If Iranian Lesbian Kiana Firouz is deported from the U.K., she faces certain death in Iran.

From the Every­One website:

Kiana Firouz, 27 years old, actress and les­bian activist from Teheran, Iran, has long been engaged in the bat­tle against the dis­crim­i­na­tion and per­se­cu­tion of homo­sex­u­als by the Ahmadine­jad régime. After pho­tograms of her video doc­u­men­tary on the con­di­tion of les­bians and gays fell into the hands of the Iran­ian intel­li­gence, agents began to fol­low and intim­i­date her. Con­cerned about her safety, Kiana left Teheran and sought refuge in the U.K., where she could con­tinue her work and studies.

She filed for asy­lum but her appli­ca­tion was rejected by the Home Office even though the Min­istry rec­og­nized her being per­se­cuted for her sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion and despite the fact that the Min­istry is well aware that under Islamic law homo­sex­u­al­ity is con­sid­ered a heinous crime pun­ish­able by hang­ing and that gays and les­bians are ene­mies of Allah. In Iran, pun­ish­ment for an adult con­sent­ing les­bian of healthy mind and is 100 whip­pings. If the act is repeated three times and pun­ished each time, the death sen­tence is applied the fourth time (Art. 127, 129, 130).

Hat tip: thef­bomb

If you have a mind to, please sign the peti­tion.

The Politics of Language

When I was get­ting my master’s degree in Teach­ing Eng­lish to Speak­ers of Other Lan­guages (TESOL), we learned about a study – I wish I could remem­ber the details, but it’s been more than 20 years, and I have for­got­ten – which mea­sured the responses of peo­ple on a sub­way who spoke only Eng­lish to a con­ver­sa­tion tak­ing place between a man and a woman speak­ing a lan­guage other than Eng­lish. If I recall, one of the most com­mon reac­tions the English-only speak­ing pas­sen­gers had was to sus­pect that the cou­ple was talk­ing about them, or per­haps about Amer­i­cans in gen­eral, and the assump­tion was almost always that what­ever the cou­ple had been say­ing, it couldn’t have been nice.

That kind of xeno­pho­bia, often mixed with racism, emerges quite com­monly when dis­cus­sions of lin­guis­tic plu­ral­ism or tol­er­ance turn to the ques­tion of the degree to which United States soci­ety and cul­ture can accom­mo­date the pub­lic use, offi­cial and unof­fi­cial, of lan­guages other than Eng­lish. When my wife and I decided to raise our son to be bilin­gual, for exam­ple, and we chose to speak only, or at least pre­dom­i­nantly, Per­sian to him for the first cou­ple of years of his life, mem­bers of my fam­ily were very con­cerned that we were set­ting him up for ridicule, and even fail­ure, because they were sure not only that he would learn to speak Eng­lish with an Iran­ian accent, but that there was a good chance he would speak Eng­lish ungram­mat­i­cally. What both­ered me, how­ever, was not this prac­ti­cal con­cern my rel­a­tives had about whether or not my son would acquire Eng­lish as a native speaker. Mis­placed as that con­cern is – chil­dren are, after all, lan­guage sponges and can, if they start young enough, learn to speak mul­ti­ple lan­guages flu­ently, with the appro­pri­ate accent in each, with­out any trou­ble at all – I think it’s not an unrea­son­able one for peo­ple to have who have not yet thought closely about how chil­dren are social­ized into their native lan­guage. No mat­ter how exclu­sively my wife and I might have tried to speak only Per­sian with him, for exam­ple, he was immersed in the cul­ture that is Amer­i­can Eng­lish in almost every other aspect of his life. It would have been dif­fi­cult, espe­cially since Eng­lish is my native lan­guage, for him not to have acquired Eng­lish as a native speaker.

Rather, what trou­bled me about my rel­a­tives’ response was the anger, the tone of one who has been betrayed, that entered their voices, when they would tell me things like, “He’s never going to sound Amer­i­can, you know, and he’s going to hate you for that when he’s older.” Over time, despite the fact that we tried as much as pos­si­ble to speak Eng­lish to our son when peo­ple who didn’t speak Per­sian were around, it became clear that much of what some of my fam­ily mem­bers resented was that they couldn’t under­stand what my wife was say­ing to our son when she spoke to him in her lan­guage. Not that I don’t under­stand the dis­com­fort that being unable to com­pre­hend the lan­guage spo­ken by the peo­ple stand­ing next to you can make you feel. In the late 1980s, I lived for about a year and a half in South Korea, and I nei­ther spoke nor read a word of Korean when I got there. It was fright­en­ing. More­over, unlike the peo­ple in the study I described above – who had no way of know­ing what the con­ver­sa­tions they were over­hear­ing were about – I knew for a fact that a lot of the peo­ple I rode the train with every day, whose con­ver­sa­tions I could not pen­e­trate even the slight­est frac­tion of an inch, or whom I passed in the street, or stood on line with at the bank, were often talk­ing about me, and I knew this because they were not shy about point­ing at me while they were say­ing what­ever it was they had to say.

It was very hard at first not to assume that at least some of what they were say­ing was less than flat­ter­ing, though I learned over time that most were prob­a­bly just say­ing an adult ver­sion of what the kids in my Chamshil apart­ment com­plex would say every time I walked past, point­ing and laugh­ing with a delighted curios­ity at the strange­ness of my pres­ence: Migook saram! Migook saram imnida! (An Amer­i­can! It’s an Amer­i­can!). Still, I have never under­stood the atti­tude, which I have only ever heard expressed by Amer­i­cans, dis­played so promi­nently by two guys from Chicago who were in Seoul for a med­ical con­fer­ence of some sort. I know where they were from and why they were in Korea because my friends and I, all of us Eng­lish teach­ers at the same school in Yoksam-Dong, over­heard their con­ver­sa­tion in the Pizza Inn (or maybe it was Pizza Hut, I am not sure) in the Sam­sung Build­ing, which was one of the places we’d go for lunch when we had a crav­ing for west­ern food. These two men wanted what­ever kind of over­loaded pizza they were try­ing to order with­out one of the top­pings on the menu, black olives, which they were try­ing with­out much suc­cess to explain to their wait­ress, whose Eng­lish was not very good and who was very flus­tered at hav­ing to use it, espe­cially as she could sense the ris­ing frus­tra­tion in her customer’s voices when it became clear to them that she wasn’t really under­stand­ing what they wanted. Finally, the wait­ress said, “Okay, okay!” as if she under­stood and went back into the kitchen. When she brought out their order a lit­tle while later, though, there were black olives on the pizza, and the guys from Chicago were furi­ous. They didn’t exactly yell at the wait­ress, but their voices were raised as they demon­strated what they wanted by pick­ing the olives off their food and set­ting them aside. This time the look on the wait­ress’ face con­firmed that she had indeed under­stood what the men from Chicago wanted, and she took the incor­rect order and went back into the kitchen.

I don’t remem­ber why none of us tried to inter­vene, since there were those among us whose Korean was good enough to defuse the whole sit­u­a­tion, but after the wait­ress had gone back into the kitchen, one of the guys leaned over the table and in a voice choked with anger and frus­tra­tion said, “Why don’t these peo­ple learn to speak the fuck­ing lan­guage!” His friend nod­ded, said, “Do you want to leave?” and they walked out.

Con­tinue read­ing

Reading “The Man In The White Sharkskin Suit,” by Lucette Lagnado

I just fin­ished read­ing The Man in the White Sharksin Suit: My Family’s Exo­dus from Old Cairo to the New World, by Lucette Lagnado, a reporter for The Wall Street Jour­nal whom we have invited to read as part of Nas­sau Com­mu­nity College’s Lit­er­a­ture, Live! read­ing series, spon­sored by The Cre­ative Writ­ing Project (CWP). A mem­oir that is at once a love let­ter to her father, Leon, and also her mother, Edith, as well as to the city of Cairo and its way of life in the days of King Farouk, The Man in the White Sharksin Suit chron­i­cles the dif­fi­cul­ties Lagnado’s fam­ily faced as they nav­i­gated the often tor­tu­ous path they were forced to travel from the priv­i­leged life they enjoyed in Egypt to the dif­fi­cult and, espe­cially for her father, often humil­i­at­ing exis­tence that life as exiles forced them into. The book has a lot to say about the arro­gance with which Euro­pean and Amer­i­can Jews – as indi­vid­u­als and as work­ers in agen­cies that were sup­posed to help fam­i­lies such as Lagnado’s – treated their Mizrachi core­li­gion­ists, who fled or were forced to leave their home coun­tries in the years fol­low­ing Israel’s found­ing; and when she tells the story of Sylvia Kirschner, the New York Asso­ci­a­tion for New Amer­i­cans (NYANA) case­worker assigned to the Lagnado fam­ily, and how Kirschner refused to find any com­pro­mise between her pro­gres­sive val­ues relat­ing to women and Lagnado’s father’s deeply patri­ar­chal old world val­ues, it is hard not to sym­pa­thize with Leon. Not because there is any­thing defen­si­ble in his desire com­pletely to rule the lives of the women in his fam­ily, but because Lagnado makes it so clear that Sylvia Kirschner’s intol­er­ance only served to accel­er­ate the unrav­el­ing of the Lagnado fam­ily by encour­ag­ing the inde­pen­dence of Lagando’s older sis­ter Suzette. I’m not sug­gest­ing that Suzette should have allowed her­self to remain firmly held in place beneath her father’s patri­ar­chal thumb, but surely there were gen­tler ways of intro­duc­ing Leon and Suzette to the greater inde­pen­dence of women in the United States than Kirschner’s dis­missal of and dis­re­spect for the val­ues Leon had brought with him from an older gen­er­a­tion in a far more tra­di­tional part of the world.

There are many other moments in this mem­oir that are wor­thy of note – the Ital­ian Catholic friend Lagnado found and lost because of a hous­ing dis­pute between their par­ents and the neighborhood’s anti­se­mitic response to that dis­pute; the con­trast Lagnado draws between her expe­ri­ence being treated for Hodgkin’s dis­ease by a pri­vate physi­cian in New York City and her father’s dis­mal treat­ment at the Jew­ish Home and Hos­pi­tal, and then at Mt. Sinai Hos­pi­tal, in the last years of his life (and each of these con­trasted with the med­ical treat­ment the fam­ily had been able to com­mand when they lived in Egypt, and Leon could sum­mon the best doc­tors in Cairo to look after him and his fam­ily); Lagnado’s meet­ing with the woman whose father-in-law and uncle had nego­ti­ated the pur­chase of the Lagnado fam­ily home when Leon finally, reluc­tantly, real­ized he and his fam­ily could no longer remain in Egypt – but what struck me most as I read this book was how much it hinted at things I didn’t know about Mizrachi Jews. Leon’s fam­ily was from Aleppo, in Syria, and Lagnado’s dis­cus­sion of that culture’s fam­ily tra­di­tions left me frus­trated that I had never learned about them when I was in Hebrew School, or later when I was in yeshiva, and it was ham­mered into us that kol yis­rael are­vim zeh lazeh, all Jews are respon­si­ble for each other. That lofty sen­ti­ment notwith­stand­ing, the cur­ricu­lum we were taught cer­tainly made it seem like the only Jews in the world, or at least the only Jews in the world that mat­tered, were those of Euro­pean, and espe­cially east­ern Euro­pean, descent.

It’s not that I didn’t know Mizrachi Jews existed, and I cer­tainly can­not blame my con­tem­po­rary igno­rance on the faulty edu­ca­tion of my youth. After all, noth­ing has stopped me from edu­cat­ing myself other than the way I have set the pri­or­i­ties of my life (and it’s entirely pos­si­ble that I would not have picked Lagnado’s book up except that the CWP has cho­sen to invite her), but so much of my early Jew­ish edu­ca­tion was focused on Israel – the need for Israel, the value of Israel, the strug­gle to found Israel – that it’s sur­pris­ing I remem­ber no atten­tion being paid to the fact that, after Israel’s inde­pen­dence was declared in 1948, nearly a mil­lion Mizrachi Jews were either forced to leave their coun­tries or chose to leave because the con­di­tions there had become unten­able. Surely learn­ing about Israel ought to have meant learn­ing some­thing about the cul­ture of the mil­lions of Mizrachi Jews who chose to set­tle there. Equally sur­pris­ing to me is that nowhere in Lagnado’s mem­oir is Israel men­tioned except as either a pri­mary cause of the prob­lems the Jews of Egypt were start­ing to have after 1948 or as one the places where the Jews of Egypt could go that would accept them with­out fail. Lagnado does not laud Israel as the Jew­ish home­land, nor is there any sense from her book that the Jews of Egypt saw Israel in that way at all; even when she talks about the Egypt­ian Jews who chose to go to Israel, she presents the choice as matter-of-fact, even as des­per­ate, not as one that might con­tain within it some small part of the hope with which the Euro­pean Zion­ists clearly embraced the idea of a Jew­ish home­land there.

The Man in the White Shark­skin Suit, how­ever, is a mem­oir, not a his­tory. I am sure that there were Mizrachi Jews who embraced the found­ing of Israel as fer­vently and hope­fully as the Euro­pean Zion­ists did. More, I am sure that the feel­ing I had after read­ing Lagnado’s book, that the Jews of Egypt were far bet­ter off in Egypt than in any of the places to which they fled, has more to do with the priv­i­leged life her fam­ily lived there than with the real­ity of the lives of all Egypt­ian Jews. I am fully aware, in other words, that the story of the Mizrachi Jews is, has got to be, far more com­plex than any­thing I could learn from read­ing Lagnado’s mem­oir; and yet read­ing the book, espe­cially the chap­ter called “The Last Days of Tar­boosh,” brought me back to a trans­la­tion con­fer­ence panel I was on with Ammiel Alcalay and Sami Chetrit, a Mizrachi Jew (Moroc­can, if I remem­ber cor­rectly). Dur­ing his talk Chetrit spoke of how – and I am para­phras­ing here; I wish I could remem­ber his exact words – the Euro­pean Zion­ist Jews col­o­nized the Mizrachi Jews, replac­ing the Mizrachi nar­ra­tive with the Euro­pean Jew­ish nar­ra­tive, even to the point of usurp­ing the language(s) Mizrachi Jews had been speak­ing for cen­turies, if not mil­lenia, before Israel was founded. (I am not sure if this was a ref­er­ence to the European-based revival of Hebrew as the Jew­ish national lan­guage or to some other con­flict over lan­guage.) His state­ments sur­prised me in much the same way that read­ing Lagnado’s books did, because they hinted at a story I did not know, that felt like I should have known it.

Like Lagnado, Chetrit obvi­ously has a per­spec­tive, and a bias, and I am in no way informed enough to judge the accu­racy of what he said. What I can say is that any Jew­ish edu­ca­tion worth its salt should have as one of its goals mak­ing its stu­dents that informed, or at least teach­ing them that they should feel respon­si­ble for inform­ing them­selves; and that most cer­tainly is not the Jew­ish edu­ca­tion I received. Indeed, the Jew­ish edu­ca­tion I received ren­dered both Chetrit’s per­spec­tive and Lagnado’s story entirely invis­i­ble, and it did so not only in the inter­est of mak­ing Israel cen­tral to Jewish-American iden­tity, but also to estab­lish­ing the Zion­ist nar­ra­tive of the found­ing of Israel as the uni­ver­sal Jew­ish nar­ra­tive of the found­ing of Israel. Sto­ries like Chetrit’s and Lagnado’s demon­strate that such uni­ver­sal­ity is a myth. Con­fronting that myth is impor­tant not because it calls into ques­tion Israel’s right to exist (it makes me angry that I feel I even have to say that) but because com­ing to terms with the full com­plex­ity of the nar­ra­tive of Israel’s found­ing is the only way I know to come to terms with the fact that I, as a Jew – and maybe this applies to con­cerned peo­ple who aren’t Jew­ish as well – can­not not take a posi­tion regard­ing Israel’s exis­tence as a Jew­ish state.

(I’ve writ­ten more about this issue in the series I wrote called What We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) When We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) anti­semitism and Israel. The link will take you to part 4 of the series; there is a list of the other posts in the series at the bot­tom of that post.)

Lucette Lagnado’s read­ing at Nas­sau Com­mu­nity Col­lege is sched­uled for March 2010, date and time to be announced. For more infor­ma­tion, please visit the Cre­ative Writ­ing Project web­site.