"Seeing Red" - The "intifada" word
In bullfights, to get a bull to charge, the matador waves a red cape in front of it. Supposedly, when the bull sees red, it becomes enraged. Similarly, among humans, certain words cause people to “see red†and become enraged. The words that evoke this response differ among different people. The word “intifada†is one of those words that leads certain people to “see red.â€
When people “see red,†they often become so caught up in their emotions that they are blind to anything other than the red-caped word in front of them. This is because the red triggers their instinctual fight-or-flight reaction. Physiologically, when we are in fight-or-flight mode, our focus is narrowed to what we see as the source of danger. Looking thus through tunnel vision, we are unable to see all of the other data that is available. We frame the situation through the narrowed context of the angry and fearful emotions triggered by the word.
This fight-or-flight response is a great mechanism to protect humans from actual physical danger. Unfortunately, it has become an obstacle to creating connections across differences. When we see red, we stop asking questions and either go on the offensive, attacking the person who uttered the word that we find offensive, or become defensive, distancing ourselves from the person and building up walls to keep them away.
If we are ever going to be able to work through our differences, we need to be able to sit in dialogue together without resorting to either fighting or fleeing. Both of these responses result in further disconnection rather than enhanced understanding and, eventually, peace.
While I understand that the word “intifada†may be offensive to a number of people, it is unfortunate that the fact that it made them “see red†led to the resignation of Debbie Almontaser, the Khalil Gibran International Academy’s founding principal.
When we experience ourselves and others seeing red, we have to find ways to override our tendencies to enter into fight-or-flight mode so we can engage each other in ongoing dialogue to overcome our differences, rather than in debate which serves to intensify them.
The way to stay in dialogue and out of debate is to share our stories. Hearing each other’s stories can provide us with a broader, more complete context and framework for perceiving and experiencing the world. When we engage in debate over the “facts,†we remain in opposition to each other because we bring different frameworks to the same set of facts. It is only through sharing our stories that we can transcend our differences and become open to different perspectives on the same set of ‘facts.â€
Daniel Taylor, Ph.D., in his book, The Healing Power of Stories: Creating Yourself Through the Stories of Your Life, writes about the benefit of sharing our stories:
“Story is our best hope for flying over the chasms that separate individuals, races, genders, ages (and ages), cultures, classes, and the myriad other differences that render us unique (and potentially lonely).†(p. 12)
If the individuals and groups who were offended by the word “intifada†had called for dialogue about it rather than seeing red and demanding Debbie’s resignation, we could have had an chance to learn from each other and find common ground and connection.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Bigotry | connection | dialogue | healing | Intifada | Khalil Gibran International Academy | Metaphor | Racism | story
Whose Sensitivities
Submitted by Deborah Howard on 12 September 2007 - 8:27pm.
I find it interesting that you refer to the "sensitivies of the greater community" within which the Khalil Gibran International Academy. Who determines which communities' sensitivities trump whose?
For starters, Debbie never used the word, tried to defend its use or explain it away. She was asked point-blank what the word meant in Arabic and answered that question.
Second, while the word is offensive to some, it is empowering to others. So whose sensitivities trump whose?
Deb
Deborah Howard
Author of Repairing the Quilt of Humanity: A Metaphor for Healing and Reparation (Available on Amazon)
Guiding Change Consulting
Guiding Transformative Change Through Insight, Inspiration and Empowerment
www.guidingchange.org
Okay, you lost me
Submitted by mole333 on 12 September 2007 - 8:56pm.
Well, for one, I am part of the greater community, given that the school is in my neighborhood. My daughter was going to the Middle School there until she got into Hunter.
So, who gets to determine who is the greater community? Well, lots of people. Those who live in the area. Those whose kids go to the schools there. And all taxpayers in the city. My family happens to be part of the larger community and have been more or less supportive...until we start being required to accept "infitada" as acceptable.
As to the word, I am sorry, it implies something very specific in the context of the Israel/Palestine issue. And it is a specific meaning that will alienate a large numeber of New Yorkers whose tax money are supporting the school, myself included. You want to alienate us, fine. You want a dialogue, try listening to what we are saying rather than getting all high and mighty and questioning our right to weigh in on this issue.
You want us to engage in dialogue, yet you don't seem willing yourself to do so.
Whose sensitivities trump whose? Well, I am not advocating a special Israel studies school paid for by all New York tax payers. Those who want a special Arab studies school paid for by taxpayer money might want to make sure they aren't pissing off those taxpayers who pay the bill.
Being Able to Weigh in is the Issue
Submitted by Deborah Howard on 15 September 2007 - 8:45am.
I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think. If I have in any way indicated that there is no reason for some people to find the word "intifada" offensive, I am sorry. That has not been my intention.
I have been trying to point out the different layers and the complexities in this entire situation. At the individual level- in terms of Debbie - the injustice is that she never condoned or approved the word and yet that is the message that the press has been putting out as if it were fact.
At the group level, different groups have vastly different feelings about what the word means and that makes sense based on their respective world views and experiences. I have not been arguing for or against any particular meaning. Rather, I have been trying to point out that at the systemic level, there is injustice when one groups' meaning (when that group happens to have more societal power) trumps others.
Deb
Deborah Howard
Author of Repairing the Quilt of Humanity: A Metaphor for Healing and Reparation (Available on Amazon)
Guiding Change Consulting
Guiding Transformative Change Through Insight, Inspiration and Empowerment
www.guidingchange.org
Complexity
Submitted by mole333 on 15 September 2007 - 9:54am.
It is complex. And I do think Debbie got a raw deal and perhaps didn't make that clear enough.
As to the use of words, I do think sometimes on the systemic level one meaning does have to trump because ALL meanings are conveyed when a word is used. Let's take the words "Crusade" and "Jihad." When Bush used the word "Crusade" to describe the war I felt it was a HUGE mistake whatever his personal meaning was becauase the message to most of the world was to suggest that he was fighting all of Islam. Similarly, when a Muslim uses the word Jihad, it conveys violence to a big chunk of the world. Both words have multiple meanings, but the fact that they have HUGELY aggressive and violent connotations means that a public figure has to use them very carefully.
Zionism is another complex word. I consider myself a moderate Zionist because I do support Israel. But Zionism can also suggest an anti-Palestine meaning which I do not intend, so I usually qualify any use of the word. I am not a "from the river to the sea" Zionist and I know I have to make that clear if I call myself Zionist.
I think the word should not be the main focus of debate. The main focus should be on two things: a.) is the establishment of the school a positive thing for the NY educational system? (I personally think a system wide diversity program would be better) and b.) how much of the opposition is mere xenophobia against Muslims (I suspect a good deal of it is). Quality of education and countering xenophobia should be the focus of the debate.
Ahem.
Submitted by Bouldin on 12 September 2007 - 4:22pm.
You're missing a critical point here: people don't find the usage of the term 'intifada' in New York offensive because they haven't sat around in a drum circle long enough sharing their feelings over a cup of organic tea.
They find it offensive because the intifada killed a good number of people, many or most of them Jews and some of them Americans. "Killed", as in "people are now dead".
Death, I suggest, isn't overcome or made less permanent by the sharing of "stories". Personally, I'm not interested in intifada "stories".
Thank you.
Once again, who chooses the meaning?
Submitted by Deborah Howard on 12 September 2007 - 8:47pm.
Once again, this boils down to a question of whose definition is seen as the "truth." It is clear that many individuals equate the word intifada with violence and acts of terrorism. But, that is not the only meaning given to the word. For many other people, the word is used to describe the civil disobedience and mass demonstrations in Palestine in response to the Israeli occupation.
Just as history is told from the perspective of the victor, the "correct" meaning of words is determined by those with societal power. If the British had won the war, the American Revolution would have been described as a terrorist rebellion.
I am not trying to advocate for one meaning over another. I am trying to say that it is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. And, by failing to stand behind Debbie, the Department of Education was in effect taking a stand in favor of one definition over others. It was (possibly unintentionally) sending out a message about who has power and who can be silenced.
Deb
Deborah Howard
Author of Repairing the Quilt of Humanity: A Metaphor for Healing and Reparation (Available on Amazon)
Guiding Change Consulting
Guiding Transformative Change Through Insight, Inspiration and Empowerment
www.guidingchange.org
Doesn't matter.
Submitted by Bouldin on 13 September 2007 - 12:36am.
Sure, words have shades of meaning. That doesn't mean that your approval is required when people make up their minds what to think about them. To me, intifada means 'violent uprising' and 'dead Jews'. And that is unacceptable, even if other meanings of the word are 'flowerpot' for all that I care.
I'm sorry, but your response tells me exactly why Almontaser was fired. You proclaim the need to respect 'other narratives' without understanding that words have meanings, or that people may reach conclusions that differ from yours. What you're doing is denying other people the right to act on their narratives.
Not everyone has to get along, Deb. And I have no intention whatsoever of accepting the term 'intifada' in discourse as anything other than what it is, which happens to involve dead Jews. Me, I'm not going to accept dead Jews, no matter how much PC hogwash such acceptance comes draped in. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. End of story.
I actually also happen to think that Almontaser got a raw deal. But it's becoming ever clearer why this happened, and I'm not surprised at all.
It's Not About Acceptance
Submitted by Deborah Howard on 15 September 2007 - 9:08am.
In talking about different meanings, I wasn't trying to advocate that you or anyone else should accept, a different meaning for the word "intifada" than the one you hold. Sorry if that was the way it sounded.
I was trying, perhaps inartfully, to talk about how certain things play out at different levels.
At the individual level, Debbie was blamed for having accepted or approved of the word intifada when that simply is not the case. That is an injustice.
Also at the individual level, when you and anyone else takes a specific meaning from a word, I would not tell you that the meaning you take from it is wrong. And if you make a personal decision about it, that is your personal choice.
Similarly, at the group level, different groups with different world views and experiences will, naturally, take different meanings from the same word.
For me, the injustice occurs when at the systemic level ( the level of the Mayor and the DOE), one group's meaning (the group with more societal and political power) trumps others.
Deb
Deborah Howard
Author of Repairing the Quilt of Humanity: A Metaphor for Healing and Reparation (Available on Amazon)
Guiding Change Consulting
Guiding Transformative Change Through Insight, Inspiration and Empowerment
www.guidingchange.org
Different take
First off, let me say that I have been horrified by the nature of the opposition to the Khalil Gibran International Academy. I had reservations about it, but not because of what it offered so much as I am not sure I like the idea of a specific school for that purpose rather than a system wide diversity program. Or some such.
And, from what I have heard, Debbie Almontaser would have made a good principal.
But...
Seeing red can, under some circumstances, be perfectly understandable. Even if it isn't the most constructive approach, it is normal human behavior and there are circumstances it should be anticipated. Those in positions of responsibility MUST be able to anticipate such situations.
If you are founding a controversial school focused on Arab cultre that many are trying to (wrongly) portray as some kind of quasi-Madrash, the word "infitada" can be anticipated to cause problems for you. The very use of the word in a city like NYC can be expected to push buttons. Debbie Almontaser should have expected that it would cause a storm of protest and should have been prepared for it.
There are loaded words out there. Whenever any of us choose to use them, explain them, defend their use, whatever, we are stepping on difficult territory. I have done so at times, though usually deliberately. If Debbie Almontaser did it deliberately, it was a miscalculation. If she did it unintentionally, it shows something of a lack of appreciation for the feelings of the wider community within which the Khalil Gibran International Academy will exist. Either way, I think she erred. If nothing else, she gave ample ammo to those who opposed the acadamy.
I do not think the solution was to appoint a Jew to lead the Khalil Gibran International Academy. That seems almost like a slap in the other direction. Though it also could be a way to diffuse the community's concerns (justified or not).
You say that those who were offended should have called for a dialogue. Perhaps that is true. But I would say that those who wanted the Khalil Gibran International Academy should also consider the sensitivities of the greater community within which it will function.