Working in a Mediterranean restaurant gives me a great opportunity to observe and analyze people’s perspective on issues such as cultural differences. But what amazes me the most in my observation is how incredibly varied the values of these cultures are. Based on customers conversation I realize how different people are in their interpretation of certain values and issues, how limited and ultimate they are in their reasoning, and finally how persistent and sometimes inconsiderate of the others they are in defending their point of view.

“The Arabs are cavemen”, proclaimed one of the customers sitting in our dimly lit Mediterranean restaurant. “They can not counter the existence of the western powers and their progress and this is what drives them nuts” he continued developing his thought while chewing lip-smacking tasty shish kebab. “Their inability to accept a reality of the twenty first century where they fall far behind the rest of the modern world leaves us with no choice but to stick their faces into it”, the man stated inspired by the subject on the Middle East crisis. “However, as soon as we build few McDonald’s on their territory, give them new TV sets and some other small luxuries of the western culture the victory will be completely secured” said the customer concluding his point.

In his reasoning “We”, as West, with the help of Arabic speaking Sponge Bob’s, sexy and tempting pop divas, and juicy burgers assisted with M-16 rifles will take the triumphant cultural crusade over “barbarians”. In other words, we will give candies to those “cavemen” who accept them, or we will use the brutal force against those who just “Do not get it” no matter what. However, this “seems-to-be-brilliant” strategy is doomed to defeat as it lacks the understanding of the fact that not every mind can be bribed, not every soul can be beaten to death, and not every voice demanding justice can be completely shut.

The reason I depicted an example of monolog of a stranger in Mediterranean restaurant is simple. I was deeply struck by absolutism and the “one side” approach to a subject that ultimately demands to be viewed from multiple perspectives. What does make me think so? -You would ask. The answer is pretty straightforward. It is influence of Bernard Lewis, a Middle Eastern scholar, appearing alive in front of my eyes arguing that there is a huge difference between modern western mind and that of an Arab. It is Hollywood with its superhero that beats the hell out of crazed Middle Eastern “barbarians” in the “True lie”. But the strongest impression made on me was the one by the movie “The battle of Algiers”. I was amazed by how these people struggled to obtain independence by attempting to rediscover the meaning of the word homeland, by defining the notion of the nation and its unique dual perspective of the same issue.

The question of who is a “Good guy” and who is a “Bad guy” was constantly popping up in my mind while watching this movie. My heart was filled with indignation when a camera zoomed in a face of a little French boy who was sitting in a cafeteria that would be blown into pieces with the planted bomb. Simultaneously I could feel the pain of tortured Algerians, could hear them crying when they buried their loved once lost in the acts of violence provoked by French authorities. I got an impression that I was split into halves with one part of me being captured emphasized by vivid images of the French victims and another part of me being in the scenes of humiliation forced on Algerians. It was hard to comprehend and even harder to accept the “Tooth for tooth, eye for an eye” philosophy that both sides followed, thus justifying their violent actions against each other.

The bloodshed seen throughout the movie caused a wave of questions that I would address to both sides. Why cannot the leaders of confronting parties stop this vicious cycle of violence? Did not France experience brutal years of Nazis occupation where the cruelty of occupation left a deep wound in the whole generation of Frenchmen? Where is the public reaction from so-called democratic Western Europe and their colleagues across the Atlantic Ocean?
Unfortunately, these questions do not reach their intended recipients as they hit the indestructible wall of European quarters that separates “The French world” from that of Algerian. It appears that there is some sort of mystical device implanted to the wall that filters and selects what is important and what is not, what should be considered and what should be disregarded.
The trace of Mamdani’s ( another prominent scholar ) article regarding the “culture talk” and the policy of separating “Good Muslims” from “Bad Muslims” is observable. Although, this movie does not accentuate the religion as the base for discrimination and prosecution, it doesn’t overlook block-posts guarded by paratroopers who strip search everyone who appears to look suspicious. Do then I ask myself questions such as: What criterion is it based on to distinguish a terrorist from a humane person in the crowd? How to single out a “parasite”?

The French paratroopers came up with straightforward strategy that filters those who look like them and those who do not. “Them” means men who wear European cut pants and a vest and women who wear short skirts and make up, thus what they dress in or how they look and talk stands them out form other folks who look opposite to “Colon culture”. In other words, there are Algerians who understand “their role and place” in this world and those who “Do not get it”, but in reality there are same “Cavemen” from the same “Cave”.

The French authorities of that period would probably defend their policies regarding indigenous “cavemen” as self-defending tactics aimed to restore the law and order in the “Cave” they owned. They would have argued that Alger is inseparable from France because of it economic and strategic role. It would be hard to withdraw an army, police, governing apparatus and more than a million of French settlers who do not see themselves as such. They see themselves as French citizens who live in the territory that “always” belonged to them. They were born and raised there, they went to schools there and what they learned on the subject of Alger was its history prior to occupation. These factors blind the reality and further bond the feeling of “rightful” ownership that leaves no room for reconsidering “The lease terms”.

However, the opulence of French district, its parks, cafes and laid-back atmosphere drastically differed from the Muslim section. It was the matter of time until this striking disparity prompted few questions such as: “Why not us? What makes Frenchmen superior? And why, don’t I feel being home walking the streets of the town where my ancestors were raised?”

These legitimate questions deserved serious attention but were ignored by French Quarter and camel’s back was finally broken. Although the first flames of Algerian resistance were put down, hot pieces of it caused an inferno that burned down the walls and answered all but one question.

“Why do politics, money and interests of one group prevail over dignity and compassion of others?”

I am not ready to formulate an answer for this question either. Looking at numerous conflicts, oppressive regimes and ignorance of some leaders, I try to draw parallels between them and find alternatives to the “Gun & Candy” strategy, but my attempts are theoretical and might seem too moralistic. At the same time the powers that can change the world with different approach such as from the humane side prefer to see imaginative children smothered in ketchup and wielding lollypops given to them with one hand and another hand holding a stick in case they grow up and start asking provocative questions demanding the right to choose what’s good for them.
But what if the mumbling about divine mission is not convincing and sticks are not strong enough to answer all these questions? Can those powers switchgears from aggressive drive to neutral position and than gradually put aside all ambitious plans to avoid catastrophe? Yes they can, granted the speed is not too fast.

In conclusion, I would like to mention an article appeared in “Newsday” on November 2, 2004. In this article called “Ancient life, modern problems” the 1000 Palestinian cave dwellers of Judean desert towns like Suseya,Maon and Karmel are engaged in a constant battle with Jewish settlers who have come from South Africa, the United States and modern-day Israel to claim this dusty and stony land. “We live as we did in the time of David,” said Hamash, (one of the cave-dwellers) referring to the Jewish king of the Old Testament. “We have no electricity, radio or television. But we are happy to retain our dignity by living without politics.” And I believe that this is what matters the most, our dignity. Is it possible to picture our pragmatic world without politics? I would say hardly, but to see the world without dignity is even harder.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 21st, 2005 at 9:36 am and is filed under The Pressroom. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.