succeeds unforgettably, as Ansari would say.
After viewing the film Earth, I find myself agreeing with Zarminae Ansari rather than C.J.S. Wallia in their reviews of this superior film. Wallia seems to be demanding documentary-style accuracy in this movie, calling it simplistic in its treatment and distorting in its view of the complexity of the Indian partition. However, Ansari does not avoid this complexity in her analysis of the film; rather, she notes that "the movie will undoubtedly offend both sides, since it spares neither, nor holds one as morally superior to the other." Wallia's perspective seems biased and offputting at the very beginning, when he introduces this review by noting that Mehta's previous film (the first in a trilogy) was "severely criticized for presenting a distorted view of Hindu culture." Ansara doesn't duck making a statement about the contoversy, but introduces this film more as something intriguing to be seen, rather than something to be prejudged in the light of its predecessor.
I agree with Ansari that Lenny is the best narrator--a Parsi child not subjected to family prejudices who thus would tend to see things without the coatings of understanding and misunderstanding that an adult of a certain culture or religion might bring to a point of view. She is not a "simplistic" character; she is a simple person. By being with her as she sees what's going on around her, we can see Ansari's view that this film is "a romance, a tragedy, a history, and a comment on the human heart: its tenderness and the beast that hides within." While the history behind the story might be vastly complex, the aim of this film is not to dramatize that complexity but rather the complexity of the lives of the people as this history overtakes them. As Ansari says, the child's confusion embodies the confusion of the millions who are eventually affected by it. We can see from there the enormity of the consequences of the partition.
Wallia's scathing review makes the film seem like a failure ("simplistic," "[Lenny's] viewpoint too limiting for the subject," "the characters are poorly developed," "the roles of the [factions] are oversimplified...distorted," and the film "viciously distorts the...role of the Sikhs in the...struggle") I can't see any of that, and would argue that this is a story told to tell a greater story, and in that it succeeds--and succeeds unforgettably, as Ansari would say.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Xiu Xiu
Here's my first official blog posting, addressing Jeff Jones' blog questions about the significance of the kaleidoscope and also the deaths of Xiu Xiu and Jao Lin.
What I noticed about the movie was its use of muted colors, mostly to show sameness and uniformity in a culture tht demanded them. Except for the green grass Xiu Xiu rolled in, and the red I'll mention below, nothing was vivid--except the colors of the kaleidoscope. I thought this toy offered Xiu Xiu something colorful and changing--her life as it should have been--and it also served as a connection to her home, where she counted on returning. There's a scene after one of her sexual encounters whre Jao Lin is hunkered down over the fire; Xiu Xiu comes from behind the makeshift barrier of the sheet, glares at him, and hurls a fistful of colored objects at him. I thought those were the pieces of glass from her kaleidoscope, perhaps broken during the encounter, and signifying the breaking of her connection to her home, and also her childhood and innocence.
The color red also figured into this movie. Of course it's the color that signifies Communism. It's the color of the scarf Xiu Xiu ties around her neck when she thinks she's going home, while she waits every day for someone to get her, and before she dies. It's the color of her legs, covered with blood, after the miscarriage (which is what I believe it was because of the effect of the violent horseback ride into town). It's the color of the rag Jao Lin keeps tied around his rifle. In the final scene, snow covers the bathing pool where both bodies lie, with the white broken only by the red of the scarf and the rag, showing that Jao Lin killed himself and fell on Xiu Xiu's body, the rifle falling with him.
The above might strike some as armchair movie analysis, and that's exactly what it is! However, I watched this haunting movie twice and noticed the same things both times. I'm interested to know if anyone else has another opinion. I'll wait to hear...
What I noticed about the movie was its use of muted colors, mostly to show sameness and uniformity in a culture tht demanded them. Except for the green grass Xiu Xiu rolled in, and the red I'll mention below, nothing was vivid--except the colors of the kaleidoscope. I thought this toy offered Xiu Xiu something colorful and changing--her life as it should have been--and it also served as a connection to her home, where she counted on returning. There's a scene after one of her sexual encounters whre Jao Lin is hunkered down over the fire; Xiu Xiu comes from behind the makeshift barrier of the sheet, glares at him, and hurls a fistful of colored objects at him. I thought those were the pieces of glass from her kaleidoscope, perhaps broken during the encounter, and signifying the breaking of her connection to her home, and also her childhood and innocence.
The color red also figured into this movie. Of course it's the color that signifies Communism. It's the color of the scarf Xiu Xiu ties around her neck when she thinks she's going home, while she waits every day for someone to get her, and before she dies. It's the color of her legs, covered with blood, after the miscarriage (which is what I believe it was because of the effect of the violent horseback ride into town). It's the color of the rag Jao Lin keeps tied around his rifle. In the final scene, snow covers the bathing pool where both bodies lie, with the white broken only by the red of the scarf and the rag, showing that Jao Lin killed himself and fell on Xiu Xiu's body, the rifle falling with him.
The above might strike some as armchair movie analysis, and that's exactly what it is! However, I watched this haunting movie twice and noticed the same things both times. I'm interested to know if anyone else has another opinion. I'll wait to hear...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)