« Whispers | Main | The a-Rab magazine is ready… »
Intifada U.S.A: Who is afraid of the Arabic language?
By yaman | August 12, 2007
Update 8/13/07: Shirts in lighter colors and with lower prices are now available at the online store. There are also jerseys, hoodies, sweatshirts, and other apparel.
Who is afraid of the Arabic language?
Enough people to drive Debbie Almontaser, aspiring principal of a new Arabic-themed public school in New York, out of her job. Almontaser was loosely “connected” (read: she shared office space) to a group that produced a benign t-shirt with the words “Intifada NYC” on them.
To certain anti-Arab organizations and individuals, “intifada” is something to fear. It is violent, it is terrorizing, and it is, apparently, unacceptable even to mention the word. In recent times the word has been connected to the Palestinian uprisings of the late 1980s and early 2000s, which have taken many different forms: cultural, artistic, literary, musical, political, military, violent, non-violent.
What these people do not understand, however, is that intifada, even while politically charged, is not necessarily a violent concept, nor does it come exclusively out of the ongoing Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid. In 1977, for example, Egypt saw what was termed the “bread intifada” in response to measures taken by then President Anwar Sadat to drastically increase the price of basic commodities. It was over a decade later that the term was commonly held to refer to the Palestinian uprising of the late 1980s.
While to those looking on from a distance “intifada” might only refer to the images seen on television, to those on the ground, its meaning has roots in an inspirational attitude and positive outlook that seeks to overturn an oppressive situation. It is the very essence of giving “power to the people,” of allowing the people to act when their interests are threatened. From that perspective, only those who fear change and justice are afraid of intifada, the concept. Fear of this concept, however, means fear of the American revolution, fear of the anti-slavery movement, fear of the civil rights movement, fear of the Vietnam era anti-war movement–in short, fear of everything that has ever helped change America for the better.
Intifada, as a concept, is one that has deep roots in oppressed sectors of American society. It is only when we call it by its Arabic name that we encounter these hysterical xenophobic attitudes. We should not pretend, anyway, that this current controversy is simply about the word “intifada.” In doing so we would be ignoring the fact that the Arabic language itself has become something worth fearing in the United States. Just last year, an Iraqi man was kicked off of a JetBlue flight (remember the name, boycott it) for wearing a t-shirt with the words “We will not be silent” in Arabic. It should not be difficult to see, then, that this is an affront to Arabs and the Arabic language as a whole, rather than the word “intifada” exclusively.
It is here that we step in to protect intifada, the concept, as well as “intifada,” the word. If intifada is something that can inspire youth in this country to organize within their communities in order to force the political system to work for them (for us), then intifada is something that we encourage in every corner of the United States. Furthermore, we will not call it dissent, we will not call it protest, and we will not call it activism–even though it encompasses all of these things. To resist the efforts by the right-wing and the popular media to demonize Arabs, Muslims, and other immigrants, we will call it by no other name: intifada it is, and in every community in this country, it will be.
The best way to achieve our political goals of pushing people to action, as well as our cultural goals of fighting fear of the Arabic language, is to increase both our political and cultural visibility. We have designed the t-shirt below with those goals in mind.
On the front, it reads:
“shake off the system that oppresses you!
(intifada in Arabic)
intifada u.s.a
act now for your community”
On the back, it reads:
“in*ti*fa*da (n)
an arabic word for ’shaking off,’ politically it refers to popular movements that seek to rectify an unjust situation, whether it be for affordable bread or equal political rights. the civil rights movement might have been called an intifada, if it happened on the other side of the world. is that so bad?”
These t-shirts have been designed with our overall project in mind and as such, proceeds will go towards funding our new publication, the a-Rab. To order this t-shirt, please follow this link to the same posting on the a-Rab’s website and follow the instructions at the bottom of the post (there are also larger versions there). If you agree with us, please share this post and this t-shirt with your friends. If you have suggestions for other ways of selling these t-shirts, please feel free to contact us at admin@a-rab.net.
Topics: Comment |
August 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
[...] I’ve reproduced this here, even though it was intended for the a-Rab and was also posted on my blog. I think it has relevance to this community, especially since some posters have already touched on this issue (in the wrong way, unfortunately). Peace. [...]
August 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
[...] [...]
August 12th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
T shirt suggestion: NUKE MECCA - Nuke is from the word nuclear which comes from the root word nucleus, meaning center. See? It means “Center Mecca.”
Shake off the USA - the thing that’s oppressing you? Go to one of the lovely Islamic countries for some real oppression.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Lynn, I hate to be blunt but you are an idiot.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:09 am
I think this is a good idea. Maybe it would be more visually effective to make intifada T-shirts with easily-recognizable pictures representing various American intifadas on them, to make the association even clearer. For example, you could have a picture of Martin Luther King on the front, and the caption: “Martin Luther King, a leader of the American civil rights intifada”.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:41 am
[...] Taken from YamanEnough people to drive Debbie Almontaser, aspiring principal of a new Arabic-themed public school in New York, out of her job. Almontaser was loosely “connected” (read: she shared office space) to a group that produced a benign t-shirt with the words “Intifada NYC” on them. [...]
August 13th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Dear Lynn:
Nuke is a verb that means - colloquially -”to bomb with nuclear weapons.” You (pronoun) are (verb) a (indefinite article) stupid (adjective) fascist (noun). Let me explain: Intifada is a noun. Nuke is a verb. This makes your analogy defunct and sort of fucking silly. Stop using sound bites and silly analogies to cover up jingoistic racism. Read the article and PLEASE realize that Ann Coulter and Bill O’Riley do not count as credible sources of information.
Also, the shirt doesn’t say “Shake off the USA.” YOU said that. I’m telling homeland security. You’re threatening my security and liberty (ha.). Sad thing is, you probably won’t get sent to Gitmo so you can see US torture first hand because your name is Lynn, of Gaelic origin (also from Old English for “lake,” which is something you should go jump in, for being a fascist) and your skin probably isn’t brown. That also means you can shut your mouth about oppression, because the US directly supports and actively funds the oppressive “Islamic countries” you probably couldn’t point out in a world map, so you’re not doing any of “those poor oppressed Islamics” any favors.
Oh and Ben: Even better, why doesn’t Yaman also slap on “Please don’t think I’m angry or trying to protest with direct action! I’m even comparing it to peaceful movements! Peace! I love peace! I don’t mean to ruffle feathers! I want you to love me oppressor! Peace! Salaam! Shalom! I want to lick your fucking boots, not make you upset with me! MLK! Ghandi! I’m a Good Arab, I swear!”
I think it would drive your point across even more.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Haha, I just realized the ironic combination of my comment and anonymous name
damn, I’m funny.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
[...] Syrian blogger Yaman asks: Who is afraid of the Arabic language, following an outrage in the US over a T-shirt which has the Arabic inscription Intifada written on it. Share This [...]
August 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Dear Duke:
Intifada is a nouns that means - colloquially - ”a series of bombings against Jews on buses and in public places”
The word “Intifada” is an example of a thing called Euphemism.
That means it is a word that describes something ugly in a way that does not make it sound ugly.
Euphemisms can be found in every culture, but they are especially common (and misleading) in the Muslim countries of the middle east.
For example, many in the muslim world have been able to justify indiscriminate killing of random civilians in bombings, by calling them “acts of martyrdom”. The popularity of “martyrdom operations” seems to have dropped recently, due to the large number of Muslims killed by suicide bombers.
However, support for Palestinian “martyrs” remains high, because their victims are Jews, not muslims.
The comparison to the US civil rights movement is invalid, because it was a constructive movement aimed at changing the system that oppressed them. The palestinian “Intifada” was a series of senseless killings of innocent Israelis (Arab and Jewish), that only made life more difficult for Palestinians.
Of course, killing Jews has always been a good way to let off steam, so we should respect this part of their culture (and let them import if into America). Or maybe, the palestinians should stop and consider who is their REAL oppressor.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Do we support “a series of bombings against Jews on buses and in public places?”
No. Issue settled.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I was commenting on this and other things on mideastyouth but Esra’a threw me off when I suggested the reason He was rejecting democracy was that he wanted Islam to prevail. I suppose so many muslims dream of this that there will be another world war.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
who is He?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I tried to comment on this at mideastyouth but Esra’a had thrown me off when I suggested he was rejecting democracy because he wanted Islam to prevail. So many muslims have this dream that I suppose there will be another world war.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Around The Blogosphere 15 August 07…
Syrian blogger Yaman asks: Who is afraid of the Arabic language…
September 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Look at this article at the website of the newspaper of the NYC United Federation of Teachers ( http://www.uft.org/news/teacher/around/irish_duo/ )
were it refers to the terrorists of Hagannah as freedom fighters. It says,
“He later became a stakeholder for the Hagannah, a defense lawyer for Jewish gun-runners and had his brother, Mayor William O’Dwyer, call off a police detail from the docks so guns could be sent to Israel.
… [caption of photo] Manhattan attorney Brian O’Dwyer (left), who told a vignette about his father defending Israeli freedom fighters caught with guns in Manhattan; with Joel Shiller (center), chair of the UFT Jewish Heritage Committee, and Callaghan.”
Here is some of what the Hagannah did to the Palestinians
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-05/16/article23.shtml
Not only did they terrorize the Palestinians, they also terrorized Jews. There is a book by Naeim Giladi called “Ben Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews.” Read about it here http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html
October 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
A word/symbol has the meaning that is assigned to it by the general public in a culture. To wear the shirt in an area with a culture that views the word as innocuous is fine. To wear a shirt with a symbol like that in a culture that takes offense is… offensive. The swastika in india is innocuous, in poland it is offensive. The culture of the host country should be respected. Its not a question of legal rights, its a question of courteousness. The question about the shirt doesnt even come down to who terrorized who, what does the word really mean, etc etc… it comes down to what it is perceived to mean. The shirt is disrespectful and further drives hate, “oppression” becomes self-actualizing.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
The problem with your point is this: let us say that in one society the meaning of intifada is negatively associated with violence. Let us say that in the other, it is associated with ideals of resistance, emancipation, and liberation. It would make sense, then, and is in fact highly incumbent upon anybody who wishes to make a halfway decent analysis of anything, that for the person in the former society to understand the latter society and the concept of intifada in that latter society, he must understand it in the terms by which the latter society understands it. It is not a matter of offense, but a matter of understanding.
Your connection to the swastika does not hold. The swastika, to the people who emblazen it, represents white supremancy, anti-Semitism, and a fascistic national identity. It represents exactly the same to people who observe it. That is, there is no discrepancy whatsoever between its “internal” image opposed to its “external” appearance. What is despicable about the swastika is not what it means to us, but rather, precisely what it means to them.
When it comes to intifada, there is a huge divergence between the internal image and the external appearance. To reach a solid understanding both of intifada and of the other society, it’s necessary to bridge this gap by bringing intifada’s external appearance closer to its internal image. People who oppose this movement do so for political reasons, since an external appearance so far removed from its actual internal appearance makes it easier to demonize the other.
As for host countries or whatever it is you mean by this, I was unaware that political views were something by which one had to be “courteous” to the “host” country. What if I was born here?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I think the swastika metaphor works quite well. The swastika is not a NAZI invention, and the originators of it certainly did not mean it as a symbol of white supremacy, antisemitism, etc. Furthermore, it really didn’t stand for that with all the NAZI’s either. It was a symbolism for national identity and duty to one’s people and the resurection of a nation which had been devastated by the first world war. Nothing wrong with that. There were plenty of people who bore that symbol who did intend it as a threat, enough that wearing what used to be a symbol of peace is automatically interpreted as a sign that the bearer is racist antisemite, and looking for a fight. A nation, a government, a movement changed the meaning of a peaceful symbol.
As for the word “intifada”, perhaps in Arabic it still has all the meanings you suggest, but intifada isn’t only an Arabic word any more. It has joined the English language, and it, as many borrowed words, has a narrower, more specific meaning than it’s source. The word “catholic” struggles hard to keep the definition “universal,” but it is generally only used that way by people trying to emphasize that the Catholic religion is not universal church of God. The context in which the English speaking world has the most experience with an Arab flavored civil rights struggle dictated the flavor the word has assumed. Perhaps some day the general civil rights meaning of “intifada” will make its way into the English language, but it must happen after public opinion sways in favor of the Arab side of the struggle. It will not preceed it.