June 20, 2009

Watching events unfolding in Iran, I am reminded of the Islamic Revolution 30 years ago in which I was a horrified bystander. I knew that the revolution was going to be stolen from the young idealists who thought they were fighting for a European-style republic. They blithely ran off the cliff while Ayatollah Khomeini seized the reins. The old man tipped his turban to “democracy” when he immediately put a referendum before the Iranian people: a vote for or against the “Islamic Revolution.” This is like the Mafia making an offer one cannot refuse. For the past 30 years, the Iranian people have suffered from their folly. The young revolutionaries wound up in prison, exile, or were executed.

Now, even with the limited democracy that the clerics allow (they can veto any candidates they do not like and can reverse any laws passed by the elected parliament), this election was blatantly stolen. The government announced the results before anyone had a chance to count the millions of hand-written ballots. They said “Ahmadinejad won by a landslide.” Who counted?

The unhappy people in the streets do not believe it, nor do I. I posted my suspicion earlier in the week that Ahmadinejad had been carefully gathering all the country’s muscle (police, militia, Revolutionary Guard) and that it would be a matter of time before he became dictator, dumping the clerical “guardians.” Obviously many Iranians agree; there are signs held up in the demonstrations that identify Ahmadinejad as “dictator.”

Goerge Friedman, whose political analysis company Stratfor is usually spot on in their reports seems to have missed it this time. Friedman quite rightly noted that many “experts” on Iran are only English speaking and only interview the Iranian elites, who also speak English. He believed that Ahmadinejad did win the election because he is loved by the pious, the anti-western patriots (defiance over nuclear weapons), and the lower classes who resent the upper class elites. He said we need to accept this and not be deluded.

However, there are now plenty of Persian-speaking journalists and scholars who have been watching this election from its start—on the ground. They have not just been talking to the elites. A national pole taken early in May showed that the issues of most concern by the vast majority of Iranians were:

• The disastrous economy, blamed on Ahmadinejad’s incompetence;

• Concern over the disregard that most of the world holds for Iran and its president

• Desire for restoration of relations with the United States

• Desire for restoration of relations with Israel (a real surprise!)

• Desire for more personal freedoms.

Ahmadinejad does not represent any of these wishes. How could he possibly win an overwhelming victory? In addition, identity politics plays a role in Iran. Candidate Mousavi is an Azari, who most certainly would have gotten the vote of the heavily populated Azerbaijan, which the government denied.

George Friedman dismissed the votes of the Tehran elites (who obviously hate the clerics and Ahmadinejad); but how does he account for the demonstrations in Shiraz, Esfahan, Tabriz, and even the Shiite shrine city of Mashhad?

It is very difficult to predict the outcome of this heated election. But a few unfolding events are revealing. Supreme Leader Khamenei has blinked. He is alarmed (as he should be) and is trying to pacify the demonstrators by promising a “partial recount.” He should also be alarmed by his protégé’s dictatorial aspirations. A few other events to watch:

• The demonstrations continue unabated. Thugs attack them and despite state censorship, we are watching this. Murders have taken place—including raids on university dormitories with young girls thrown out of windows to their death. On June 18, Mousavi has called for a memorial march for the demonstration martyrs. This is the first, which will be followed by successive funeral marches every 40 days. Iranians are big on martyrdom funerals.

• There are reports that the military refuse to shoot into the crowds. The government then has to depend upon their thug corps, the “Basij,” who are violent and hated. There are also reports that Ahmadinejad has summoned Hamas thugs from Gaza—and they have been readily identified by outraged crowds in the street---as Palestinians.

Had the government accepted Mousavi’s victory, they probably could have hung on longer as Iran’s dictators. Mousavi at best would have been a Gorbachev, wanting to reform a dead system. But now, if Mousavi does take power, more will be expected of him.

This revolution is not over until the old man sings—hopefully from exile.

675 words Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and writer. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net

June 22, 2009

Summer is a bad time for this movie buff. So many reviews caution that the film has prevailing profanity, sex, and drugs—and excessive violence. They are so full of negativity that the filmgoer leaves the theater depressed—and this certainly includes most European films. I have to have a very good reason for seeing such movies. I am disinclined to punish myself.

Easy Virtue arrived with little advance fanfare, but when I saw that it was based on a Noel Coward comedy of manners play, I rushed to see it. It was the best film I have seen in months: witty, beautifully filmed, with first-rate actors and an issue that was certainly of interest to me. This was a comedy of manners about an old British aristocratic family, confronted by the hasty marriage of their only son and heir to an American racecar driver—a decidedly modern woman.

In full disclosure, my own first marriage was to a comparable Iranian elder son—and his family feared that he had married a “landlady’s daughter.” In my case, when they learned otherwise, I enjoyed an enduring relationship with the family, even long after the marriage ended.

The heroine of Easy Virtue was not as lucky. She was beautiful, courteous, vibrant, and obviously well educated. She even spoke French very well, and was more than willing to like her young husband’s family if they would give her a chance. Unfortunately, they did not. Her mother-in-law considered the marriage a catastrophe, and set about strangling it in its cradle. However, she did not consider the power of her daughter-in-law not to let herself be crushed.

This film showed a major clash of cultures: a young self-made American celebrity who came from a working class Detroit family vs. an ancient, stodgy British family living in a centuries-old country mansion with the usual built-in class snobbery. The target of their conflict was the family son (and heroine’s husband), a young, cheerful man who was not worldly enough to know what was happening to him. He was clueless, which was most evident when his mother had him appointed hunt master for the season’s fox hunt. There he sat on his horse, dressed in hunter red, and when he put the bugle to his mouth to begin the hunt, he was obviously living up to generations of his family’s hunt masters before him.

Jessica Biel played the beautiful American with spunk and charm; Kristen Scott Thomas played her aristocratic mother-in-law; Colin Firth played her father-in-law---a man whose spirit had died during World War I—but was capable of being brought back to life; Ben Barnes played the too young husband; and Kris Marshall played the proper butler, whose face telegraphed his disdain for the family—which they never noticed.

The Proposal. Considering the summer fare of films adored by 15-year-old boys, I am not at all ashamed to welcome a few “chick flicks” which are not assaults of foul language, violence, and graphic sex. The jaded and snooty reviewers did not much like this film, but I did—and so did an auditorium full of happy, entertained viewers.

In this film, Sandra Bullock plays Margaret Tate, a ferociously ambitious book editor who bullies her staff (think of the archetype of the shrew), including her long-suffering male assistant, Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds). Margaret’s career is threatened when she learns that she is to be deported to her native Canada for violating a non-travel rule during her citizenship process.

Thinking on her feet, she makes a deal with the astonished Andrew to marry (with promises of a quick divorce afterwards and a promotion for him that he has been agitating for.) The problem is a shrewd immigration officer with a knack for spotting phony marriages. He tells the couple that they will be interviewed, along with all of their friends and family, to determine the validity of this proposed marriage.

The couple head for Sitka, Alaska, where Andrew’s family lives—and they have just a weekend to get to really know each other enough to convince the skeptical immigration official.

The film was charming—with a cast of actors well beyond an ordinary chick flick (Betty White as a ditzy and pushy grandmother, Mary Steenburgen as Andrew’s mother, and a number of weird and wonderful townsmen and women in Sitka). Sitka itself is a player, being astonishingly beautiful.

No, there are no dark moments of angst in this film, but the characterizations are well developed and we do care about them. A charming film!

The Taking of Pelham 123. Faintly praised by critics who remembered the original of this film, starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, this film has been thought to be an unworthy reworking. I don’t remember the original, fortunately, so I really found this version exciting and interesting. The Matthau role was played by the always wonderful Denzell Washington and the villain was convincingly performed by John Travolta, who makes him seem like what I suspect such a criminal would be—a self-justifying rascal. This remake is a thriller, and as such, is a good summer movie. It is a heist movie—a gang of mal-doers who hijack a subway car in New York and hold the passengers hostage, demanding a huge ransom from the City of New York. Washington plays the dispatcher, who winds up unwittingly as hostage negotiator. Considering many of the other summer movies, this one is worth a few hours.

UP and A Night at the Museum. Up is an animated film that has been promoted for children, as has the comic film, A Night at the Museum. Up is really wonderfully constructed, and I think it a little too sad to take a little one. The story is more for adults who deal with the loss of a spouse. A Night at the Museum, however, was a wonderful romp through history as the inmates of the museum take over the asylum at night. If you take a child, you will have to explain the jokes and references, but it is a good place to start getting children interested in history.

Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.

June 18, 2009

President Obama, in his commencement address at Catholic university Notre Dame, noted that good people may disagree on such a contentious issue as abortion. He conceded that differences in this polarizing issue are irreconcilable, although he pleaded for the end of demonizing and mutual hostility.

I think that the most extreme positions on abortion are irreconcilable, but perhaps there is an area of accord possible. But first—we need to explore the positions of contending activists.

• No Abortions Under Any Circumstances. The most extreme position is that of some churches, primarily the Catholic Church and some very conservative Protestant denominations. Their position is that any pregnancy is a gift of God and the life of the baby is sacred. One spokeswoman for the Vatican went so far as to say that “abortion is the murder of a family member.” They make the point that tolerance of those who want a live-and-let-live policy about abortion is as specious as during the time of slavery, when part of the nation rejected the institution and others practiced it legally. They say that slavery had to be banned totally, not partially, because it was morally wrong, even though legal in the South.

• Abortion Rights are the Rights of Women. Advocates say because women must endure a 9-month pregnancy and go through the rigors of childbirth, they must be free to make the decision of keeping or ending the pregnancy. To force them to carry to term, no matter how the pregnancy occurred, is tantamount to enforced servitude (slavery), which is against the law and is immoral. They further believe that an early abortion is not “murdering a baby,” but is excising a few cells that do not yet have personhood.

These two positions obviously pit the human rights of an unborn child against that of an adult woman. Trying to reconcile this difference is irreconcilable. However, there is a middle position here that might be amenable to reasonable people.

• Problems with Right to Life. The Right To Life adherents do not address the issue of “God’s Gift” when the pregnancy is the result of incest on a child, rape, or the brutality of an uncaring husband. They also fail to address spontaneous abortions, in which a pregnancy is ended by nature because there was something amiss with it. If nature does not permit every pregnancy to come to term, how can they say that God always gives pregnancy as a gift?

The economic issue is also one not recognized by the Right to Life adherents. When a pregnancy occurs in a family with already too many children to support and educate, is it moral to add one more child by force? Many abortions fall into this category. In the lesser developed world, particularly in Africa, overpopulation is taking a horrible toll on women, on the environment, and on the economy. These are not small issues for the quality, rather than quantity, of life.

If a pregnancy endangers the life of a woman, is it still her duty to sacrifice her life to bring a new life into the world? There are those who believe this, but this again falls into the category of conflicting rights to life—hers or the baby’s.

• Problems with Choice. It is very cavalier to consider a fetus “a mass of cells.” The issue of when does life begin has been settled by science: the moment of conception. In addition, the claim that abortion must be available at all times and for all reasons can brutalize a population that should resort to contraception rather than abortion as population control. The former Soviet Union compelled women to have multiple abortions because contraception was not provided and this was how women resolved an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion must be recognized as a distressing, sad, procedure—even when there is genuine cause. As both Presidents Clinton and Obama have said, abortion must be legal, safe, and rare.

659 words Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net. www.globalthink.net.

June 13, 2009

From the time that human beings began agriculture and building cities (5,000 years ago), there was a division of labor and the establishment of differences among people. Even before that, during hunting/gathering, women were lesser than men in the pecking order. Defenders of this system claim that it is “separate but equal,” but that argument has always been nonsense.

We see pecking order in the animal kingdom too (the term comes from what goes on among domestic chickens), including the well-observed class system among dogs, wolves, and other canines. There is a leader (alpha male) and often an alpha female, and the rest of the dogs obey until one challenges this leadership and replaces the leader.

The question about human beings is how much are such systems in our DNA, or are we capable of creating systems that differ from that of nature? We appear to have both capabilities. Monarchy, for example, usually begins with an alpha leader seizing power, but over time, descendants of this leader are sustained in power only because of the human-designed system of monarchy.

In ancient India, a system was devised in which people were fixed in the position of their birth—which defenders say makes everyone content because they know where they belong. This system defines people by their work (rulers, priests, warriors, merchants, peasants, and those beyond category—outcastes). This is the caste system, a particular horror that hampered modern India’s development until it was made illegal in the 20th century. However, making it illegal does not stamp it out.

In the Western world, there was always a class system, from leaders down to slaves, but none of this was a permanent ghetto. Slaves could buy their freedom; aristocrats could sometimes lose their status, and merchants could buy into a better class through money and marriage. Our class system was always somewhat flexible, unlike caste.

But the United States fell into a caste system (an anomaly for us) when Africans were enslaved to serve in a white society. Although some slaves were able to buy their freedom, their very identifiable color kept them from rising to higher status in this society until the mid-20th century. Our black population now rises or falls within our rather weak class system, and one such is now our president.

Around the world, the status of women resembles Indian caste rather than flexible class. A woman derives her status from her father or husband, and for the most part, with no way out. In Saudi Arabia, for example, some women live in great luxury thanks to family or marital status, although they are most certainly a lower caste in every other way. Muslim women or Hindu women in poorer areas of the world have almost no human rights, despite what their law codes say. Caste is still alive and well.

A great surprise to me was the violence of Sikhs, an Indian sect that is known for its egalitarian principles, who were attacked in their temple in Vienna and their leader murdered. I had no idea that Sikhs had a caste system in defiance of its religious tenets. Their attackers were Sikh thugs from a higher caste who found this leader and his followers “uppity.” The violence did not stay in Vienna, but within hours, violent protests erupted in India among the Sikh community

This stupid issue caused the death of one man and 16 wounded in Vienna, and thanks to mobile phones and text messages to the Punjab, rioters poured into the streets with swords, metal rods, and sharpened sticks. They smashed cars, set fire to empty trains, snarled road and train traffic, and destroyed bank machines, car dealerships and buses. In the prosperous and (reputedly) well-educated and prosperous Punjab, how could people get so violent over caste violations?

Perhaps the globalization that brings such idiocy to the world press can also shame them into dropping a dead system that should no longer be a way of organizing human society.

662 words

Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, author, and lecturer. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.

June 15, 2009

Editor:

Has it occurred to anyone that President Ahmadinejad may be conducting a slow-motion coup? The election results were obviously fraudulent; but that is no surprise. However, Ayatollah Khamenei, who is rumored to have cancer, may have suddenly realized that Ahmadinejad has been quietly gathering all the state muscle (police, Revolutionary Guard, street thugs) to be loyal to him. These forces were formerly supporting the Ayatollah and the old clerics who run Iran. Maybe no longer.

And it is probably best that "reformer" Mousavi had the election stolen from him. Had he succeeded, it would soon be true that any reform he supported would be vetoed by the old men. Once more, the country's youth would have been frustrated. At least now we can see a naked dictatorship for what it is.

Laina Farhat-Holzman