(a man wearing a Keffiyeh)
(Rachel Ray and Scarf)
In fact, the Palestinian Keffiyeh became a symbol of nationalism stemming from its use by farmers in rural Palestine who often wore it, more out of utility than as a symbol. Their tie to the land creates an obvious association that led such an accessory to symbolize this state’s nationalism.
To the extent that it can be associated with Yasser Arafat and his policies, the scarf can be associated with T. E. Lawrence, Orientalism and with being a tool for keeping sand out of one’s face (amongst other survival uses). Mr. Arafat was often pictured wearing the scarf, in what became somewhat of a trademark. T. E. Lawrence, also known as “Lawrence of Arabia”, champion of the Arab revolt, helped unite a fractured Arab people and oust their Ottoman occupiers. The image of him wearing a Keffiyeh has been etched into history along side his remarkable accomplishments in uniting and leading the Arab force in revolt. The Orientalist movement also depicted this scarf in its artwork, influencing Europeans’ perception of the Near East for centuries, whether for good or for bad. (The scholar Edward Said has written extensively about the adverse effects of Orientalism on the West’s past perception of the region) In essence, the link between terrorism and a scarf is comparable to that between a neck-tie and capitalism. Although one can try to relate a neck-tie to CEOs etc. generally, it is really only an accessory used by most men (and some women) for the purpose of formal dressing, and in fact embodies to no degree an economic ideology.
(T. E. Lawrence)Like Che’s face on the front of countless T-shirts, the Keffiyeh has become more than a symbol. Unlike how jihad actually means “struggle” but in the Western world has come to be associated entirely with religious war, the Keffiyeh has become occidentally incorporated as a fashion statement. It is unlikely that most of those wearing the sometimes ubiquitous t-shirt actually have an appreciation or understanding of the revolutionary movements Che led in Cuba, Bolivia and the Congo, his education in medicine, the influence a motorcycle trip around South America had on him, or the influence he had on such people as Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela and Jean-Paul Sartre. He was not only a symbol of a socialist revolution, but one of the most important figures of the last 60 years. To be honest, I don’t really know why so many people chose to wear his face on their chest. It can be assumed that he would not be in acquiescence with the marketing tool that one photograph has become. But I digress…
(Che, pre-revolutionary)
The importance of emphasizing the Keffiyeh in all of its significances is how it fails to evoke terrorism. Whether its traditional implications are recognized, its usage by important historical figures appreciated or there is a complete disassociation and its value as an apolitical fashion accessory appreciated, it is simple-minded, and dare I say, uninformed or ignorant to reduce the scarf to a symbol of terrorism.
Equating the scarf with terrorism, or rather insisting upon stemming its use as it evokes terrorism, suggests a level of causality that this scarf has somehow led to terrorism. Further, Pants were probably also a “regular adornment” of terrorists in the above-mentioned videos; I suppose their propensity for causing terrorism is yet to be determined. Yet, the purpose served of the Keffiyeh in this instance, that of nationalism, is the same purpose a flag serves when it flies above an army base in Iraq, or in the form of a pin on the President’s lapel when he delivers a speech. It represents a set of values. Though a flag, or similar symbols such as the scarf, does manifest a state’s policies, such a symbol used by discordants can sever this manifestation. The flag loses its nationalist connection.
Though symbols can change their significance as with the abovementioned Che example, it takes a plurality of people. A symbol’s meaning is held with this majority, a group that has an understanding of the meaning behind such symbols, and a realization of when such a symbol is erroneously used, such as by discordants. When the majority opinion changes, the symbol changes it’s meaning. Until that moment, a misused symbol becomes a glaring error or beacon of misrepresentation rather than something furthering a minority cause, as in the example of terrorism. Consequently, rather than retain this inaccurate beacon status, the flag or scarf retains its original significance.
The Dunkin Donuts reaction to the Keffiyeh does not accurately reflect the scarf as it is seen by a plurality of people. (Especially amongst those who use it) Instead, it represents a major misinterpretation and a complete wrongful association of a symbol to a cause.
In sum, Dunkin Donuts should be more concerned about the deaths it causes from its own products than those it causes from the support it supposedly rallies behind Rachel Ray’s scarf. Who is the real terrorist? Don’t answer that…
-HG
(click here for more information from the BBC)
No comments:
Post a Comment