Listening to Hillary Clinton's interview with NPR the other day was an exercise in suppressing my gag reflex. The golden quotes came so fast that even with my unreal 101 WPM typing speed (it's all I have; let me have it), I couldn't type them fast enough. Take this one, for starters:
"We tried to get international support and legitimacy for the Arab League peace plan to have some leverage, but unfortunately Russia and China vetoed it."
What a bummer that a couple of world powers can veto an otherwise effective U.N. resolution and throw a wrench into your plans. You know who else hates vetoes? These guys:
Palestinian children: These rocks used to be our school.
So yeah, vetoes suck, especially ones that help make atrocities possible for 40 years. I guess you can't always get what you want, Madam Secretary.
After that, listen to her lament all the crazy military spending:
"...you have one of the most highly-militarized, best-defended countries on earth because of course they spend an enormous amount of money with their Iranian and Russian friends so equipping themselves..."
Unless the line immediately following that one isn't "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!" you have to assume she wasn't joking and the irony was lost on her. Is it fine for us to spend 600% more on our military and support similar regimes for any reason other than that we're the ones doing it?
I'm tired and I don't think this last quote even needs further comment:
"It's important that the United States, which supports the aspirations of all people everywhere, also stand up for the values and principles that make democracy workable over the long term."
If I were her and heard myself saying such things, I'd want to resign at the end of Obama's current term too. You almost have to respect her for it. The story can be read and heard here.
In other sort of amusing news, Leila Hatami, star of Oscar-winning Iranian film A Separation, made The Vancouver Sun's Academy Awards 2012 Worst-Dressed list. I couldn't find it in the actual piece (I saw it in the Google result), but there's a Mary and Joseph reference somewhere in there:
It's a bit tacky to pick on someone for wearing this ensemble when their other choice is to not wear it and face arrest and indefinite detention upon returning home. We take a lot of things for granted. In any case, expecting a team covering the Oscars to be privy to the finer points of Iranian constitutional law concerning public dress is probably sort of a tall order, so whatever. It is what it is.
I'm amazed that at the time of my last post in September, there were still weekly GOP debates. I feel like I can't even recall a time when I could turn on NPR in the morning and not hear three or four stories about Rick Santorum's father. Why these old white men are allowed to commandeer the national discussion about civil rights and women's health is absolutely beyond me. If I can stomach it, I'll try and dig into their Iran war drum-beating next week as well.
Speaking of Iran, or something maybe vaguely related to it, Ryan Seacrest's latest gift to the culture is set to make its big debut on March 11th. It's called "Shahs of Sunset," and it follows the lives of six wealthy Iranian-Americans living in Beverly Hills, the irony of the similarities between their lavish lifestyles and the
excesses of the real shah, an element of that regime that inspired much
hatred among the masses prior to the Islamic Revolution, likely lost on
them. Before I say more, feast your eyes on this spicy sneak preview:
Orientalism for Dummies, Chapter One. Michael Bay trailer music: check. Steady cam shot of woman in hijab browsing in book store: check. Image of a mash of squiggly lines with dots and slash marks, possibly some primitive form of written communication: check. Old Iranian man sitting in dusty carpet shop - check. Safavid women sporting unibrows and long water pipes - check.
My first thought upon seeing the video in its entirety is that the
greatest minds producing the most elaborate, sophisticated anti-US
propaganda in Iran couldn't come close to creating such effective
magic, but I won't go too far in that direction. In film, television, and other fun forms of pop culture, Iranians have often been portrayed as either radical Shi'ite embassy-grabbers and flag-burners or rich, Mercedes-driving landlords. Unfortunately, expecting a Ryan Seacrest production to stand valiantly against the tide of unchallenged ethnic stereotyping in media is probably a bit optimistic. In any case, the first episode hasn't aired yet, so as much as I'm dying to, I can't make too many judgments right now. I have, however, decided to subject myself to the first episode - I'm still scoping out a good sports bar - and plan to try and answer to myself what I can of the following questions afterwards:
1. To what degree will the show discuss Iranian history and how it relates to Iranian immigration to the U.S.? Will they merely gloss over it in a distorted, embellished kind of way, as they did in this trailer?
Once many academics and intellectuals saw that the emerging political system after the revolution was just as intolerant of political dissent as the shah's regime was, they packed up and left. Some left because their land, investments, and stake in various industries were being seized by the new government. Some left because they had been somehow directly involved in the shah's autocratic, oppressive government and now feared for their own lives. Many different circumstances caused people to pack up and leave and I don't want to downplay or make light of this particular group of people's reasons for having left their homeland, but my guess is that regardless of this family's reason(s), the show's angle will be that they were political or religious refugees who feared for their lives and so came to seek a new life in the cultural and commercial utopia of Beverly Hills(?). That's the most emotionally compelling angle, after all.
2. How much will the show distinguish between Iranians in Iran and the caricatures of Iranian-Americans being portrayed on this show? Will there be a well-intentioned but perhaps misguided attempt to create sympathy for Iranians living with "crippling sanctions" and the constant threat of attack and annihilation (their words, not mine) by US and Israeli leaders? Since this kind of thing doesn't sell, my guess is no. Fatemeh Fakhraie in a great piece at Racialicious surmises that the show may try and do just the opposite: The narrative might draw these Americanized Iranian-Americans as "good" Iranians, in contrast with the "bad" ones we see on the nightly news, and thus stress the differences between them frequently. Could the show become a vehicle for drumming up support for war against Iran?
3. How will the show incorporate the characters' Jewish identity? I'm only assuming they're Jewish because I spotted a kippah at some point during the preview and there are quite a lot of Iranian Jews living in Beverly Hills, but it will be interesting to see to what extent the show makes this a part of their story.
4. How will the show present Reza Farahan, the openly gay character? Let's keep in mind that these characters are almost certainly acting under the direction of producers, so how Farahan presents himself will likely be influenced in some way by people behind the cameras.
Whatever you read or think, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone optimistic about the effects this show will have on the image of Iranian-Americans in the popular imagination. Among the other problems of portraying a minority group as
consisting solely of wealthy landowners, actual struggling or poor
members of the community can be ignored as a result, and every community
has them. I spent the first year of my job driving around the San
Fernando Valley, visiting Iranian families of four or five sharing one-
and two-bedroom apartments, receiving public assistance in addition to
help from family members, all the while asking me the address of the
nearest Goodwill. A coworker of mine mentioned to me yesterday that at
her old job, they had a hard time getting grants to help elderly Iranian
residents of Los Angeles living on welfare in rent-controlled
apartments because grantors assumed that Iranians were all wealthy and
just milking the system for all it was worth.
I don't want to get all tied up in foreign policy here, but it does occur to me that if the opinions of the masses mattered to elected officials in this country, the images presented in a show like this could have implications for the future and any potential conflict(s) ahead of us. What better time for Ryan Seacrest's contribution to the bloated cultural landfill of reality television than when an absolutely gorgeous, provocative Iranian film is poised to grab international attention at the Academy Awards this weekend, something many see as the tiniest of silver linings in the ever-darkening cloud of Iran-US relations? This show might certainly provide a distraction from the images of religious lunatics in news reports (the Iranian ones, not the ones debating weeknights on CNN), but it likely won't do anything to improve the image of Iranian-Americans over here or create any sympathy for Iranians who might be the victim of a U.S.-Israeli attack.
Although they're hardly the victim here, the American public in general also has cause to take offense: Whether or not it reflects anything about our real nature and national character, it seems to assume the worst about us when television producers believe that the only way the American public can handle exposure to an ethnic minority is via packaged and repackaged versions of crude stereotypes. Personally, I'm looking forward to the show that speaks to my own cultural heritage: "Knife Thugs of South Boston."
