EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

I like the idea of drawing the connection between the veil debate and the battle of algiers. It seems that however unimportant the veil is to many as part of their role in religion, it is more important as a stance of defiance. The French wouldn't want to see veil because that means they were not in control of the area and not 'westernizing' the area as they would like it too. The comeback of the veil is also explained and it coincides with the dates of the revolution in Algeria. This part is mentioned in the essay. Veils were on their way out, but as colonists and imperialists pushed and pushed for the disappearance and uniformity against the veils, the more ane more resistance came from the Arab population in the form of the veil. Today it seems that the veil in the US has become a symbol of strength and of courage. The wearers are saying here i am, and i'm not afraid to be who i am.

I think Admed briefly discuss the connection between the Battle of Algiers and this article. She repeated stated that many of the women chose to wear the hijab not because they are forced to or its their religious obligations, but more because it'll make them stand out. By conforming to society, the attention on the problems in the Muslim communities would not be taken into considerations.

In the article, she said that it brings more attention to countries like the United States and Europe because the Muslim community is the minority, but the opposite effects apply when they are the majority. Like she said that "wearing the veil or headscarf can be, for instance, at this moment in the United States, a statement of religious commitment, a statement of identity, of communal affiliation, national or international, a poltical statement, and an aesthetic and/ or erotic statement," (165). I really like this viewpoint in which wearing the hijab represents a courageous act because they are facing prejudice.

The statements made by Jack Straw and Tony Blair had a big affect on the significance of Leila Ahmed’s article, for me. The end of the BBC article in which Straw was speaking with a woman and said that he could not say hello to a Muslim woman on the street because he couldn’t see her face, showed me just how close-minded today’s leaders are, and the idea of the inferior Muslim-other in Western societies. Jack Straw is the definition of Ahmed’s first master-narrative of the veil, in which people find the veil to be a symbol of Muslim backwardness and inferiority when compared with Western society, and it is because of comments like the ones from Straw that make me want to participate in a “headscarf day” to show my support for the Muslim women that choose to wear the hijab as a political statement. I think that the uptick in veil sales in England had a lot to do with Straw’s comments, and I think that it is a response to those comments. Muslim women are throwing it in his face almost by choosing to wear the scarf and are trying to show that it is their decision and right to wear the veil and that their leaders should respect that.

This debate can help me understand the veiling in the Battle of Algiers. After reading the Veil Debate I could conlude that the women in the Battle.. story were just protecting their rights and their preferences by wearing their religious and status symbol of the veil. Even though the French misunderstood, the women weren't wearing them because they had to but because they wanted to. They wanted to show that they were willinly pronouncing their status and rebelling against the French.

I think what Cromer was trying to say by his quote that the veil was “the fatal obstacle” standing in the way of Egyptian mens attainment of that elevation of thought and character which should accompany the introduction of Western civilization” is that he views the veil as a demeaning tool which puts women inferior to men. If this tool is still active it is then hard to introduce Western civilization which tries to emphasize equality amongst men and women. I think it directly relates to both Jack Straw and Tony Blair because I think all these men think that the veil seperates, isolates, and is forced upon those who wear it.

I agree with Dena that what Cromer meant by the statement was primarily linked to the gender equality issue that was seen as a valued ideal of Western civilization. He thought that by wearing the veils the country as a whole was not embracing modernity and would leave them falling behind as the rest of the world "progressed". He overlooked the fact that there are many different reasons that women where the veil and choosing to wear it does not necesarily mean that they are outwardly showing that they feel they are inferior to men.

I understand how people can perceive the veil as being nothing more than a way to separate and inhibit women, but I think these people are missing the fact that many women wear a veil in the same way others wear a cross around their neck. You could argue that yamikas separate men from Jewish women. In some cases, the veil is used as a means to suppress, but I don't believe that is the majority.
While reading this text, I agreed with the women that it is their choice, but I didn't understand why they would choose to do so. That changed at the end when one women said that when she gets up in the morning, she doesn't worry about her hair or clothes while other women struggle with such insiginificant issues. This really shows the cultural blind spots of the west.

I found the veil as a symbolism for feminism very insightful, especially that veiled woman do not have to worry about catering to men and society's demands to be more sexual. The difference between how Ahmed discusses veils and the way mass media usually shows them as a symbolism for radical Islam and female repression, I was reminded yet again of how flawed our perception of the world through media actually is. Now I can see that woman who wear veils may be wearing them for many other reasons than religious symbolism.

I read a cartoon last week from the MNDaily that showed a picture of a nun and a Muslim woman and on the nun it said Pious and for the Muslim woman it said oppressed. I thought it was interesting how they both have a complete covering over themselves and yet one is oppressed and one is religious or self-righteous. I thought it seemed somewhat relevant to this veil debate.

I personally think it is up to the individual whether they want to wear the veil or not. whether they are comfortable with it or convicted about it does not make a difference because it is their personal choice. There are definitely multiple sides to the veil issue though. It is complicated and is not a right or wrong solution.

I had a Muslim friend that never wore a veil, but after a year long visit to Egypt, she started wearing one everyday. She said that she had gotten in touch with her heritage and religion while she was there and that she wore the veil as a gesture of faith, appreciation and as a reminder of the faith in her life. It had nothing to do with oppression or male desire. It was all about a personal declaration of faith. She also mentioned the thing about hair that Eleanor mentioned. That, and she liked matching the color with the color of her shoes!:)

I think Americans like to view the veil as a negative tool of oppression and woman's rights because it makes them uncomfortable. I'm not up to brush with enforcement of the the veil in the Middle East, but for women wearing it in this country, it seems to be a message of personal identity and pride.

I thought this article was both confusing and interesting at the same time. What was most interesting was what wearing the veil meant to the person wearing it and the person seeing it. It all depends on the different person’s views, and the right mix of views could still have the same end result. That may seem confusing, but an example is that someone could wear the veil in order to possibly be defiant or also to be more part of their own group. People could also see this as them being defiant or trying to be part of their own group. Also people who do not wear it could be defiant against oppression, etc. So the outsider could see the person wearing it and think they are defiant even though the person wants to in order to show her culture. It could go any way, and I thought that was both interesting and confusing.

I never gave much thought to the significance of the veil in spite of seeing people wearing the veil. To me it just meant a religious statement but after reading the article, it seems much more of defiance and identity than religion. Its their wish if they want to wear it or not and i find it weird that people who have never known the significance of the veil culture comment on it. Its not just the author or the people she mentioned in her essay, but any random person on the street has an opinion on whether wearing the veil should be allowed or not. I think in a country where freedom of expression is something we are expected to be accustomed with, wearing the veil is just that; freedom of expression.