I was flipping through a newspaper the other day and read an article about a man in Arizona who had "Honor Killed" his "Americanized" daughter because he believed she disgraced him.
Faleh Almaleki ran over his daughter with his Jeep Cherokee, killing her because he believed she had dishonored her father. The article provided background on the family and the situation, explaining that the Almalekis had come to the United States from Iraq about sixteen years ago. The father was enraged when his daughter, Noor, had broken off a marriage he had arranged for her and when she moved in with her current boyfriend and mother. Her father did not approve of the way "she was living her life--tight jeans, makeup, boyfriends, modeling photos and an attitude that screamed independence and self-determination"(Riverfront Times).
This news story made me think of two things. One was the idea of "Americanization" and the power of cultural practices on a person's perceptions. The father was enraged that his daughter was becoming "Americanized"; that she was wearing tight jeans and makeup. In one of Hartigan's chapters, he discusses how there is sometimes a notion that Americanness=whiteness; and whiteness, many times, is considered to be one thing. But throughout our class discussions, we have come to the agreement that whiteness encompasses many different concepts. Yet, this father views being American as someone who wears tight jeans, makeup, and has boyfriends. The family has, in a way, used these markers to define what it means to be American. It draws the division line between what is acceptable and what is not. In terms of Iraqi culture, wearing makeup and tight jeans is not acceptable and is seen as something only Americans do.
This idea of contrasting one culture with another points to something else--an identity struggle many first-generation immigrant children face. How are they to assimilate and retain their cultural identity at the same time? How much assimilation is enough assimilation?
The second thing that this article made me think about was the power of labels. Although the article goes on to discuss the religious beliefs of the family and the reasons for Faleh killing his daughter, I do not agree with the description on the front cover of the newspaper describing the article. It read "A Muslim man in Phoenix "Honor Killed" his Americanized daughter". For one, labeling the man with his religious identity brings in a sort of bias from the beginning. A more objective way of describing the news story would have been to simply say that a man killed his daughter because he believe she dishonored him. If the man were Christian, would the news story say "A Christian man killed his daughter" instead? Why or why not? What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good post. It is a good example of applying race and ethnicity to the real world - something I need to do more.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I would say though is, I feel like you are drawing a certain assumption about Faleh. You say that he views Americanness, or whiteness, with regards to a few different terms - tight jeans, makeup, and boyfriends. I would agree that is one way of viewing it. However - isn't that how WE view it? All you have to do is pick up 1 of how many magazines now? - to see that it kind of IS how America is defined. Now before anyone says, "Well rabble rabble rabble there is more to it than that," - of course there is. But who's to say Faleh didn't know that, and he's just upset with the path his child had taken? I feel like we are pigeon-holing (I love that term) him already because he is an outsider and we are applying this idea that he doesn't know us as well we do. His conception of America isn't the only one, to be sure - but that's to say he doesn't have others, and it's also not to say it's wrong.
I think it's exactly the thing you pointed out - an identity crisis. They obviously moved here for a reason - and only they would know - but I feel that they definitely knew at least a little of what they were getting themselves into. Rarely in this day and age would a family move to such a different culture for the sheer reason of just moving. I feel that he probably wanted certain aspects of American life (certain independence? freedom of certain things?), but also wanted to retain a part of his culture - it's who he is! Just like every other parent in the world, he probably had a conception of how his daughter would grow up - safely in America - but retain the values of their culture, ethnicity, etc. When she began to change because of the American influences on her, this was a disparity within schema he had for her life.
As far as assimilation goes - it's however comfortable the person feels. I'm sure they will go through many stages of accepting who they are, rejecting it, and full heartedly believing in where they come from. For some, a little assimilation works, for others, they don't even care about retaining their cultural identity. It really is fluid.
As far as the title of the article goes - I can see how it would raise bias. At the same time that's exactly what they want - to pull readers in. "Oh no, someone different from us did something crazy now - what happened!?" It's all about attention and sales in this world. Does that make it right? No. What would the title have been otherwise? I'm not quite sure. However, I think if it was a Christian man they would have described it in some way that relates to who he is - either location, white, etc. Christian could easily be used as well - take for example the 6 (?) Hutaree people that were just arrested for plotting against the government. They were described as Christian - but then again they are seen as much different than mainstream Christians and even looked different - another way we mark people and relate them back to ourselves; "No, they're much different from us." When it comes down to it, I think it just boils down to sales. I think editors try to keep titles contentious enough to get attention, but not enough to warrant large outbreaks of arguments on discrimination.
The question of how much an individual should
ReplyDeleteassimilate versus how much an individual should retain their cultural identity is a great question. I agree to some extent with Chris-individuals should assimilate to a degree with which they are comfortable and confident. In conjunction with their assimilation, individuals should maintain the amount of cultural identity with which they are most at peace with themselves. The only person that needs to be satisfied is them. The individual should try to maintain who they are in a manner that is conducive to a healthy life in their respective environment.
Additionally, I feel that the concept of assimilation is variable according to different generations. I feel that as subsequent generations are born and raised, a stronger desire to assimilate exists. In my own situation, my mother moved to the United States from Korea about twenty three years ago. She assimilated greatly in order to become more American. However, she still maintains a lot of traditions and ideals of the Korean culture. My sister and I, on the other hand, have lost more of those traditions and ideals and assimilated to a greater degree than did our mother.
Hartigan did state that America is viewed as whiteness to the point that anything that changes from the norm threatens their American realities. So if that change threatens "Americans" after allowing a certain amount of imigrants into the neighborhood and they change their menus to suit a growing immigrant population, then imagine when someone naively moves from another culture and supposes that their children will grow up just as they have planned.
ReplyDeleteI have been amongst many immigrant communities who have built a protective wall for their children by way of schools, places of worship, and social outlets with the hopes of insulating their children from this culture. They are very aware of what they are getting into, but are rather naive about how it will play out with their children. It is unfortunate that anyone feels they can kill their own children for disgracing the family. It is hypocritical. While living in Egypt, I was constantly approached by men seeking out a prostitute. These very men would kill their children for such a disgrace.
One does not have to be in America to receive the label of trying to be American. Cultural imperialism has taken us all over the world with our movies etc. A woman wrote into her marriage contract that she wanted the right to divorce her husband. She was Egyptian and living in Egypt. Her parents told her she was being American. I was constantly asked after President Clinton had his escapade with Monica Lewinski, do all Americans have sex at their jobs. I was sorely embarrassed when that news came out, because I was the go to person to answer for our President's lewd behavior.
A professor was trying to understand why Arab men were so disrespectful to a fellow female soldiers because she was from America. I told them that they really believe our movies are true. It goes back to image and the powerful influence it plays in the minds of everyone. It is almost impossible to turn around one's mind when they have those images.
All of you have raised many good points about the issue of labels and Americanization. However, it is the way that the latter ties into the former that catches my eye. One of the ways that American has become a label is the way it is identified with capitalism. I have seen the ideas of the clash between the capitalist west and the fundamentalist east in many scholarly (and not so scholarly) publications. Pitting Muslim fundamentalism against Western progressivism and capitalism is a big selling point, especially since the attacks of 9/11. Buzz words are a great way for news networks to gain recognition, bring in ad money, and keep up their TV ratings. (Note that we see shock and awe on almost all mainstream and cable news programs, save for PBS.) So this title is a reflection of how labels are becoming an increasingly big part of Americanization, and its (ab)use of them for capital gain.
ReplyDeleteChris--I agree with what you pointed out about America being viewed as a place where tight jeans and makeup are worn. But that's not something that is exclusive only to America. The family may very well have known how "Americans truly are", but here is where I agree with Patricia in the fact that many immigrant parents are naive as to how the different culture will affect their own children.
ReplyDeleteI do think that these families acknowledge American society and culture, but it's also the belief that this does not mark their OWN society and culture. I have observed this from many family friends who have differentiated the "American" values to their "own" values and have stressed that there is a fundamental difference in the way their children are supposed to perceive the world and approach certain things.
There is still a notion that although you may live in America, it does not necessarily mean you are free to engage in what is termed as "American behavior". Which highlights my point exactly, the power of labels goes a long way.