Hi All,
This will be a speace where Professor Salaita can respond to our questions. Feel free to post a question simply by replying to this thread.
First question: Prof. Salaita, in your introduction you analyze Michael Moore's treatment of a member of Peace Fresno in Fahrenheit 9/11. You indicated that the scene would have been more effective had it highlighted perhaps an Arab-American who suffered as a result of the Patriot Act and institutional racism. We wondered if this criticism was fully just because does Moore have a responsibility to highlight Arab Americans? We also wondered if you contacted Moore about his lack of foci on Arab Americans, because he might have a reason for the exclusion. We wondered if a focus on Arab American racism might be suited for a different film--one directed by someone who was Arab-American.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Steve's Space
Posted by Mr. P at 9:49 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Greetings! I'm honored to have my own "space" here and more honored to be a part of this conversation.
It's interesting that you focus on my critique of Moore because that has been one of the more controversial aspects of my book.
I don't know that the Peace Fresno scene would have been more EFFECTIVE had Moore included Arab Americans, but I do know it would have been more ACCURATE, and that's why I took Moore to task. In fact, I believe that the scene was more effective precisely because he avoided Arabs. In other words, Moore chose the easy rather than the hard road. It's always difficult for an artist to confront unpopular issues, but those who do ultimately produce the best art. Given Moore's target audience (mainstream folks), he chose the correct emphasis, if his goal was to persuade. However, in my mind truth is more important than appeasing an audience's (imagined) desires or sensibilities. Going for appeasement doesn't give an audience enough credit, first of all; and second, it doesn't contribute to the strength of our dialog in any long-term way, because it goes for short-term satisfaction.
Think about it this way: Barack Obama, all political analysts agree, has to avoid any association with Islam in order to be electable. We can all see that this is true. But SHOULD it be true? In my opinion, no. That's why many people were disturbed when his campaign removed two covered Muslim women from camera view in a speech Obama gave a few weeks ago. Strategically, it was a good idea; but morally it was a terrible one.
In my opinion, if Moore wanted to examine the injustice of the Patriot Act, then he should have looked at it in a more serious way.
I actually did try to contact Moore through his website, but without any luck. This is pure speculation, but I imagine that Moore would never be in favor of the sort of mistakes I accuse him of. But on some level, I believe that he is guilty. This is so because of the norms Moore responded to, when it might have been more useful not to respond to those norms but to challenge them.
It's not that Moored NEEDED to focus on Arab Americans, but ignoring them constituted a glaring omission. It would be similar to a filmmaker examining lynchings in the American South and highlighting the few Syrians and Jews who were lynched and ignoring the thousands of African American victims. The filmmaker doesn't HAVE to focus on African Americans, but if he or she wanted to do the issue justice it would certainly be a good idea.
Of course, if any of you disagrees with me, on this or any other point, please don't be shy to speak up! I'm more than happy to field questions or comments.
In away Moore does have a responsibility to Arabs because when you do a documentary like Moore did then you should highlight each component. I don't think that it been more effective though.
I do believe that Moore does have a responsibility to Arabs. I feel like since you created the documentary you’re obligating yourself to everything. I do believe hat he does. But I don’t necessarily believe that anything has changed, or that the film has made a difference.
I think that Moore does and doesn’t have the responsibility to address Arab Americans in his documentary. I think that he does have the responsibility to give an equal view of each side and I think that this cannot be effectively done without including Arabs. I really strongly believe that he does have the right to included and excluded things that he doesn’t want to be within his movie. I also fell that it is his right to do what he feels and anyone objecting should produce there on movie.
I both agree and disagree that Moore should have included Arab Americans in his documentary. An equal view of each side should have been portrayed, and this would have been shown if Arabs were included. On the other hand it is not Moore’s responsibility to include Arabs. It is his movie and if one strongly disagrees with this, then maybe they should look into making a film there self.
Hi Steve:
We have another class question. We just finished reading "Why God Hates Me." Needless to say, it struck some nerves, inflamed passions and generated some wonderful discussion.
Among the issues that arose was the question of audience. Students struggle with the language of your text, and while they knew this going in, we wondered if your book would create greater change if it appealed to a broader audience.
You cited Jerry Jenkens, whose books are widely popular and influential. Why not write towards that audience--or perhaps a more mainstream and less academic audience? I think all of our students would agree that your words have had a powerful influence with us, but we wonder how much more could be gained with a more accessable book.
Thoughts?
Wow, Mr. P, that's a great question. The easiest answer is because the academic style is the one I'm most familiar and comfortable with. I haven't learned yet how to approach an audience that claims to take its orders from God. How in the world am I supposed to change their opinion, given that I most definitely am not God?
Part of the reason people write is for catharsis (which means seeking personal peace). I think the tone in this chapter reflects that need. I had lots to say about the community I was criticizing and using a certain tone and language made it most useful for me. That doesn't mean that my tone and language are the best choices or the most appropriate ones; it just means that they were the best for me in that moment.
I would agree with those students who suggested that a different approach could be more effective with a broader audience. Writers always have to balance their personal preferences with the preferences of their imagined audiences.
In the end, though, I would argue that disputes over religious belief are the most difficult to resolve. I suppose I was looking to influence those who didn't already have a dog in this fight.
Also: as to the overall tone of the book, it was mainly intended for what publishers call an "educated audience." This means that readers aren't necessarily college professors, but they read at a high level. It's not beach reading, in other words!
I just want to point out how remarkably impressed I am with everybody's comments and with your comprehension of the material (not to mention the very convincing quibbles with it!). All of my family read the book, and the complaint I've most often received is that "it's too hard to read."
I never would have imagined that a high school class would read it and understand it as you have. I hope that I have provided you with some useful knowledge. You have all certainly provided me with a powerful education.
In the end, I try to write in the skin in which I am most comfortable. That, to me, produces the best writing, no matter its style, and that's what I would suggest each of you do: write in your own skin, in a way that you find meaningful.
I hope that we can continue this conversation. Please feel free to post questions or comments whenever you like.
Post a Comment