Watched a film, a documentary, called Control Room tonight. Watched it three times back to back maybe, given that there are commentary tracks, too. Might watch it a fourth time. Needless to say, I think it's good and you ought to watch it.
For those of you who have no idea what I was just talking about, it's a film that tries to examine the coverage Al Jazeera gave to the invasion of Iraq in '03. Lots of AJ folks talking, of course, but also a few others, including a certain US Marine lieutenant named Josh Rushing, who you may remember from an NPR interview I linked to.
Now, obviously if I just watched it for 4.5 hours straight, I think it's a good movie. In a number of ways it is an enormously interesting and powerful film, in ways that I'm not sure I can effectively communicate, but I'll try.
The biggest thing, I think, is the Arabs in the film saying what they think. I was struck by the, call it pan-Arab nationalism. People in the AJ studios, in Qatar mind you, are standing around watching the statue of Saddam fall in shock, saying things like "Where is everybody? Where is the Republican Guard? Where is the army?" And they make it clear that they're not for Saddam by any means, for all the reasons Saddam is not generally held to be a champion of small forest animals, but they're not exactly standing around with red, white and blue pom-poms either. And I think it's Rushing who says something to the effect of "Well, they're shocked and pissed off because it's us meddling in Arab affairs. Arab army did it, yeah they'd be angry, but not nearly so much." And that's interesting.
On the same note, there's a lot of conversations in the film that start off about Iraq and all of a sudden they're talking about Israel. And it gets made clear that in Arab minds, Iraq and Palestine are the same issue, when to our minds they are very much not. Too, there's a very interesting line about how if a water pipe breaks in Damascus, it's a Zionist conspiricy. Lot of people angry in this film. Lots of people chanting in streets and blaming Israel and the US their governments and whatever. They're angry that the US is, I dunno, getting uppity and imposing democracy, but they're angry at themselves for getting up and shouting and then not doing anything.
And of course it's a commentary on the media. Mostly Al Jazeera, but other stations, too. And the thing is, how do you, given that the people running the station are mostly Arabs, and given everything I just talked about, maintain any kind of objectivity? And it would appear that there are two sides to that. On the one hand, the guy who tries to be objective, throws a guest off for not being so, even though he has very very strong feelings about the issues. On the other hand, there's a very combative young reporter, and the (apparently American) director of their website who shrugs and says in answer to the question "Is anyone objective?" It's an interesting question.
Leading from that, you get things like Al Jazeera broadcasting footage of US POWs and dead, being criticized by the US administration for doing so, and saying right back at them "But you show Iraqi POWs on your TV. And this is a war. People die. What do you want us to show?" Apparently not that, given the administration response. OTOH, they have their own point, and Rushing kind of describes it, that AJ will show picture after picture of American tanks and planes and such, then cut away to a dead kid, but won't show the other people who are quite happy we're there. On the other other hand, there's a whole host of people who dislike AJ, including both America and Iraq, both of whom are quoted as calling AJ the propaganda mouthpiece of the other. Interesting stuff.
Delving into randomness, I now want to be like Josh Rushing when I grow up. He comes off as charismatic, highly articulate, and very obviously believes in what he's doing. Very much an optimist. On my better days, I like to think I've got a little bit of that, but watching people like him almost makes me want to throw my hands up in despair and walk away, because it reminds me that, no matter how educated and how informed and how articulate I attempt to be about these things, I'm still some half-educated hack spewing crap out of computer screens.
But I guess all I can do is try, really.
Posted by Dwip at November 16, 2004 2:21 AMI'm an uneducated hack spewing stuff on a computer screen. You got levels here. :p
Posted by: Whir at November 16, 2004 7:55 AMSounds like it's a movie that needs to be watched much more than 911.
As for Rushing, the biggest diff between him and you is he has a camera pointed at his head the whole time you hear him talk. He's the same inarticulate shmuck as you when he doesn't have editing on his side.
...well, you know what what I mean ;)
Posted by: Tim at November 16, 2004 10:08 AMSome girly magazine or another a couple months back had this sort of twisted article with two American women who served in Iraq (under Dubya)... one had light duty and came back fine, and left the service quite upset with Dubya... and the other had most of a leg blown off but couldn't be in more support of him, wanting to serve more if she could.
Kind of makes you wonder...
Kind of makes me scared.
Posted by: Rachael at November 16, 2004 11:56 AMI'll tell you what, after talking to one of my buddies that just got back, I don't give a crap what the media says.
Posted by: Whir at November 16, 2004 4:25 PMYeah. I'm soooooooo glad my brother got out before this shit. Desert Storm and Somalia were bad enough. He's got some fucking scary stories, and not all about the rigors of combat.
Posted by: Rachael at November 16, 2004 7:18 PMMy buddy Rick might be going over in Feb. He's Armored Cav and hasn't been called up before because he's AC.
So, either they want him as a police officer (his civi job) or they need armored cav units. Both are scary, but it's even scarier if they plan on using trained AC personal to stand on streetcorners just because they need more troops.
This is a fucked up war that we won't hear the whole of for years.
Posted by: Tim at November 16, 2004 9:54 PMCould you elaborate on this "Iraq-Palestine" being the "same thing" you mentioned. The only thing I can think of is the early 20th century with Britain & France doing their post-WWI dance and drawing lines in the Middle East. As I recall, from my HIST396 course, both "Palestine" and Iraq were created at about the same point--as well as Syria. Hrm. So perhaps that's the reference made in the minds of these AJ people or whomever.
And how about those Crusades? They had to have said something about the Crusades in the documentary.
Posted by: Marechal at November 18, 2004 7:48 AMNope, no Crusades.
And how I understand the mentality to work is like this:
1. There is an Arab/Islamic nation/people/whatever that transcends national boundries.
2. Israel is in conflict with one part of this group, namely Palestine (but also Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq at various times). Also, the US supports Israel.
3. The US is at war in Iraq.
4. So, since the Arab people transcend national boundries, Israel and Iraq are merely two fronts in the same conflict. This image isn't exactly hurt by the US being party in some way to both these things.
5. Right in with that bit is a real sense that Israel and the US are in some way the same entity. I think it's Rushing who mentions something to the effect that an Arab he knew was like "Did you see the American helicopters bombing X village in Palestine?" and he was confused for the obvious reasons, and come to find out said helicopters were actually US-made Israeli helicopters.
That makes more sense, I hope. We tend to view these things in terms of national boundries on maps, and they tend to view it as part of a larger systematic beatdown of the Arab nation/people.
Posted by: Dwip at November 18, 2004 1:23 PMInteresting, thank you for the pristine clarity, citizen.
Pan-Arabism, hrm. Perhaps. The abysmal failure of pan-arabism in the 1920s & 1930s (1936 anyone)makes me wonder about this contemporary sentiment. I wonder just how deep or broad this contemporary pan-Arabism (perceived or otherwise) is . . . Egypt's never really gotten into the act, Iran is in their own little nuclear world, the Palestinians have no power/state, Lebannon and Syria are about as Islamic as France is right now . . . and the Islamic world is of course divided. I would suggest, perhaps this pan-Arabism is simply a moderate identity, and nothing to get all flustered with--not that anyone is right now.
I still can't believe they didn't mention the Crusades. The New York Times can't go a day without printing that word.
Posted by: Marechal at November 18, 2004 7:09 PMWhich leads me into my next pointed, deep, penetrating insight:
Why are the Crusades portrayed as a Christian terror campaign in the 12/13th centuries? (i.e. to contrast with contemporary Islamic "fundamentalism")
Cuz I'm all about history & stuff.
Posted by: Marechal at November 21, 2004 1:14 PMWhich leads me into my next pointed, deep, penetrating insight:
Why are the Crusades portrayed as a Christian terror campaign in the 12/13th centuries? (i.e. to contrast with contemporary Islamic "fundamentalism")
Cuz I'm all about history & stuff.
Posted by: Marechal at November 21, 2004 1:14 PMIt might, perhaps, have something to do with all the fun religious fanaticy things the Crusaders did, like kill every non Christian in Jerusalem, and things like that. Or the entire "Fourth Crusade." Or for general ruffianness and not upholding the local laws. Like, say, those of the Byzantines, who called the whole shindig in the first place.
Granted it was a bit hard to have Christian suicide bombers in the 12th century, but you could have random robbery, kidnapping, killing, and the like, which is what a whole lot of ye olde Crusaders were into.
But you want real Christian terrorism? Try the Inquisition/witch trials a few centuries down the road.
Posted by: Dwip at November 21, 2004 11:08 PMDidn't the Spanish Inquisition actually only kill like 1% of the people who got dragged before them?
Which isn't to say that they didn't do some other nasty things, but.
One of these days, I need a big fat objective tome on the Inquisition, if such a thing exists.
Posted by: Regina at November 22, 2004 4:52 PMMy point was less about the death rate than the doing of really ungodly things in the name of religion.
When you find that book, let me know, because I want to read it. Also, something on the history of the Papacy, because I want to read up on that, too.
Also, ObHistoricalDebate, objectivity in history is impossible because of the preconcieved notions of the author getting in the way and the thesis-based style of writing.
*wonders if Marechal has had a historian's craft class yet*
Posted by: Dwip at November 22, 2004 5:07 PMBy "craft" do you mean "methodology"? If yes, then yes. :p In fact, I have two more to go before I graduate, but those are basically thesis development and completion of our paper more than anything else. In fact, I remember several lectures on objectivity and bias in history. I had a good professor, on that note.
Anywho, so okay, yeah, the Inquisition I would defintely see as an ultra-Catholic terror campaign of sorts. The Crusades... is where I would have some disagreement.
Granted, once we start talking about the 4th and later Crusades, yeah sure, those were generally of the more bad quality. But if we look especially at the First Crusade, I think that gets a really bad rap. The general story line I have seen in various news articles, editorials, and student campus ravings tend to be along the lines of "those evil white Christian Europeans went and beat up the Muslims in Jesus name."
Well . . . no.
See, I like studying the Crusades. It's the highlight of the Post-Classical (Middle) Ages since it's a wonderful combination of Western Civ. & Military history, which are what I'm all about. And Napoleon. So maybe it's just because I have read a lot of books (reading more as we speak) on the Crusades, but uh, they tend to be misperceived. See with the EXPLOSION of Islam in the Arab world and its hella rapid military campaigns, people tend to overlook that the infidels conquered Christian Spain in the 8th century, a full three centuries before Urban II rallied Latin Europe. And between that time and then, the infidels were busy in the Mediterranean island-hopping, threating the Italian mainlaind (and thus the Papal kingdom), and perhaps most pertinent to our discussion: cleaning up the Byzantine house. That of course, being forgotten as the most specific reason for the actual calling of the Crusades in 1095 at Clermont. The Christian East, Orthodox though they were, had been getting beaten down hardcore by the infidel armies of the Mohammadens. Bad news for Constantinople. Bad news for Europe. The Latin Christians, being fairly sensible military peoples, decided that they didn't want to see the infidels come within a few days march of Paris again or threaten to overwhelm their feudal kingdoms. Thus, the Crusades. And yeah sure there was the idea of the greater glory of Jesus Christ, protecting pilgrims, restoring the Holy Land shrines, and loot and greed--but these were merely secondary to the primary--> preservation/survival.
Not speaking for crusades 4+, but suggesting . . . that the Crusades are a little more complicated than "We must slay the infidels in Jesus name!" --Not that you were suggesting that dear citizen, Marius. I'm just, sharing some thoughts outloud. Cuz that's what Demented Rabbits is all about. Right?
Posted by: Marechal at November 22, 2004 5:35 PMWell, I think I'm the only demented rabbit in evidence, although we have the odd iguana (Samson), atmospheric disturbance (Whir), and consort to a squirrel alien (Rachael). And you know, 3am at Alsherok was an interesting time. But, you know, this is the Ravings of Demented Rabbits, but there's plenty of room for everyone else to rave, too. Maybe be demented, if they want. I've got the claim on rabbithood, though.
Anyway. Crusades. It's a complicated period of history, really. You can't really characterize it as some campaign to "kill the infidels!" really, although to an extent that's what it was. I have a hard time seeing it as a battle for survival, exactly, too. For Byzantium, yes, considering Manzikert and all. Spain, well, Spain had been having a rough time of it for a while. But, well, when was that little Islamic romp through France? 2 centuries back? 3? Little less than urgent.
What one generally sees the Crusades portrayed as among historians is a wave of religious ferver coupled with a sense that assorted knights and nobles needed something to do. Witness 1066. Witness the Normans in south Italy/Sicily around the same time. In one way, it's sort of a continuation of that trend, giving Europe's younger sons a way to get land and titles and whatnot. Lot of that went on. Didn't hurt that it was infidels, either.
Too, the situation on the ground once there was sort of interesting. Witness Crusader/Byzantine infighting for various reasons. Witness various alliances with Muslim states on the part of the Crusaders and the Byzantines, followed by fun things like the Second Crusade going "Let's go attack our ally in Damascus!" and assorted massacres.
But I'm not sure if I think the survival thing was exactly urgent unless you were Alexius Comnenus. You want urgent issues with survival, see Relations, Ottoman Empire and Europe, 15th-17th century.
Posted by: Dwip at November 22, 2004 6:18 PM