I am a witness...
With the words on every page, seen through my own eyes, survivors tell their stories. They share with me their trauma, asking only in return that I validate their pain - that I accept their story as truth. I will not deny them their pain. I will not forget them. I am a witness.
It is a great paradox really: this idea that we, as readers of their testimony - witnesses to their pain - accept their story as truth. It is a paradox because pain exceeds the description of language, deeming its sufferers incapable of conveying its truth - all this, contrary to the very reason why they write. After all, according to scholars like Elaine Scarry, "'hearing about pain' may exist as the primary model of what it is 'to have doubt'" (Body in Pain). So if their pain cannot be literarily expressed, and to hear of their pain creates doubt in their audience's mind, then why do they feel compelled to give testimony? What obligations do we, as readers, have towards the writer?
I don't know why they write. Perhaps it is the weight of their grief, bearing down on them from within the depths of their soulds. Perhaps they write in hopes that we will relieve them of some of their burden. I once heard a metaphor made about the weight of personal anguish and stress. Though the name of the speaker has long escaped my memory, his words are fresh in my mind. He held up a glass of water to his audience, asking how much they thought it weighted. He said the absolute weight of the glass did not matter as much as the length of time in which a person holds it. If held for a short time it is no problem, but hold it for a long period of time and the arms will begin to ache. It is the same weight, but the longer it is held the heavier it gets. The same goes for the weight of emotional pain. We must set it down once in awhile. Otherwise the burden grows too heavy for us to carry. By sharing their stories with us, maybe the authors are trying to relieve some of their burden.
Maybe that's not the reason at all. Maybe they write for legitimacy. Going back to Elaine Scarry, she has a theory that the real power of torture is the denial of the victim's pain. The torturer objectifies the victim's pain, allowing the torturer to deny its existence. By writing a testimonial, the survivor gives life to his story, and he merely asks us to accept the reality of his pain.
I am a witness...
With their words they tell me their story. With my eyes I have verified their pain. From here it becomes my responsibility to share what I witness with others. It is not enough to feel sorry for what has happened in the past. It is the duty of the reader to recognize new instances of these same violations and put a stop to them. Americans are lucky enough to have a voice that our government must recognize. Those who bear witness would be remiss to let the world repeat what has happened in the past. Today there is Darfur. Who knows what we will see tomorrow. Individually it is difficult to affect change, but it can be done. Together, as a whole people, it must be done.
Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain. 1985. Oxford University Press: New York.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Chew on THIS this Thanksgiving
A little girl is crying.
What brings these tears?
A booboo on her knee?
A scary monster? A bad dream?
None of these. No, you see
this little girl is dying
from one common disease.
And sadly, but true,
this girl of just two
will fall to famine - alone.
It took her mommy, and daddy too.
Her brother Sam and sister Sue.
Her only chance now falls on us.
But...do we do our best?
A little girl is dying.
Dying, in the dark.
Yet all we do is shed a tear
then turn and look away.
Now she is falling by the wayside.
But in a land not far away.
Not Bosnia, not Croatia. Not even Paraguay.
She's starving just across the street,
right here in U.S.A.
But wait...
hold on...
She's not alone?
Thousands die with her too?
The man from the alley,
his brother in the park,
they all share the pain
of starving in the dark.
But do I?
Do you?
Do we share their doom?
If not, do we care?
Enough to share
what little we have?
Can we do without the cashmere sweater
if it means making better
the effects of this awful disease?
But alas, whats this?
You do nothing for these?
They're not worth it! you say
Let them dig through the trash
It's easier that way...
What brings these tears?
A booboo on her knee?
A scary monster? A bad dream?
None of these. No, you see
this little girl is dying
from one common disease.
And sadly, but true,
this girl of just two
will fall to famine - alone.
It took her mommy, and daddy too.
Her brother Sam and sister Sue.
Her only chance now falls on us.
But...do we do our best?
A little girl is dying.
Dying, in the dark.
Yet all we do is shed a tear
then turn and look away.
Now she is falling by the wayside.
But in a land not far away.
Not Bosnia, not Croatia. Not even Paraguay.
She's starving just across the street,
right here in U.S.A.
But wait...
hold on...
She's not alone?
Thousands die with her too?
The man from the alley,
his brother in the park,
they all share the pain
of starving in the dark.
But do I?
Do you?
Do we share their doom?
If not, do we care?
Enough to share
what little we have?
Can we do without the cashmere sweater
if it means making better
the effects of this awful disease?
But alas, whats this?
You do nothing for these?
They're not worth it! you say
Let them dig through the trash
It's easier that way...
Friday, November 20, 2009
Actors and Movies, Then and Now
Movies today, with their multi-million dollar budgets, socially conscious story lines, and special effects, have no doubt evolved from the black and white days of Casablanca, and It's a Wonderful Life. Perhaps this evolution is for the better, but over time some movies come to be considered classics, and very few modern films can claim that status. Many of the classics relied heavily on their actors, without the aid of modern technoloy. Acting has evolved along with the advances in film, but are the actors of today as good as those in the classics? Can direct comparisons even be made between films of such different periods?
Some argue that no films - including the "classics" - before 1970 can compare to modern films. Actors then, like cult hero John Wayne, lacked the ability to give depth to their roles. Their lack of range limited them to playing the same type of role over and over again. However, would it be fair to say actors like Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart had a more difficult time making their stories believable? How would modern actors fare in the older film industry with the censoring of a more conservative era, or without the aid of modern technology? For example, Bruce Willis might have a hard time convincing his audience he was going to blow up an asteroid if technology did not make it look like a real asteroid was on a collision course with earth in Armageddon.
Maybe movies are similar to athletes of different eras. Direct comparisons cannot always be made. Technology changes. People change. In sports, athletes become bigger, stronger and faster. Rules change and equipment improves. We can only compare certain skill sets. For example, we can compare the fielding skills of baseball legend Willie Mays to those of Barry Bonds, but the introduction of "juiced" balls, harder bats and steroids makes a fair comparison of batting skills difficult.
When movies like Casablanca were winning Academy Awards, film was relatively new. It was a transition period for actors, and most acting techniques were developed for theatre. In theatre, projection and over-the-top expression were used to reach the person sitting in the back row. The result was intentional overacting. On film the slightest expression was picked up, so expressions no longer needed to be big to be seen. New acting techniques were developed, and today the great actors can tell the whole story with their eyes, without having to change expression.
The differences in skill sets make it hard to find actors from either era that can gracefully adapt to the other's stle and do it justice. Each generation offers us something unique and entertaining, and comparing them is unfair. There is something to be said for the originality, innocence, and subtle messages of the classics. There is also a deserving respect for the innovation, provocation and cinematic appeal of modern film. The test of time is the only fair test. The "classics" have already withstood the test of time. Will modern movies do the same?
Some argue that no films - including the "classics" - before 1970 can compare to modern films. Actors then, like cult hero John Wayne, lacked the ability to give depth to their roles. Their lack of range limited them to playing the same type of role over and over again. However, would it be fair to say actors like Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart had a more difficult time making their stories believable? How would modern actors fare in the older film industry with the censoring of a more conservative era, or without the aid of modern technology? For example, Bruce Willis might have a hard time convincing his audience he was going to blow up an asteroid if technology did not make it look like a real asteroid was on a collision course with earth in Armageddon.
Maybe movies are similar to athletes of different eras. Direct comparisons cannot always be made. Technology changes. People change. In sports, athletes become bigger, stronger and faster. Rules change and equipment improves. We can only compare certain skill sets. For example, we can compare the fielding skills of baseball legend Willie Mays to those of Barry Bonds, but the introduction of "juiced" balls, harder bats and steroids makes a fair comparison of batting skills difficult.
When movies like Casablanca were winning Academy Awards, film was relatively new. It was a transition period for actors, and most acting techniques were developed for theatre. In theatre, projection and over-the-top expression were used to reach the person sitting in the back row. The result was intentional overacting. On film the slightest expression was picked up, so expressions no longer needed to be big to be seen. New acting techniques were developed, and today the great actors can tell the whole story with their eyes, without having to change expression.
The differences in skill sets make it hard to find actors from either era that can gracefully adapt to the other's stle and do it justice. Each generation offers us something unique and entertaining, and comparing them is unfair. There is something to be said for the originality, innocence, and subtle messages of the classics. There is also a deserving respect for the innovation, provocation and cinematic appeal of modern film. The test of time is the only fair test. The "classics" have already withstood the test of time. Will modern movies do the same?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Are Comments Against Israeli state practices really anti-Semitic?
It was the systematical extermination of more than six million Jews. It was the annihilation of over 10 million human beings. Whether we recognize it as the ‘Nazi holocaust’, or the more emphatic ‘Holocaust’, does not change what ook place in the concentration camps of the Third Reich during World War II. To call it man’s single worst crime against humanity simply does not capture its horrific reality. It is only logical, with a human rights violation of this magnitude, that any claim of its memorialization or industrialization for the personal gain of mostly Jewish lineage, or for the sake of U.S. global positioning, would be received with ridicule and charges of anti-Semitism. First we are appalled that such accusations could even be imagined, quickly followed by anger and personal attacks on the integrity of the individual responsible for such hateful and hurtful allegations. For a guy like Norman Finkelstein (wrote the hotly controversial The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering), we dismiss him as a ‘self-loathing Jew’: an anti-Semite of the worst kind. We are quick to discard his claims solely on the anti-Semitic basis; but we never dismantle his theses with legitimate counterpoints. If you’ve never read the essay, in it Finkelstein makes the shocking claim that the Nazi holocaust has been used to justify U.S. support for criminal policies of the Israeli state. Offensive to many, but he supports his claims with powerful evidence that should not be dispelled without a reasonable investigation into their legitimacy. Unfortunately such an investigation cannot take place without first addressing the controversy surrounding the alleged anti-Semitism in his claims.
Here’s a brief summary of his claims:
The Holocaust Industry was created in 1967 after a dominant display of military prowess in the Six Days War proved the Israeli state could be a powerful Middle East ally to the U.S. Shortly thereafter, a dramatic increase in scholarly attention in the U.S. to the Nazi holocaust resulted in the popularization of Israel as a victim state for a victimized people; the effect of which created anti-Semitic implications in any criticism against the state and its military action. “The Holocaust” became a means to reach the end (the end being a formidable ally in the Middle East, particularly for the U.S.): “an ideological misrepresentation of the Nazi holocaust” (Finkelstein, 3).
Are these claims anti-Semitic? If they are anti-anything, they scream anti-American foreign policy. The lack of a U.S. presence in post WWII Holocaust issues prior to an extensive interest in Israel’s power within the Middle East is a recurring theme in Finkelstein’s supportive evidence. The implications of this expose a controversial and underlying factor in the discussion of the industrialization of the Nazi holocaust, but are of little consequence to the relevance of anti-Semitism in Finkelstein’s claims. Therefore, I will refrain from comment on the validity of his statements and concentrate on the motives behind them.
An unbiased reading of the text will reveal a simple theme. We are presented with a Jewish son of survivor lineage, whose perception of today’s exposure of the Holocaust has him concerned about the legacy of Holocaust victims – both the survivors and non-survivors. When he sees individuals (Jewish or not) actively pursue capital or social gain from the suffering of an entire people, he sees a loss of solemn reverence that should accompany the history of the victims. The way he sees it, “Holocaust profiteers” are diminishing the suffering of his ancestors through the objectification and misuse of the monumental devastation that was the Holocaust that justify the infliction of the same kinds of suffering on another people. In his own words, his concern is that “[t]oo many public and private resources have been invested in memorializing the Nazi genocide. Most of the output is worthless, a tribute not to Jewish suffering but to Jewish aggrandizement” (8). He is angered that “the moral stature of their (Holocaust victims) martyrdom” (8) is being cheapened by efforts for monetary retribution and social advancement. Finkelstein blatantly states that he cares “about the memory of [his] family’s persecution” (8). Here is the key point that Finkelstein wants to get across: He believes the “falsification and exploitation of the Nazi genocide…has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and U.S. support for these policies” (7-8).
Are these statements anti-Semitic? I do not believe so, but let me explain why. He expressed one man’s pride and respect for his people’s history. He expressed the concerns of a man who genuinely believes their memory – the solemnity of their suffering – is being tarnished by the use of that suffering as an excuse to use any means necessary to protect against anti-Semitism or to defend the Israeli state and military policy, including the oppression of others. When broken down in its simplest form, Finkelstein’s text introduced me to an individual deeply offended by the world-wide manipulation of his people and their history for reasons of personal and national gain. His claims include the actions and manipulations by individuals of Jewish ethnicity, including the heralded Elie Wiesel (and amidst much controversy). Finkelstein generalizes with the term ‘Jewish Elites’ multiple times in his criticisms, but sometimes for articulation purposes such generalizations are necessary. He explains his definition of the Jewish Elite strictly as “individuals prominent in the organizational and cultural life of the mainstream Jewish community” (13). They are the ones with the access: the power. Was every US Jewish Elite guilty of conveniently ‘forgetting’ about the Holocaust during the Cold War (when the U.S. relied on West Germany as an ally)? Of course not, but as the most personally invested social group with the power to influence action, they have to be referred to as one unit. I equate this to saying SUV drivers are responsible for the hole in the ozone. Accuracy of the statement is secondary to the implications my statement makes. Does it mean I am anti-SUV drivers? Absolutely not – my mom is one of them – and it certainly doesn’t imply that I am anti-automobile drivers as a whole. It is conceivable that I can be against my mom driving an SUV without being against her personally. Similarly, it is conceivable that Finkelstein’s frustration over the presence of U.S. Jewish Elites in Holocaust issues now that there is something to gain does not make him anti-Semitic.
Here is the point: If accusations like Finkelstein’s are viewed as anti-Semitic, then there is a severe flaw in our sociological makeup. We should be able to express displeasure with Israeli policies – particularly military policies – when we disagree with them. Exactly when did a criticism of an individual’s (or a state’s) actions become the criticism of his ethnicity? When did the expectation of accountability become an offensive suggestion? Finkelstein might suggest it was right around 1967 with the international casting of Israel as a victim state. Then again, we are still waiting on a legitimate exploration of his evidence…
Finkelstein, Norman G. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of the Jewish Suffering. 2nd Ed. Verso; 2000; 2001; 2003.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Snowflakes: A Metaphor for the Human Relationship
Each snowflake is something special all its own.
It is whole. It is unique. It is beautiful.
When it falls from the sky it is graceful.
It doesn't know where it will land, but each flake has its own destination.
But when it lands it meets another flake - like itself, yet unique in its own right.
These two perfectly whole and perfectly beautiful flakes combine and become one.
Together they join and make something even more beautiful;
A picture perfect scene.
Their union turns them into something new. They are changed forever.
Even if you separate them again they are changed forever from their original state.
This one snowflake was whole before it met another.
Then it met its other half, and together they made something magical;
a scene one solitary flake could not possibly make on its own...
forever changing them both.
It is whole. It is unique. It is beautiful.
When it falls from the sky it is graceful.
It doesn't know where it will land, but each flake has its own destination.
But when it lands it meets another flake - like itself, yet unique in its own right.
These two perfectly whole and perfectly beautiful flakes combine and become one.
Together they join and make something even more beautiful;
A picture perfect scene.
Their union turns them into something new. They are changed forever.
Even if you separate them again they are changed forever from their original state.
This one snowflake was whole before it met another.
Then it met its other half, and together they made something magical;
a scene one solitary flake could not possibly make on its own...
forever changing them both.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
November 11: A Family Day
November 11, for most of the country, is a time to honor the veterans who have defended our country - many by giving their own lives so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted. For my family it is much more than that. On this day, 18 years ago, my mom's mother passed away. It was the first death I ever experienced, though I was young enough that I remember very little of it.
Today also marks the ninth year since my dad's father passed away. I remember this day vividly. It was two days before the start of my sophomore basketball season. My grandfather was my biggest fan, sitting in the front row at mid-court for every home game. That season was the most difficult season of my life. I visited his grave before every game. I wore a rubberband with his name and the date of his death to every practice. It was very hard to look over at the stands and not see him sitting there.
Pop Pop was one of the most influential people in my life. He was awarded the Purple Heart during World War II. He was a successful entrepreneurr who opened a jewelry store over 50 years ago, after hitchhiking over 200 miles to and from Philadelphia to learn the craft of watch making. He was a man of honor, and a distinguished philanthropist in our community. It was the way he lived his life that influenced me to pursue a career in non-profit work.
As hard as his death was to take, the events that took place in the time leading up to it, and the reaction I saw from the town after it, had an enormous impact on my life.
Pop Pop was sick for weeks, and we were graced with the opportunity to come to grips with his inherrent death. We were not taken by surprise, and we were given the time to really take advantage of what little time we knew we had left with him. The few days before he passed we knew it was coming. My whole family came in to be with him. They flew in from all over the country. All of my aunts and uncles, their kids, and my siblings were able to come together for the first time in years. The night that he passed we all sat around his bed - all 21 of us - and recited prayers. As we took our turns with saying private goodbyes, the rest of us sat in the kitchen and reminisced. It was a sad occasion, but it was beautiful. It was sad because we realized we were losing someone so important to us, but it was also a joyful time because we were all together and ablt to - as a family - recognize what a wonderful person Pop Pop was, and just what he meant to our lives.
Today also marks the ninth year since my dad's father passed away. I remember this day vividly. It was two days before the start of my sophomore basketball season. My grandfather was my biggest fan, sitting in the front row at mid-court for every home game. That season was the most difficult season of my life. I visited his grave before every game. I wore a rubberband with his name and the date of his death to every practice. It was very hard to look over at the stands and not see him sitting there.
Pop Pop was one of the most influential people in my life. He was awarded the Purple Heart during World War II. He was a successful entrepreneurr who opened a jewelry store over 50 years ago, after hitchhiking over 200 miles to and from Philadelphia to learn the craft of watch making. He was a man of honor, and a distinguished philanthropist in our community. It was the way he lived his life that influenced me to pursue a career in non-profit work.
As hard as his death was to take, the events that took place in the time leading up to it, and the reaction I saw from the town after it, had an enormous impact on my life.
Pop Pop was sick for weeks, and we were graced with the opportunity to come to grips with his inherrent death. We were not taken by surprise, and we were given the time to really take advantage of what little time we knew we had left with him. The few days before he passed we knew it was coming. My whole family came in to be with him. They flew in from all over the country. All of my aunts and uncles, their kids, and my siblings were able to come together for the first time in years. The night that he passed we all sat around his bed - all 21 of us - and recited prayers. As we took our turns with saying private goodbyes, the rest of us sat in the kitchen and reminisced. It was a sad occasion, but it was beautiful. It was sad because we realized we were losing someone so important to us, but it was also a joyful time because we were all together and ablt to - as a family - recognize what a wonderful person Pop Pop was, and just what he meant to our lives.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
A Moonlit Stroll
As the moonlight catches your eyes,
and the starlight is clear and bright
above in the night skies,
I whisper in your ear a song so sweet.
I look at you,
you're looking at me.
and like a fairy tale
our meandering eyes connect and meet.
I'm mesmerized.
You're captivated.
We stand alone - together.
The two of us.
Love, no longer unknown.
And we realize the truth
as I lean in for the kiss
finally, I think to myself.
My dream is a reality.
And I wake to the beautiful morning
alone again...
the reality was just my dream.
and the starlight is clear and bright
above in the night skies,
I whisper in your ear a song so sweet.
I look at you,
you're looking at me.
and like a fairy tale
our meandering eyes connect and meet.
I'm mesmerized.
You're captivated.
We stand alone - together.
The two of us.
Love, no longer unknown.
And we realize the truth
as I lean in for the kiss
finally, I think to myself.
My dream is a reality.
And I wake to the beautiful morning
alone again...
the reality was just my dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)