Lipstick Jihad

I realize that I am nearly alone in my opinions of Lipstick Jihad- I enjoyed the book.  I admit that the book has its flaws, but I enjoyed the author’s story, and enjoyed the fact that it was a bit of a change from some of the other readings.

One flaw that was obvious was one that the class discussed the other day: it constantly alternates in the style and format of writing.  It alternates between informational, journalistic, and memoirist writing styles. Now, I do not know much about different types of writing (let alone their technical terms!), but even I could detect these changes.  At first the switches were very distracting and made the story harder to get interested in, but after I got deeper into the story, the switches did not less noticeable.

Another flaw that was brought up in class was that the author did not have enough authority to analyze/criticize Iranian culture in the way that she did.  This is due to the fact that she was born in America, was in a very specific situation (going between the two cultures as a journalist), and also due to the fact that she was ”indoctrinated” with Western Orientalist ideas.  She was a reporter for the New York Times, which raises a huge red flag, according to others in the class.  Though I understand these red flags, I also do not think that her work should be criticized too harshly, either.  In my opinion, her opinion should matter.  Yes, she may have been in a very specific circumstance, but we still get the privilege of looking into that situation through her eyes.  I think there is much to benefit to learning from a person that is going back and forth between two different cultures, and is able to see both sides of issues in a way that other people cannot.  Yes, one culture will most likely dominate, but there are still advantages.

I hope to further analyze this text, and not to discount its story just quite yet! 

 

You Tube Video on Iran

                  The You Tube video on Iran was fascinating- and extremely useful if one does not know any Iranian history.  Though Rick Steves was not always the most tactful host, I still thoroughly enjoyed the program.  As some mentioned in the class, I think it is important to remember, though, that the program was “guided,” and probably heavily screened by the Iranian government.  Nevertheless, both the images and the information given were very helpful in beginning to understand Iranian culture.  At least, for those of us who might never visit the country for ourselves!

                  There were several things in the program that peaked my interest.  One thing was the mighty Persian Empire that was talked about so much.  I had forgotten that it was the Persians who used cuneiform writing.  I had also forgotten how mighty that empire really was (their idea of “peace through strength” was interesting).  Another thing that was important in the film is that fact that Persians are not Arabs- they are Persians, and they speak Farsi, not Arabic.

                  My favorite part of the program, other than just being able to see parts of beautiful Iran, was the part when Rick was talking to the students in Tehran.  Though I did not like the way he was addressing students, I loved their answers.  The young woman student was very bold in her answers, and she did not seem to be afraid to say what was on her mind.  Her comment that war is between governments, and not always peoples, was intuitive.  It surprised me that she was able to state that she believed that the main problem with Iran was that the religion and politics are mixed.  I did notice that the film cut out right around this time, and that made me wonder if they cut out something else that she said.  This would be disappointing, because she was brilliant, and I wished I could have heard more of her thoughts.

Good choice, Iran group!