I have met many Lebanese, Syrians ,Palestinians and Muslims, whose nationalism and religiousness is merely about "defending" their countries and their religion. I love
Being in a sexist society, I have brought up believing that in order for Razan the female to be human, she needs to shake some masculine given thoughts in her society. It is only normal to be attacked as an un-Syrian by Syrians when saying that sexual harassment is a serious issue in Syria, ass-grabbers are everywhere in Syria. A student came to visit Syria for two weeks have shared her story about ass grabbers. Another tourist, Daniel, is telling a story on a similar incident occurs regularly in
In other words, the commonly discussed reasons why
All reasons are intermingled of course, but I think if the Syrian system got a bit loose, Syrian people will be happy with economical and political changes, but not with social ones that have to do with women rights, Palestinians and Iraqi refugees' situations, homosexual lives among many other things.
Syrian females cannot openly speak about sexual harassment because it's not that simple to oppose a certain daily habit in any country. Sexual harassment in Syrian is becoming an "unquestioned" given, it is interesting to talk about it, but no strong support is given to the girls who wish to end the phenomenon. She's either to be considered a "slut" or "un-Syrian", among many defensive Syrians' patriotic labels.
When a girl say "I love you" to a man, he is in front of her and she is saying these words to him. Yet it is the "him inside her head" whom she loves, not necessarily the man standing in front of her.
With a country and our belongings to it, the process becomes rather complex. Each Syrian loves her
Syrian becomes its "ornamentation".
I believe racism, sexism, sectarianism, human rights' abuse, are unconsciously celebrated in the Syrian daily life. Just like the Syrians are now the prime reason for everything wrong happens in Lebanon, the Iraqi refugees are the prime reason of everything wrong happens in Syria, if one caught AIDS, it's an Iraqi girl, if one cannot find a job, it's the Iraqis' fault, if a family are sleeping in the streets, it’s the Iraqis fault. Syrians now, and away from the regime's tyranny, are constructing the "Syrianism" within this binary opposition "Syrians/Iraqis", as a continuous process that started with the "Syrians/Lebanon". Syrians are formulating a belonging to Syrian in opposition to the "new comers" of
I am not here trying to unfold the current Syrianism in order to come up with another, I don’t like fixed entities, I like chaos, I trust chaotic identities. My Arabism is like no other Arabist, neither is my Syrianism. To be a Syrian is not a question to be answered or to look for, it shouldn't be there or obvious, it should be a repeatedly questioned question.
I think when we stop saying:
"انته واحد يهودي"
"هدول المثليين المقرفين"
"هاي البنت الشرموطة"
"هدول العراقيه والفلسطينيه النور"
"هدول النور ياللي من الريف"
"انا مسلم سني"
"نحنا المسيحية غير"
"انتي طالق" شفويا
We can then talk about building a nation state
*I realize that by saying un-Lebanese then I am implying that there is a fixed "Lebanese character" in the first place, I think that sociopolitical history in a given country can produce somewhat similar consciousness within people.
12 comments:
This is very profound..
While I cannot possibly comment on the prctice of ass-grabbing (!!!), I most certainly agree that we, Syrians, must face our own faults and challenge our deep-seated beliefs before we can claim the moral high grounds.
I must say, I think you are right in that we seem to prey on the easy targets, and blame some unfortunate other for our ills, and never accept them as our own fault..
I think we have a long way ahead before we can claim true Nationhood.
i think your statement "atypically un-Lebanese", howevermuch temporal in your analysis, is right on! we lebanese also have to get off our high horse (which does not even exist, we do not even own a horse, we just think we are on a horse,) and look at ourselves and stop exploiting and blaming others.
Thank you Syrian Brit and welcome to this blog.
I was worried my post would hurt some Syrians' feelings, I am glad you share my views and my reading. Addressing troubling issues is the only path to building Syria, in my opinion.
IBJ,
lol a7la horse lal Lebanese!
I think you'd be surprised that there are Lebanese who have already started in addressing some taboo topics in the Lebanese society, these Lebanese are rare to find, but I have big faith in them. Activism is not prohibited in Lebanon as it is in Syria, which will make our job a lot more difficult, but that's never a good reason not to try to ;-)
I agree that this post is very profound. "I like Chaos" is as beautiful a human sentiment as there can be, because it means liking the immense variety that is in every group, no matter how compact it might feel that it is. Looking at a national or cultural identity in a detached way isn't easy, it might just be impossible, but looking at it and at the same time LOVING it, this is marvelous. That's where change can happen, keeping everything that cannot harm, that adds beauty and meaning to living, and figuring out just what these things are, making their weight exceed the weight of the damaging things like harassment or closure of free speech and thought.
What you've laid out are guidelines that people everywhere should follow... this is a much-needed voice. I have two comments to add:
1) In my limited experience people are very casual about their racist or sexist attitudes and expressions. Even when I object to what they say, they brush it off as a joke. They won't take it seriously, and they think there is no problem. In the worst case, they will actually believe what they are saying, assert its truth, and then not defend it further. For me, the casualness is what is most startling. This is not the vulgar racism of the Nazi party or the KKK: it's the subtle kind that permeates everything we say and do, and I feel like it is encouraged by a type of arrogance rather than a type of hatred. It is still equally bad, but it's much harder to deal with...
2) You identified a 4th category, the Syrian people themselves. I think this is so important... the 1st excuse is the traditional nationalist narrative, the 2nd one is the anti-colonial/imperialist narrative, and the 3rd is the dissidents' narrative. But all of these share one fatal flaw: they are centered on authority and on the 'transfer' of power from one party to another. It is a narrative of "leaders," not of people.
Only the 4th category, of 'the people themselves,' is opposed to this logic which informs the other 3, that the people are eternally shaped by the authorities and that the only way to change things is to assume authority for yourself. That is, it's a simple matter of changing the people who are in the positions, rather than the positions themselves.
The fourth category is true independence and freedom, the true power to create and be in the world. We should not want power to change hands: we should destroy power. All of these narratives have an element of truth to them, but if we center around a single one, we are stuck. The one we choose to adopt and live by, is the one that determines and expresses our vision for the world.
There will never be a new, more perfect authority. We won't be saved by this or that ruler--we are not waiting for messiahs. We must act ourselves. We must change ourselves. And then, everything else will follow.
I've read this a few times and I appreciate your attempt at identifying some of the problems Syria faces. I think defining the essence of a nation is like trying to define something so fragile, if you do more than a whisper it would disappear.
I do agree with you it's extremely dangerous for any group to resort only to knee-jerk reactions once their beliefs are questioned and that the only way forward is in fact an engagement and frank discussion.
I think for Syrians to progress like you said, they have to move forward from such phrases you have mentioned and also recognise that such ugliness is not in "them" as an abstract concept but in "us". On that reasoning we would also stop judging people based on critera "we" set for "them" and so saying something like meeting the "best Lebanese" and meeting only "one" Muslim means we are falling back into the same maze as before. The problem with defining people in this way is you alienate the very people you are trying to save when in fact a better approach might be to engage with them and make them realise what "the good" is.
I don't think people genuinely are evil but they misjudge what is "the good" and so make bad judgements about whether to be "racist" or "sexist". To such a person, the "good" lies in removing all Iraqi's from Syria or the good lies in a woman becoming an object.
If we can demonstrate that in fact being racist even unconsciously to such people is evil, rather than just telling them it is evil (and inferring that they are too) and expecting them to believe us, we stand a much better chance of making progress. The only way to do that is by awakening a sense of personal responsibility in individuals, perhaps by asking them the "uncomfortable" questions of how to solve the problem rather than expecting someone else "government/God" to miraculously do it for them.
Some would disagree with me but I do hope my comment is allowed to remain and that it makes a contribution.
True Mary,
I think the world would become less racist when they start believing that in each “race” there are many races. Hence there is no “pure” us when the “them” lies in “us”. This reminds me of something Sartre once wrote about living-in-the-world is about people’s existence is part of my own existence. There is no “I” without “them”. It’s similar to Mahmoud Darwich’s admittance to the existence of Israel. He said that Israel is a “historical happening,” and its happening, whether I like it or not, is affecting my own existence. So Israel is part of my existence. I hope I recall that right.
I am lately finding the struggle for “nativity” is rather racist than actually struggle against “globalization.” Many people mix up the two, they lose the “good” in fighting for the bad.
Yaman,
I cannot agree with you more, I think people do lessen the dangerousness of sexism and racism in their daily habitual talks, over a TV series, over a cup of coffee, or they cross the street. I find common people’s ignorance with what racism and sexism are major factors in the continuance of reproducing these two violent actions within societies. But what I think the most dangerous of all is when a known “activist”, “academic”, or an “academic” bloggers, “normalize” sexism and racism as “part of human nature”. So violence is “naturally” human. Hence I guess, terrorism is natural, Zionism is natural, I mean, why is “good” fighting “evil” if it is “natural”? Why are they researching, writing and blogging if all is “natural”?
You so right in calling people’s revolution onto themselves as “the” needed if not only revolution. My father is a “Marxist” whose revolution exists only in alliance with Al- Jazeera against the evil “them.” It’s always easy to pinpoint the evil, and celebrate us.
Thanks for the amazing inspiring comment, Yaman.
well well
you never seize to surprise me :)
wonderful article...
Hmm..perhaps I can try to speak for some of those "academics" since I've met quite a few and share some of their views to some extent (I hope nobody hates me for this!!).
I think most people take for granted the debate in political thought between how things should be and how things actually are, it's been an age old dialogue ever since Thucidides wrote the Melian Dialogues and "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.". On such an argument, anything goes from terrorism to Zionism to any of the other "isms" you've mentioned. In fact, we can see these simple laws applied everyday on the Discovery channel, the "law of the jungle".
Yet if we dig deeper, we find that such a system cannot work for human beings, there is a "good" just as there is something called the "bad". Unlike humans however, the animals in the jungle only eat their fill and don't kill for sport or fun. What distinguishes the human being from animals is the ability to go to extremes but also to control herself, unlike the animals which are programmed to behave as such, the human must consciously seek balance within herself constantly since even a momentary lapse can lead her astray.
It's a bit of a philosophical answer but until we as bloggers, activists and human beings can start to articulate the true "good" from the "bad" in our own behaviour as well as others, then we can start liberation, rather than build castles of sand.
Like Yaman and Razan, I await the revolution.
:)
MFL, thanks comrade! Miss you komayat!
Wassim, you wait for your revolution. I've just started mine.
See you in the trenches tuvarish :)
thank you
Post a Comment