Tuesday, December 16, 2008
So live your life
“Well, actually, you can’t be whatever you want to be. The world decides what you can and can’t be.”
Monday, December 15, 2008
Oh, footnotes
I'm reading (skimming, if we're going to be really accurate here) this article on feminist legal methods for my sociology of law exam tomorrow morning(...crap). I always enjoy reading the title footnote describing the author of the article, because it's always fun to find out that behind the text is an actual person. Also, just last week, I read this really engaging article about humanitarian intervention as a pretext and saw that my amazing criminal law professor, Derek Jinks, had contributed- always cool to see that.
Anyway- as someone who spent hours slaving over footnotes for the Texas International Law Journal and bemoaning the absurdity of how Bluebook adherence means editors all lose their minds just a little bit (sure, the real problem is how lazy I am, but hey, why get bogged down in the details), I thought hers was really amusing.* Just imagine the discussions that went on there; to be a fly on the wall in THAT final read...
* I need more sleep, less coffee.
Anyway- as someone who spent hours slaving over footnotes for the Texas International Law Journal and bemoaning the absurdity of how Bluebook adherence means editors all lose their minds just a little bit (sure, the real problem is how lazy I am, but hey, why get bogged down in the details), I thought hers was really amusing.* Just imagine the discussions that went on there; to be a fly on the wall in THAT final read...
* I need more sleep, less coffee.
The shoe
It's hard to put into words how I feel about this. On the one hand, of course I try to understand the frustration and the pain that Iraqis feel about the war. I don't mean to undermine their very real concerns and anger and sadness.
But... I don't really believe in hating people or in treating them in an undignifying manner no matter who they are, even when (maybe especially when) we are holding them accountable. So although I don't know if I would say I blame Al-Zaidi, I also certainly can't say I condone his behavior.
But... I don't really believe in hating people or in treating them in an undignifying manner no matter who they are, even when (maybe especially when) we are holding them accountable. So although I don't know if I would say I blame Al-Zaidi, I also certainly can't say I condone his behavior.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The International PostSecret Exhibition opens today
From an article on the opening:
For those who may not be familiar with PostSecret, it began four years ago when Frank Warren, a Germantown, Md., resident, decided to try an idea at the annual Artomatic exhibition in Washington, D. C. His idea: To pass out blank postcards to complete strangers in hopes they would return them with a personal secret and a doodle jotted on one side.
The postcards came pouring in and Warren put them on display, instantly becoming the talk of the exhibition. What Warren did not expect was that the postcards would continue filling his mailbox, long after the exhibition came to an end. Before long, he was receiving postcards with witty, depressing, shocking, engaging and even insulting secrets from every state in the country.
Warren decided to create an online blog to start posting the secrets he was receiving. Then, postcards started arriving regularly from Australia, India, the United Kingdom and beyond.
“ I realized I had tapped into something that was there all the time — something full of mystery and wonder, ” Warren said. “ I quickly realized I was no longer the leader of the project. PostSecret had a life of its own. ”
Four years later, Warren continues to receive more than 1, 000 postcards per week from around the world. The PostSecret site, www. postsecretcommunity. com, averages six million hits per month. To put things into perspective, that’s more visitors than eBay.
PostSecret — a sampling of more than 450 PostSecret postcards — will be on display Dec. 13 through Feb. 1 at Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. Over the past four years, the online version of PostSecret has become one of the most popular forums of conceptual art, possibly ever....
In addition to providing an important outlet, Warren believes PostSecret represents an opportunity for anyone, anywhere to add to the story of life. And that, he said, is the truest form of art.
For those who may not be familiar with PostSecret, it began four years ago when Frank Warren, a Germantown, Md., resident, decided to try an idea at the annual Artomatic exhibition in Washington, D. C. His idea: To pass out blank postcards to complete strangers in hopes they would return them with a personal secret and a doodle jotted on one side.
The postcards came pouring in and Warren put them on display, instantly becoming the talk of the exhibition. What Warren did not expect was that the postcards would continue filling his mailbox, long after the exhibition came to an end. Before long, he was receiving postcards with witty, depressing, shocking, engaging and even insulting secrets from every state in the country.
Warren decided to create an online blog to start posting the secrets he was receiving. Then, postcards started arriving regularly from Australia, India, the United Kingdom and beyond.
“ I realized I had tapped into something that was there all the time — something full of mystery and wonder, ” Warren said. “ I quickly realized I was no longer the leader of the project. PostSecret had a life of its own. ”
Four years later, Warren continues to receive more than 1, 000 postcards per week from around the world. The PostSecret site, www. postsecretcommunity. com, averages six million hits per month. To put things into perspective, that’s more visitors than eBay.
PostSecret — a sampling of more than 450 PostSecret postcards — will be on display Dec. 13 through Feb. 1 at Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. Over the past four years, the online version of PostSecret has become one of the most popular forums of conceptual art, possibly ever....
In addition to providing an important outlet, Warren believes PostSecret represents an opportunity for anyone, anywhere to add to the story of life. And that, he said, is the truest form of art.
Mugabe takes step toward power-sharing
Wow, what a team player.
Thank goodness, who else would stop the genocidal UK bastards from spreading cholera throughout Zimbabwe.
Oh, Mugabe. Please just let go and step down.
Thank goodness, who else would stop the genocidal UK bastards from spreading cholera throughout Zimbabwe.
Oh, Mugabe. Please just let go and step down.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Darfur, Another Year Later
In January, President Bush said this about Darfur: “My administration called this genocide. Once you label it genocide, you obviously have to do something about it.”
Yet, last week — nearly one year later — this is what the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, told the United Nations Security Council about Darfur: “Genocide continues. Rapes in and around the camps continue. Humanitarian assistance is still hindered. More than 5,000 displaced persons die each month.” How can this still be?
The world has long declared its revulsion at the atrocities committed by Sudan’s government and its proxy militias in Darfur and done almost nothing to stop it. It took years of political wrangling to get the Security Council to approve a strengthened peacekeeping force with deployment set for Jan. 1. More than 11 months later, the Security Council has managed to send only 10,000 of the promised 26,000 peacekeepers. Large-scale military attacks against populated areas continue.
Much of the fault lies with Sudan’s cynically obstructionist president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir. But Russia and especially China — which has major oil interests in Sudan — have shamefully enabled him. So have African leaders. The United States and its allies also bear responsibility for temporizing, most recently over how to transport troops and equipment to the conflict zone.
President Bush said on Wednesday that the United States was prepared to provide airlift. So why has this taken so long?
Now, the war crimes charges Mr. Moreno-Ocampo has brought against the Sudanese leader for his role in masterminding Darfur’s horrors (the burning of villages, bombing of schools and systematic rape of woman) may — may — be changing the calculus in Khartoum.
Mr. Bashir recently agreed to peace talks mediated by Qatar and pledged to punish anyone guilty of crimes in Darfur. Until proved otherwise, the world must assume that all of this is theater designed to fool the Security Council into delaying his reckoning at the Hague.
The African Union and the Arab League, seeking to protect one of their own, are pressing the Security Council to delay a formal indictment and arrest warrant, saying it would hurt chances for a negotiated peace. The Bush administration has threatened to block such a move and we hope it stands firm. President-elect Barack Obama and his advisers have called for strong action to end the Darfur genocide. We hope the next administration moves quickly. But have no doubt: Fixing Darfur, which is increasingly engulfed in inter-rebel warfare, gets harder by the day. The indictment, expected in February, is undeniably deserved. United Nations officials say that up to 300,000 people have been killed in the Darfur conflict and that 2.7 million have been driven from their homes.
Still it might be worth delaying if Mr. Bashir called off his murderous militias, stopped obstructing deployment of a strengthened peacekeeping force and began serious peace talks. The world is waiting.
Article.
ADD YOUR VOICE!!! Ask Obama to keep his promise to make Darfur a priority.
Yet, last week — nearly one year later — this is what the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, told the United Nations Security Council about Darfur: “Genocide continues. Rapes in and around the camps continue. Humanitarian assistance is still hindered. More than 5,000 displaced persons die each month.” How can this still be?
The world has long declared its revulsion at the atrocities committed by Sudan’s government and its proxy militias in Darfur and done almost nothing to stop it. It took years of political wrangling to get the Security Council to approve a strengthened peacekeeping force with deployment set for Jan. 1. More than 11 months later, the Security Council has managed to send only 10,000 of the promised 26,000 peacekeepers. Large-scale military attacks against populated areas continue.
Much of the fault lies with Sudan’s cynically obstructionist president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir. But Russia and especially China — which has major oil interests in Sudan — have shamefully enabled him. So have African leaders. The United States and its allies also bear responsibility for temporizing, most recently over how to transport troops and equipment to the conflict zone.
President Bush said on Wednesday that the United States was prepared to provide airlift. So why has this taken so long?
Now, the war crimes charges Mr. Moreno-Ocampo has brought against the Sudanese leader for his role in masterminding Darfur’s horrors (the burning of villages, bombing of schools and systematic rape of woman) may — may — be changing the calculus in Khartoum.
Mr. Bashir recently agreed to peace talks mediated by Qatar and pledged to punish anyone guilty of crimes in Darfur. Until proved otherwise, the world must assume that all of this is theater designed to fool the Security Council into delaying his reckoning at the Hague.
The African Union and the Arab League, seeking to protect one of their own, are pressing the Security Council to delay a formal indictment and arrest warrant, saying it would hurt chances for a negotiated peace. The Bush administration has threatened to block such a move and we hope it stands firm. President-elect Barack Obama and his advisers have called for strong action to end the Darfur genocide. We hope the next administration moves quickly. But have no doubt: Fixing Darfur, which is increasingly engulfed in inter-rebel warfare, gets harder by the day. The indictment, expected in February, is undeniably deserved. United Nations officials say that up to 300,000 people have been killed in the Darfur conflict and that 2.7 million have been driven from their homes.
Still it might be worth delaying if Mr. Bashir called off his murderous militias, stopped obstructing deployment of a strengthened peacekeeping force and began serious peace talks. The world is waiting.
Article.
ADD YOUR VOICE!!! Ask Obama to keep his promise to make Darfur a priority.
Photo from Paris
I've meaning to post this picture I took in Paris like two months ago, but I've been...what's that word for when you put things off for no good reason? Oh yeah: lazy. Now that I have finals to study for, though, it seems like a good time to do it.
Preventing genocide
Dec 11th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Advice for Barack Obama on grappling with a problem from hell
A FEW years ago, Lexington visited a shabby church in Rwanda. Inside was a memorial to a massacre that took place within its walls in 1994. The most upsetting sight was that of small skulls which, unlike the larger ones around them, were mostly incomplete. Babies’ jawbones tend to break off when clubbed.
Preventing genocide is what one of Barack Obama’s advisers calls “a problem from hell”. But this week a group called the Genocide Prevention Task Force published some helpful guidelines for the president-elect. It is a serious group, led by Madeleine Albright (a former secretary of state) and William Cohen (a former defence secretary). And its report is steeped in good sense.
For a start, it avoids definitional traps. What, after all, is genocide? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is hopelessly vague, talking of “inflicting on [a] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Read literally, that could include almost any atrocity. Gérard Prunier, a historian of Rwanda and Darfur, prefers a stricter standard: a deliberate attempt to destroy a racial, religious or political group in its entirety.
Ms Albright and Mr Cohen sidestep this muddle by using the word “genocide” colloquially, as shorthand for the deliberate mass-murder of civilians. They then suggest ways to prevent it. First, the president should make this an explicit goal of his foreign policy. This is not only a moral obligation, says Mr Cohen, but will help keep America safer. Genocide can cause a state to collapse, and failed states make good boltholes for terrorists.
For about $250m a year, the authors of the report reckon America can detect the early rumblings of genocide and silence them. The directorate of national intelligence should monitor every trouble spot for signs that men with guns or machetes are about to kill lots of unarmed people, and report regularly on its findings. In high-risk countries, American aid dollars should address the conditions that make genocide more likely, such as ethnic discrimination, armed insurgency and leaders who whip up hatred to cement their own grip on power.
When the signs suggest that mass-murder is being planned, diplomats should warn the would-be perpetrators of dire consequences if they proceed. If all else fails, America should send in the marines, but the authors hope that the mere threat of this will usually be enough. Finally, since America cannot monitor or police the world alone, Ms Albright and Mr Cohen call for the creation of a global network to share information and act together to prevent genocide.
Optimists think Mr Obama is just the man to put all these noble thoughts into practice. He is hardly an expert on the world’s hellholes, but he surrounds himself with experts. Susan Rice, his pick for ambassador to the UN (a post that will now carry cabinet rank) was a cog in the machine that kept America out of Rwanda, and is determined not to repeat that mistake. Samantha Power, a member of Mr Obama’s transition team, is a former war correspondent in the Balkans, the author of a Pulitzer prize-winning book on genocide and a professor at Harvard. Mr Obama’s favourite think-tank, the Centre for American Progress, houses the Enough project, which aims to put the “never” into “never again”. The head of the Enough project, John Prendergast, is a perceptive Darfur-watcher and has also written a book on genocide. He says Mr Obama has recruited a “dream team” to prevent genocide. He singles out the forceful Hillary Clinton and James Jones, a respected general who will be the next national security adviser.
All this is encouraging. But in his quest to deliver the world from evil, Mr Obama will face several roadblocks. From the moment he assumes office, the economic crisis, health-care reform and Iraq will gobble up nearly all his time, energy and political capital. Whatever Mr Cohen says about the national-security benefits of genocide prevention, a report that a massacre might be about to occur in a poor and obscure place is unlikely to shoot to the top of the presidential in-tray. And will Mr Obama really be ready to send in the marines if deterrence fails?
Curbing the atrocities that are known about is hard enough. Mr Obama will probably push for negotiations to end the war in Darfur. The leading killers on both sides are likely soon to be indicted by the International Criminal Court, which should concentrate minds and provide an American peace envoy with an opening. Mr Obama will also give a jolt to the peace process in eastern Congo, where mass graves have recently been found. But given America’s commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be few American boots to patrol other war zones.
Easier said than done
And the trickiest challenge will always be the unexpected. Bill Clinton is often blamed for failing to stop the killing in Rwanda. He could have sent troops or at least jammed the radio broadcasts that told the killers where to go and whom to kill. But he had seen a humanitarian military intervention in Somalia go bloodily awry the previous year, so he did not. He said afterwards that he had not understood soon enough what was going on in Rwanda. Ms Power retorts that he “could have known...if he had wanted to know”. But that is easy to say with hindsight. The Rwandan genocide was the quickest on record. Even experts did not realise just how well-organised and systematic the killing was until nearly half the victims were already dead. Mr Clinton could in theory have wrenched his mind away from all the other crises in the world and grasped the Rwandan situation in time to save many lives. But in practice, how many presidents are that flexible?
Perhaps Mr Obama will do better. But even a quick brain, a legion of good advisers and the loftiest of intentions are no guarantee. The next genocide may erupt in a place or in a manner that no one predicts. And American interventions to crush murderous governments do not always go as planned. Ask George Bush.
Article.
From The Economist print edition
Advice for Barack Obama on grappling with a problem from hell
A FEW years ago, Lexington visited a shabby church in Rwanda. Inside was a memorial to a massacre that took place within its walls in 1994. The most upsetting sight was that of small skulls which, unlike the larger ones around them, were mostly incomplete. Babies’ jawbones tend to break off when clubbed.
Preventing genocide is what one of Barack Obama’s advisers calls “a problem from hell”. But this week a group called the Genocide Prevention Task Force published some helpful guidelines for the president-elect. It is a serious group, led by Madeleine Albright (a former secretary of state) and William Cohen (a former defence secretary). And its report is steeped in good sense.
For a start, it avoids definitional traps. What, after all, is genocide? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is hopelessly vague, talking of “inflicting on [a] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Read literally, that could include almost any atrocity. Gérard Prunier, a historian of Rwanda and Darfur, prefers a stricter standard: a deliberate attempt to destroy a racial, religious or political group in its entirety.
Ms Albright and Mr Cohen sidestep this muddle by using the word “genocide” colloquially, as shorthand for the deliberate mass-murder of civilians. They then suggest ways to prevent it. First, the president should make this an explicit goal of his foreign policy. This is not only a moral obligation, says Mr Cohen, but will help keep America safer. Genocide can cause a state to collapse, and failed states make good boltholes for terrorists.
For about $250m a year, the authors of the report reckon America can detect the early rumblings of genocide and silence them. The directorate of national intelligence should monitor every trouble spot for signs that men with guns or machetes are about to kill lots of unarmed people, and report regularly on its findings. In high-risk countries, American aid dollars should address the conditions that make genocide more likely, such as ethnic discrimination, armed insurgency and leaders who whip up hatred to cement their own grip on power.
When the signs suggest that mass-murder is being planned, diplomats should warn the would-be perpetrators of dire consequences if they proceed. If all else fails, America should send in the marines, but the authors hope that the mere threat of this will usually be enough. Finally, since America cannot monitor or police the world alone, Ms Albright and Mr Cohen call for the creation of a global network to share information and act together to prevent genocide.
Optimists think Mr Obama is just the man to put all these noble thoughts into practice. He is hardly an expert on the world’s hellholes, but he surrounds himself with experts. Susan Rice, his pick for ambassador to the UN (a post that will now carry cabinet rank) was a cog in the machine that kept America out of Rwanda, and is determined not to repeat that mistake. Samantha Power, a member of Mr Obama’s transition team, is a former war correspondent in the Balkans, the author of a Pulitzer prize-winning book on genocide and a professor at Harvard. Mr Obama’s favourite think-tank, the Centre for American Progress, houses the Enough project, which aims to put the “never” into “never again”. The head of the Enough project, John Prendergast, is a perceptive Darfur-watcher and has also written a book on genocide. He says Mr Obama has recruited a “dream team” to prevent genocide. He singles out the forceful Hillary Clinton and James Jones, a respected general who will be the next national security adviser.
All this is encouraging. But in his quest to deliver the world from evil, Mr Obama will face several roadblocks. From the moment he assumes office, the economic crisis, health-care reform and Iraq will gobble up nearly all his time, energy and political capital. Whatever Mr Cohen says about the national-security benefits of genocide prevention, a report that a massacre might be about to occur in a poor and obscure place is unlikely to shoot to the top of the presidential in-tray. And will Mr Obama really be ready to send in the marines if deterrence fails?
Curbing the atrocities that are known about is hard enough. Mr Obama will probably push for negotiations to end the war in Darfur. The leading killers on both sides are likely soon to be indicted by the International Criminal Court, which should concentrate minds and provide an American peace envoy with an opening. Mr Obama will also give a jolt to the peace process in eastern Congo, where mass graves have recently been found. But given America’s commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be few American boots to patrol other war zones.
Easier said than done
And the trickiest challenge will always be the unexpected. Bill Clinton is often blamed for failing to stop the killing in Rwanda. He could have sent troops or at least jammed the radio broadcasts that told the killers where to go and whom to kill. But he had seen a humanitarian military intervention in Somalia go bloodily awry the previous year, so he did not. He said afterwards that he had not understood soon enough what was going on in Rwanda. Ms Power retorts that he “could have known...if he had wanted to know”. But that is easy to say with hindsight. The Rwandan genocide was the quickest on record. Even experts did not realise just how well-organised and systematic the killing was until nearly half the victims were already dead. Mr Clinton could in theory have wrenched his mind away from all the other crises in the world and grasped the Rwandan situation in time to save many lives. But in practice, how many presidents are that flexible?
Perhaps Mr Obama will do better. But even a quick brain, a legion of good advisers and the loftiest of intentions are no guarantee. The next genocide may erupt in a place or in a manner that no one predicts. And American interventions to crush murderous governments do not always go as planned. Ask George Bush.
Article.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Elie Wiesel quote
I was talking to my brother the other day about how my idealism has been taking a little bit of a beating lately, and this relates to my frustration over humankind's seeming lack of....awareness? humanity? At the end of the day, I still believe that people are good, and it isn't because they are incompassionate or bad that they don't seem to care. It is human nature to have a self-defense. In the genocide documentary that I posted about yesterday, Elie Weisel was asked about the tendency for the world to ignore the atrocities that are going on:
I try to think in terms of this corollary as much as possible: how can I complain about (fill in the blank), because I DO know. I DO know how lucky I am, how wonderful my life is, and how blessed I am that God gifted me with this life, these opportunities, these people. But it is hard, isn't it, to avoid that guilt sometimes. There but for the grace of God go I... I want to earn it. I want to make it up, somehow.
It's better not to believe, because if you believe, you don't sleep nights. And how can you eat? How can you drink a glass of wine, when you know?
I try to think in terms of this corollary as much as possible: how can I complain about (fill in the blank), because I DO know. I DO know how lucky I am, how wonderful my life is, and how blessed I am that God gifted me with this life, these opportunities, these people. But it is hard, isn't it, to avoid that guilt sometimes. There but for the grace of God go I... I want to earn it. I want to make it up, somehow.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Scream Bloody Murder
The other day, I watched this CNN special on genocide called "Scream Bloody Murder", figuring it was a good substitute for, or at least complementary to, actually studying for my human rights exam. Also, oh yeah, I just wanted to.
Anyway, I just looked at the website and at the bottom there was a link to a poll, and I thought the results were interesting.
Obviously, not only is this not scientific, but it's arguably sort of a biased set-up: Hey check out all these horrible atrocities and no one did anything to stop it and that's horrible too, now take this poll. Then again, maybe the results reflect that the program made a good point. Who knows (not me)...
But it reminded me of a similar discussion we had in my class a week or two ago about whether or not, in the absence of UN support for intervention, a state should act unilaterally to stop human rights violations. Our professor took a quick poll of the class. I usually don't raise my hand in these sorts of situations, because a simple raising-of-the-hand doesn't let me qualify my answer, and I'm a huge relativist so like, that sucks. But I decided to go ahead and be really American and raise my hand "yes" (this felt awkward in the wake of the prof talking about countries using humanitarian intervention as a pretext, with Iraq as the example there). I saw several Irish students raise their hands "no", but I didn't really get the chance to see how other students answered. Ever since then, though, I can't stop thinking about all of the qualifications I would have liked to make to my answer.
Maybe it'll be an essay question.
Anyway, I just looked at the website and at the bottom there was a link to a poll, and I thought the results were interesting.
Quick Vote
Should military force be the first or last resort to end genocide?
First resort 79% 8447
Last resort 21% 2208
Total Votes: 10655
This is not a scientific poll
Obviously, not only is this not scientific, but it's arguably sort of a biased set-up: Hey check out all these horrible atrocities and no one did anything to stop it and that's horrible too, now take this poll. Then again, maybe the results reflect that the program made a good point. Who knows (not me)...
But it reminded me of a similar discussion we had in my class a week or two ago about whether or not, in the absence of UN support for intervention, a state should act unilaterally to stop human rights violations. Our professor took a quick poll of the class. I usually don't raise my hand in these sorts of situations, because a simple raising-of-the-hand doesn't let me qualify my answer, and I'm a huge relativist so like, that sucks. But I decided to go ahead and be really American and raise my hand "yes" (this felt awkward in the wake of the prof talking about countries using humanitarian intervention as a pretext, with Iraq as the example there). I saw several Irish students raise their hands "no", but I didn't really get the chance to see how other students answered. Ever since then, though, I can't stop thinking about all of the qualifications I would have liked to make to my answer.
Maybe it'll be an essay question.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Pictures of You: Images From Iran
This is an amazing, beautiful project. I'm so enamored with it that I am using my last five minutes of computer power (indefinitely) (...long story involving my power cord and some weird angles) to post it:
ARTIST'S STATEMENT
One day, while photographing on the streets of Isfahan, Iran, I spotted a young Persian man wearing a Dixie Chicks t-shirt. I introduced myself, and I inquired whether his t-shirt was intended to signify his dislike for the American President Bush. He smiled, and replied that the shirt wasn't just about President Bush. He explained that shortly after the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush on stage, bootleg Dixie Chicks shirts appeared in stores all over Iran's major cities. He told me that the shirt represented the admiration that he and his compatriots had for Americans' freedom of speech.
That young man and his t-shirt have become a symbol for me of the basic philosophical compatibility of Iranians and Americans— and of Americans' unawareness of that compatibility. For example, few Americans understand that the Persian culture celebrates knowledge, personal freedom, and the enjoyment of life. Most Americans do not know that Iranian women, despite the obstacles put in their way, are a significant political voice, and make up a majority of the university students in Iran. It seems that Americans would ordinarily admire the courage and willpower of the Iranian people, but the current political climate makes it nearly impossible for Americans to recognize those qualities.
I want all Americans to have a chance to come face-to-face with their Iranian counterparts, and I want to document the Americans' responses to the encounter. For this reason, I am assembling a traveling photography exhibit entitled 'pictures of you: Images from Iran.' The show features portraits of Iranians printed on translucent silk. The images can be viewed from either side, and the translucency of the fabric permits viewers to watch as other people look at the installation. This serves to make viewers aware of other people's reactions to the images, and perhaps will cause them to reflect on their own responses. The fragility of the silk is intended to remind viewers of the significant effect that American misperceptions might have on Iranians and on Persian culture. I want viewers to have the sense that something beautiful is in jeopardy.
The installation will be shown in outdoor venues that are not traditionally reserved for art. It will be shown in high-traffic areas, so it will be encountered by viewers who do not typically seek out art. For example, we plan to show the exhibit at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, at a NASCAR event, and at select state fairs. Many viewers will simply happen upon the show without having heard about it. My intention is to reach a broad audience, and to evoke an unfiltered response to the photography.
For me, Americans' response to the installation will be the real point of the show. Many Americans have strong feelings and intuitions about Iran, and many of their ideas have developed in an environment tainted by ignorance and suspicion. While Americans are free to learn about Iran and engage in informed debate about foreign policy, so many of them choose not to use those very freedoms that millions of Iranians long for. I hope that the show will ultimately transcend the issue of Iranian/American relations. It will illustrate how Americans exercise their freedoms and privileges— including the privilege to remain uninformed about other nations and cultures without suffering any significant consequences.
The main title of the show, 'pictures of you,' is deliberately ambiguous. Viewers may assume the subject of the show— the 'you'— is the Iranian people. But the American viewer of the show is its subject— its 'you'— as much as the people of Iran are. I hope that the documentation of Americans' response to the installation will allow us to examine that part of American culture objectively and with compassion. My intention is that allowing Americans to see themselves in this way will encourage them to look more carefully at other nations and cultures.
The title of the show was inspired by a verse by the Iranian poet Rumi. In translation, it reads:
If my head holds one thought wise and clear, it's you.
Poor as I am, what I hold dear is you.
No matter how I see myself, I'm nothing.
Anything I am entirely is you.
from Rumi's Kolliyaat-e Shams-e Tabrizi
Source (including link to interview with artist)hurryhurrypostpostpost
ARTIST'S STATEMENT
One day, while photographing on the streets of Isfahan, Iran, I spotted a young Persian man wearing a Dixie Chicks t-shirt. I introduced myself, and I inquired whether his t-shirt was intended to signify his dislike for the American President Bush. He smiled, and replied that the shirt wasn't just about President Bush. He explained that shortly after the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush on stage, bootleg Dixie Chicks shirts appeared in stores all over Iran's major cities. He told me that the shirt represented the admiration that he and his compatriots had for Americans' freedom of speech.
That young man and his t-shirt have become a symbol for me of the basic philosophical compatibility of Iranians and Americans— and of Americans' unawareness of that compatibility. For example, few Americans understand that the Persian culture celebrates knowledge, personal freedom, and the enjoyment of life. Most Americans do not know that Iranian women, despite the obstacles put in their way, are a significant political voice, and make up a majority of the university students in Iran. It seems that Americans would ordinarily admire the courage and willpower of the Iranian people, but the current political climate makes it nearly impossible for Americans to recognize those qualities.
I want all Americans to have a chance to come face-to-face with their Iranian counterparts, and I want to document the Americans' responses to the encounter. For this reason, I am assembling a traveling photography exhibit entitled 'pictures of you: Images from Iran.' The show features portraits of Iranians printed on translucent silk. The images can be viewed from either side, and the translucency of the fabric permits viewers to watch as other people look at the installation. This serves to make viewers aware of other people's reactions to the images, and perhaps will cause them to reflect on their own responses. The fragility of the silk is intended to remind viewers of the significant effect that American misperceptions might have on Iranians and on Persian culture. I want viewers to have the sense that something beautiful is in jeopardy.
The installation will be shown in outdoor venues that are not traditionally reserved for art. It will be shown in high-traffic areas, so it will be encountered by viewers who do not typically seek out art. For example, we plan to show the exhibit at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, at a NASCAR event, and at select state fairs. Many viewers will simply happen upon the show without having heard about it. My intention is to reach a broad audience, and to evoke an unfiltered response to the photography.
For me, Americans' response to the installation will be the real point of the show. Many Americans have strong feelings and intuitions about Iran, and many of their ideas have developed in an environment tainted by ignorance and suspicion. While Americans are free to learn about Iran and engage in informed debate about foreign policy, so many of them choose not to use those very freedoms that millions of Iranians long for. I hope that the show will ultimately transcend the issue of Iranian/American relations. It will illustrate how Americans exercise their freedoms and privileges— including the privilege to remain uninformed about other nations and cultures without suffering any significant consequences.
The main title of the show, 'pictures of you,' is deliberately ambiguous. Viewers may assume the subject of the show— the 'you'— is the Iranian people. But the American viewer of the show is its subject— its 'you'— as much as the people of Iran are. I hope that the documentation of Americans' response to the installation will allow us to examine that part of American culture objectively and with compassion. My intention is that allowing Americans to see themselves in this way will encourage them to look more carefully at other nations and cultures.
The title of the show was inspired by a verse by the Iranian poet Rumi. In translation, it reads:
If my head holds one thought wise and clear, it's you.
Poor as I am, what I hold dear is you.
No matter how I see myself, I'm nothing.
Anything I am entirely is you.
from Rumi's Kolliyaat-e Shams-e Tabrizi
Source (including link to interview with artist)hurryhurrypostpostpost
Monday, December 1, 2008
Capital lacks clean water, cholera kills hundreds in Zimbabwe
(CNN) -- Almost 12,000 people have contracted cholera since August in Zimbabwe, and the outbreak threatens to grow more dire -- and deadly -- because the nation can't pay for chemicals to treat water or for doctors to treat victims.
There was no running water Monday In Harare, the capital, according to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.
Residents there were digging shallow holes in their yards in hopes of finding water. In some cases, nearby holes served as latrines. Other residents were getting water from polluted rivers....
Unemployment in Zimbabwe is about 90 percent, and the official inflation rate is 231 million percent, though unofficial estimates suggest it's higher.
The economic turmoil is compounded by the nation's political tumult. MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai won the most votes in March elections but dropped out of the subsequent runoff, citing violence against MDC supporters.
Tsvangirai and President Robert Mugabe of the ruling ZANU-PF signed a power-sharing deal in September, but it has failed to take effect as the MDC has refused to form a national unity government, accusing Mugabe of taking all the key ministries.
Last week, Carter called Zimbabwe "a basket case" and blamed the cholera outbreak and other turmoil in the nation on "the poisonous effects" of the Mugabe regime.
Also last week, a group of Harare residents, led by Arthur Taderera, filed a lawsuit against the Zimbabwe government, saying, "Due to their lack of diligence and constant supplies of clean water to my place of residence, diseases like cholera surfaced and people are dying."
There was no running water Monday In Harare, the capital, according to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.
Residents there were digging shallow holes in their yards in hopes of finding water. In some cases, nearby holes served as latrines. Other residents were getting water from polluted rivers....
Unemployment in Zimbabwe is about 90 percent, and the official inflation rate is 231 million percent, though unofficial estimates suggest it's higher.
The economic turmoil is compounded by the nation's political tumult. MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai won the most votes in March elections but dropped out of the subsequent runoff, citing violence against MDC supporters.
Tsvangirai and President Robert Mugabe of the ruling ZANU-PF signed a power-sharing deal in September, but it has failed to take effect as the MDC has refused to form a national unity government, accusing Mugabe of taking all the key ministries.
Last week, Carter called Zimbabwe "a basket case" and blamed the cholera outbreak and other turmoil in the nation on "the poisonous effects" of the Mugabe regime.
Also last week, a group of Harare residents, led by Arthur Taderera, filed a lawsuit against the Zimbabwe government, saying, "Due to their lack of diligence and constant supplies of clean water to my place of residence, diseases like cholera surfaced and people are dying."
World AIDS Day
A Day With(out) Art
Day Without Art (DWA) began on December 1st 1989 as the national day of action and mourning in response to the AIDS crisis. To make the public aware that AIDS can touch everyone, and inspire positive action, some 800 U.S. art and AIDS groups participated in the first Day Without Art, shutting down museums, sending staff to volunteer at AIDS services, or sponsoring special exhibitions of work about AIDS. Since then, Day With(out) Art has grown into a collaborative project in which an estimated 8,000 national and international museums, galleries, art centers, AIDS Service Organizations, libraries, high schools and colleges take part.
Day Without Art (DWA) began on December 1st 1989 as the national day of action and mourning in response to the AIDS crisis. To make the public aware that AIDS can touch everyone, and inspire positive action, some 800 U.S. art and AIDS groups participated in the first Day Without Art, shutting down museums, sending staff to volunteer at AIDS services, or sponsoring special exhibitions of work about AIDS. Since then, Day With(out) Art has grown into a collaborative project in which an estimated 8,000 national and international museums, galleries, art centers, AIDS Service Organizations, libraries, high schools and colleges take part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
