Sunday, May 14, 2006

"Stop looking; it's not pleasant"

During a rousing game of Apples to Apples a few nights ago with my roommates, roommate's sister and sister's friend, I was talking to Samy and he mentioned that he was reading about the Abu Ghraib Scandal. I took a look a look at Salon.com's coverage of it, and promptly became a rather depressing addition to the game.

279 photos of despicable, disgusting, and utterly disheartening evidence of total disregard for human life. Conducted in the name of protecting my liberty and me. They held (hold?) prisoners there under suspicion of involvement in all sorts of bombings and conspiracies, and yet many of them were "ghost prisoners:" "whose imprisonment and death would not normally have been included in official prison records," and who may or may not have had roles in the crimes. Yes, I've heard that the MPs weren't given any orders but to "keep the prisoners awake;" yes, I've heard that they were "under unimaginable stress " and that they're not to blame. Yes, I've heard that they were "just a few bad apples." And if anyone thinks these statements are an excuse, they are despicable, too.

All this after my own mother has shown her bright and shining colors as a prejudiced American who believes that Muslims can have multiple wives and drape them in burkas while they stroke their beards and plan the destruction of all things good and pure.

And yet I can't bring myself to allow my terrified and constant sadness at the situation to decompose into anger. Forgive the Anne-Frankishness, but really, I like to think to myself that those specialists were deranged, mentally insane or unclear, actually under duress or at least so much stress that they were not acting in their right minds. I know that those specialists were at one point good to people in their lives; they have values, they are human, they had some logic turning in their heads that validated their actions in their view. I'd like to think they didn't knowingly hurt, kill, and humiliate. And my mother? My mother is not evil. My mother is not so irrational, not always; she cares about her family, she strives to be a good and virtuous person. And even if both of their systems of logic fall short of perfect or perfectly good, who am I to judge?

I don't know what to think or do about inhumanity as an American governmental standard or bigotry as a family sentiment. Maybe I should just give a shit and be articulate for once, create an argument as to why every American should see these photos and weep or why even Asian Americans should feel comfortable allowing Muslims into their homes and families, and share it with whatever powers that be.

But then again, who's going to listen? Whatever is going on in the Middle East, or anywhere else prisoners are being held, under American forces or otherwise, we'll only hear a little bit of it, 3 years and thousands of unnamed corpses later. And what good's an argument over guns and troops and government sanction? What good's an argument over your family's convictions?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're right, Shutterbug, what legitimate change could be fostered out of this cruelty. These people were good to people in their lives, and I'm sure they love their families and treat them with unmitigated consideration.
But until we learn to see everyone that way--until we respect everybody's right to a life without terror whether it comes via planes, bombs, torture, or humiliation, we are a lost species. We may never eliminate violence or prejudice, but we can learn to see within others the same things we find in ourselves and those we love.
I'm not saying we can all be a happy family or that we all have to be so. But if you can break bread with someone even if you dont always want them at your table. It's about learning to acknowledge each other as people first and then consider religion or ethnicity or political ideology.
If we all can't be siblings and friends and family, then we don't have to be enemies. We just need to understand that we are no different than anyone else at heart. It's all simply relative, and somehow we, as Americans, seem to have forgotten that both brown and blue eyes still bleed red.

Anonymous said...

The hope for peace stems from empathy and when people disassociate humanity from a group of people atrocities will occur. To feel sadness, disgust, and anger over what happend there is right. But remember the danger of such righteous anger. Undoubtably some of the "soldiers" there still felt righteous anger for what happend on 9/11. That translated into displaced anger and ultimately toture. The soldiers were wrong, sick in the head, but ultimatly driven by a misled anger. But the response people give to that is an anger directed toward our government. Ask yourself this, are they directly to blame for the atrocities at Abu Gharaib. We must be exceedingly careful not to make the mistake of blaming a different group than those directly responsible for the totures. Chose to be part of the cycle, or don't.

Anonymous said...

Choosing anger as the dominant emotion can lead to sticky territory, but in this day and age we have somehow misplaced the maturity to rise above the shit that plagues ourselves.
I don't believe that the anger ideal in this sense should lead to anger. In fact, I think that these pictures could inspire anger in the sense that we are tired of this violence, this injustice, this war profiteering and racketeering--anger not in the sense that we burn buildings, plunder shops, and hurt the innocent, but rather an anger where we realize the importance of saying no to some of the shit that a government exacts in our name.
If we as Americans cannot be driven by patriotism or economics or social justice without resorting to violence, then maybe we need to reconsider some of the ideals that we blindly accept because they drive us to this cruelty, bigotry, and violence.
Malcolm X once advocated violence when used for self-defense saying, "I don't even call that violence, I call it self-defense." Actions like this are an attack on us all, and because these are Arabs, as they were in the past blacks or Asians or Jews, we have somehow lost the fear and anger not knowing how close we all are to being pushed against the wall. I'm not saying violence or anger are the answer, but perhaps a new sort is. Not violence in the traditional sense, but a general malaise against the people who lie to us. I'm not saying anger is the path to ataraxia, but if we can't be enraged over this, then we are lost.
Emotions don't decompose into anger, they have to galvanize to get there, and the threat of joining a vicious circle may be everpresent, but it does not justify complacency or apathy or silent consent.
I think that if we believe in the ideals for which many of our ancestors immigrated, then we should be really pissed off, and denying that anger isn't an impotent decomposition into anger as others have and will argue, it's the first step to liberation in a state of mental slavery.

Anonymous said...

一位震驚世界的阿拉伯女性

「我們目睹的這場在全球範圍的沖突,不是宗教的沖突,或文明的沖突。它是兩種
相互對立的東西、兩個時代的沖突;它是那種屬於中世紀的心理和21世紀的思維之
間的沖突;它是先進和落後的沖突;文明和原始的沖突;理性和野蠻的沖突;它是
自由和壓迫的沖突;是民主和專制的沖突……」

我被眼前這位阿拉伯女性利劍般的語言震驚了!一位朋友傳來近日在阿拉伯網站、
猶太網站和許多英文網站流傳的一段半島電視台(Al Jazeera)辯論節目。在這個
節目上,這位女性舌戰伊斯蘭教士,對方簡直沒有絲毫招架之力。這是我觀賞過的
最精彩的電視辯論之一,這是我見識到的最優秀的女性之一!

在政教合一的阿拉伯世界,不僅專制橫行,還是絕對大男人主義的世界,那些留著
大鬍子的毛拉們(mullahs)統管一切。女人連駱駝的價錢還不如,沒有任何權
利,連臉都不讓見天日,要嚴嚴實實蒙起來。那些動不動就上街狂熱反美、反西方
的大男人們,可以合法擁有三、四個老婆,但女性卻連開車都被當作犯罪,更不要
說在婚姻上有同樣的權利。

至於伊斯蘭文化的弊端,更是不許女性插嘴。在那個「要用戰鬥把世界上所有不信
伊斯蘭的人,都變成穆斯林」的《可蘭經》主導的世界,誰也不可以對這種文化、這
種宗教提出批評。在自由的丹麥,一家報紙登出關於伊斯蘭先知的漫畫,那個世界
的男人們就狂熱喊叫著去攻擊人家的使館,向天空放槍,放火;當然,就別提他們
用自殺炸彈,去炸猶太人的餐館、學校、老人中心,甚至正舉行婚禮的教堂。

在那樣一個誰也不敢說真話、噤若寒蟬的世界,竟出現一位女性,敢公開在阿拉伯
半島電視上和那些毛拉們面對面地辯論,大聲說出事實、真實、真相,痛斥伊斯蘭
文化,勇敢地為猶太人、為西方文明辯護。一夜之間,她成為阿拉伯世界「良知」
的象徵!

她就是今年47歲的瓦法.蘇爾丹(Wafa Sultan)。一個親眼目睹的事件改變了在
敘利亞出生、成長,並曾是虔誠伊斯蘭信徒的蘇爾丹。1979年,一幫恐怖份子沖進
她當時就讀的大馬士革 Aleppo大學,高喊著「Allah is great!」,當場槍殺了她
的教授,並一氣打了一百多槍,她震驚了,意識到這不是她應該要的神和宗教,從
而開始質疑曾得到的所有伊斯蘭知識。

她決心逃出那種宗教主導的國家,去尋找真正的文明。1989年,她和丈夫孩子抵達
洛杉磯,在那裡學習心理學,後從事心理諮詢工作。她常在網絡上撰文和那些極端
伊斯蘭者辯論,後來被半島電視台發現,找去參加辯論節目,由於她信奉自由的價
值,大膽地指出伊斯蘭教的弊端,再加上她說話鏗鏘有力,思路敏捷,反應機智,
毫不讓步,把那些阿拉伯學者嗆得啞口無言,她被稱為「伊斯蘭神學士的最大夢魘」。

尤其是今年2月21日,她在半島電視上和埃及伊斯蘭教士辯論,精彩異常,其片斷
被「中東媒體研究所」(MemriTV.org)放到網絡上,一下引起轟動,各種語種的
網站在轉載這個節目,僅MemriTV上的該節目已被下載超過百萬次,google 關於她
的詞條已一百多萬,並以每天近10萬的速度增長,更有成千上萬的評論,甚至有人
稱她是「新世界的女神」。

這個節目讓人感到阿拉伯世界的希望所在。更令人確信,不管什麼族裔,什麼文化
背景,不管哪裡的人群,面對怎樣嚴酷的專制,只要是人,心裡就會有對自由的呼
喚,對真正文明的向往!

蘇爾丹提出一個遠高於哈佛教授亨廷頓的觀念﹕「文明之間沒有沖突,只有競
爭。」她認為伊斯蘭教不是文明,因為這種宗教導致人們傾向暴力和屠殺。她說
《可蘭經》明白地寫著,要用武力把所有不信伊斯蘭的人,變成穆斯林。她對穆斯林
和猶太人比較說,猶太人經過巨大苦難,流散到世界各地,但他們團結起來,不是
用暴力和屠殺,而是用向世界貢獻知識,贏得世人的承認。但穆斯林在做什麼,把
三個大佛像鑿毀成廢墟。

她在辯論中激昂地說,「我們沒有看到一個猶太人,去毀掉別人的教堂;我們沒有
看到一個猶太人,用殺人來表達抗議;我們也沒有看到一個佛教徒,去燒毀清真
寺,去殺穆斯林,或攻擊人家的大使館。只有穆斯林,用燒毀人家的教堂、殺人、
毀掉人家的使領館,來捍衛他們的信仰。」

她最後向伊斯蘭世界發出呼籲﹕「穆斯林在要求世人尊敬他們之前,必須問自己,
可以向人類貢獻什麼?」

她在接受以色列電台採訪時,更是向倍受伊斯蘭世界的大男人欺壓的阿拉伯女性發
出呼籲﹕「我想告訴每一個伊斯蘭世界的女性,你是真正的領袖,如果你不坐在駕
駛位置,帶著我們的新一代安全地向前行駛,那麼我們的人民就沒有出路。」

蘇爾丹特別強調,女性的天性不是暴力和強制,而是和平與寬容。她說,「我想告
訴每一個女性,伊斯蘭男性除了失敗,他們什麼也沒證明;在把你們排斥到邊緣之
後,他們帶領你們走向的是一個又一個災難。我想告訴每一個女性,要相信你自
己,扮演你的角色。」「你能生出生命,你就有能力來保護生命!」

她直言﹕「我想做的是,改變我們人民的思維狀態(mentality ),因為他們已經
成為伊斯蘭教義的人質十四個世紀了。沒有哪個人質能夠自己打破獄規,逃離監
獄,外部世界的人應該去幫助他們越獄。」

蘇爾丹一夜之間成為世界媒體關注的人物,《紐約時報》、《洛杉磯時報》, CNN 電
視,法國《世界報》,以色列廣播電台等,都發表了對她的報導或專訪。《華盛頓時
報》為此專門發表了題為「勇敢的美籍阿拉伯女性」的社論。她和伊斯蘭神學士在
半島電視上的辯論,被譯成各種文字,成千上萬的人發貼討論,成為近日最大的網
路新聞之一。

《紐約時報》說,蘇爾丹的勇氣,不僅西方自由世界人們敬仰,連穆斯林世界的改革
者們,也稱讚她敢公開在阿拉伯電視上,大聲說出只有少數穆斯林在私下才敢說的
話。

當然,她也遭到那些狂熱毛拉們的痛恨,《紐約時報》說,世界各地的伊斯蘭神學士
在譴責她,她家裡的電話留言中不斷有威脅的話﹕「噢,你還活著,你等著瞧
吧」;還有人發電子信說,「有人會殺你的,那個人將是我。」即使在半島電視節
目上,那些辯不過她的毛拉們,也像霍梅尼發出追殺《魔鬼的詩篇》作者拉什迪一
樣,對她發出宗教裁判令(fatwa)。

但她毫不畏懼,她對《紐約時報》說,「知識把我從那種落後的思想中解救了出來,
應該有人(承擔責任)去把穆斯林人民從那種錯誤的信仰中解放出來。」她已用阿
拉伯文寫過兩本書,目前正在完成第三本(英文),名為《逃脫的囚犯﹕當神是個
惡魔》(The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster)。《紐約時報》說,這本
書出版後,「阿拉伯世界會被攪翻天」。

她的母親和兄弟仍在敘利亞,已不敢和直接她聯係了,只能通過在塔林的妹妹轉
話。她的兩個兄弟,在她上電視批評伊斯蘭教之後,就被敘利亞的秘密警察帶去審
問。但蘇爾丹說,「我沒有恐懼,我對我的觀點有信心,這就像一場萬里跋涉,我
已經邁出了第一步和最困難的開始十英里。」

這一位女性,提昇了整個阿拉伯世界!

Anonymous said...

*_*