http://www.thetoyzone.com/10-of-the-most-racist-toys-ever-made/

No before you ask I don’t agree with what any of these toys say - I have just compiled the list for the interest of you my readers.

1. Golly Wog

An English toy based on a 1885 book with a character of the same name. Many people still believe that the toy is a relic of an earlier time when racism against black people was blatant. Recently the Supermodel Naiomi Cambell assaulted airline staff after reportedly being called a ‘Golliwog supermodel’

Read more: http://www.ferris.edu

2. Chop Suey Specs

Made famous recently on Reddit - these spectacles manage to both amuse and offend at the same time.
Thanks to: 1990 Toys

3. Jogo Dos Grooms

A Portuguese game that involved shooting black soldiers with anything you could lay your hands on.

4. Darkey in a watermelon

The advert describes the toy: “Upon opening the watermelon which is made of papier mache, is found a little pickaninany, southern darky with cloth diaper fasted with miniature safety pin and small nursing bottle. His white eyes flash the whole face indicated perfect happiness.”

Thanks to: http://www.flickr.com

5. Dapper Dan the Coon Jigger

Not to be confused with the not-so-racist “Dapper Dan” that is currently available at Dapper Dan

6. Always did spise a mule

This was a mechanical bank popular in the late nineteenth century. The bank portrays an African American man riding a mule that, when pushed, throws the rider over it’s head as the coin goes into the bank. Displayed a violence against blacks that was acceptable at the time, and was also thought of as “fun”.

Thanks to: http://antiques-internet.com

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
p\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
v\:textbox {display:none;}

7. Hitler’s Limousine

Whilst not as obviously racist as the rest of the toys it ain’t something your is kid is going to take to “show and tell”

Thanks to: www.tommcmahon.net

8. Barack Obama Sock Puppet

Racist toys are not just the play things of our grandparents. This monkey sock puppet of American Presidential hopeful “Barack Obama” was only released last month! (thankfully it’s no longer available for sale)

Thanks to: http://nymag.com

9. Greedy Nigger Boy

The racist intent is so obvious with this item, I am shocked that this used to be gift for young children!

Thanks to: http://www.flickr.com

10. Nigger make-up

The Advert says it all:

“The Outfit comprises a black stocking mask that can be slipper over the head in a moment, odd eyes, buck teeth and banana plantation straw hat.”

July 21, 2008

Racist Humor or Just Racism at the New Yorker?

Remnick’s Latest Blunder

By ISHMAEL REED

Undoubtedly, David Remnick is a good editor, but he sometimes exercises poor judgement. He says that we met while I taught at the University of California at Berkeley. I don’t remember. I first noticed him when he wrote a review of one of my novels, ”The Terrible Twos,” for The Washington Post. In it, he cited a typo that appeared in the uncorrected galleys to condemn the book.

For his book about Muhammad Ali, ”The King of the World, “he received the now defunct Don Imus American Book Award. Rather than reject the prize as a protest against Don Imus’ history of Anti-Semitic tirades, he accepted the award, and when he appeared on the Imus show, the host and his co-horts ridiculed him. Ironically, The New Yorker is a magazine that denounced Minister Louis Farrakhan as an anti-Semite. Maestro Michael Morgan of the Oakland Symphony, who conducted violinist Farrakhan in a performance of one of Mendelssohn’s violin concerto – he said that he wanted to make up in music what he could not say in words- told me that Farrakhan cooperates with local Rabbis to keep their neighborhood crime free, and for years has had a Jewish woman give him violin lessons. Maybe the minister should establish a book award and give one to Remnick.

When Jane Mayer, one of Remnick’s writers, appeared on C-Span, I asked her about the propriety of Remnick taking $100, 00 from Imus. She responded by saying that Remnick wasn’t a racist. She seemed really agitated. Of course, I hadn’t called him that.

Things have improved slightly for African-American writers under Remnick’s editorship. I’ve seen poems by Yusef Komunyaka and Cornelius Eady published there. A poem of mine was published.

A short story by William Melvin Kelley has appeared and they have a regular black contributor, Hilton Als. There have also been features about African-American artists including Sonny Rollins and Kara Walker, but, like other progressive and liberal publications, some of which, like Rolling Stone and The Nation, have endorsed Barack Obama, ninety five percent of The New Yorker writers are white males. In fact, Fox News has more black contributors than The New Yorker, NPR, Rolling Stone and The Nation, which still lists me as a contributor even though I haven’t had anything published there in years and have never been invited on one of their yacht cruises.

Certainly, conditions aren’t as bad for African-American men and black and white women at The New Yorker as they were in the old days when Harold Ross was at the helm. He was so racist that, according to the book, “Genius In Disguise: Harold Ross of the New Yorker” by ThomasKunkel, Ross wouldn’t even hire blacks as messengers.

When I was in elementary school, my grandmother, a domestic, used to bring home copies of The New Yorker from the homes where she was employed. I remember the cartoons depicting blacks as cannibals, with bones in their noses boiling whites in a cauldron, the kind of image that New Yorker cartoonist, Robert Crumb, has re introduced with his Angelfood McSpade, his bone-in-the-nose cartoon black woman who goes about licking toilets and saying things like “ Ah gots de biggests tits in town, “the kind of line that Richard Price and David Simon put into the mouths of their black characters and the image of Africa that we still get on CNN and he Sunday New York Times Magazine.

But now Remnick finds himself embroiled in a controversy and though the majority of those polled, black and white, found the cartoon about the Obamas offensive, he has plenty of defenders including a writer for New York magazine, which regularly features blacks as criminals and thugs, members of the Imus Alumni, and Hitler fan Pat Buchanan and even Joan Walsh of Salon. com. Some of the critics of the cartoon, including the Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel justify it’s appearance on First Amendment grounds. The controversy has been discussed on cable for days with the usual panels, mostly white, and a few Colored Mind Doubles like Bush supporter, Rev. Eugene Rivers, whose background hasn’t been vetted by MSNBC; they should read Boston Magazine.

This is the man that MSNBC uses to slime black leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. The Bush adminstration and the media has attempted to impose Rivers upon blacks as a leader without success.

Most of the talking heads don’t know the difference between a caricature, a satire, a lampoon and a parody.

Remnick, says that The New Yorker cartoon about Barack Obama as a Muslim president and Michelle as his Black Power spouse was meant to ridicule the unfounded rumors about the candidate, yet the intention of the cartoonist, Barry Blitt, is unclear.

Using Remnick’s argument, suppose that In order to combat the ancient slander that the Jews kidnapped Christian children for ritualistic purposes, The New Yorker did a cartoon of Sen. Joseph Lieberman attired in streimel, black clothes and shawl and his wife Hadassah attired in wig and long black skirt draining the blood of Christian child to be used for Passover. Do you suppose that there’d be arguments about First Amendment rights were such a cartoon to appear?

And what about Remnick’s defenders, who argue that The New Yorker has a history of printing bold and in-your-face cartoons.

When Henry Louis Gates Jr. edited a 1996 black issue of The New Yorker, some black cartoonists said they were censored by Tina Brown, the then editor.

The Village Voice printed a letter from famed black cartoonist Barbara Brandon in which she complained about The New Yorker magazine’s buying cartoons from 8 black cartoonists but not using them. The Voice printed Ms. Brandon’s rejected cartoon. It showed a white woman angrily reproaching a black woman. She says to a black woman,”Why don’t you get off your butt and get a job.” In the next panel the black woman is sitting at a desk and the white woman says,”Hey, wait a minute. I wanted that job.” This cartoon was turned down by Tina Brown for being”more difficult for people to handle than had been anticipated.” Ms. Brandon answered that being a black cartoonist who made The New Yorker“nervous” was better than being published in The New Yorker.

As for the claim that The New Yorker has a tradition of printing outrageous political cartoons, Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize- winning cartoonist, who defended the Obama cartoon, said that he quit The New Yorker in February 2003 because, “The New Yorker was marching to the same beat as The New York Times. “He said he had trouble getting his anti-Bush cartoons printed there.

While Gates was hired by former editor Tina Brown to denounce Minister Louis Farrakhan, Robert Crumb, a cartoonist whose cartoons have been considered so racist that they have earned a spot at the Jim Crow Museum online at Ferris State U., and at least one was reprinted by a Neo-Nazi magazine, according to Art Speigelman in an interview with Gary Groth, is a regular New Yorker cartoonist. He’s found a home there. Even did a cover. One of his cartoons shows a black power dictator murdering the white president while the white first lady fellates him. The title of the cartoon is “When The Niggers Take Over America.”Take a look at it. Google Robert Crumb “When The Niggers Take Over America. ”It’s accompanied by a cartoon entitled “When The Goddam Jews Take Over America. “

Finally, Harold Ross, The New Yorker’s founder, said that”Coons are either funny or dangerous,” according to”Here at the New Yorker” by Brendan Gill.

I guess the Obama cartoon was supposed to be funny.

Ishmael Reed is the editor of Konch. His new book,”Mixing It Up, Taking On The Media Bullies,” was published this month by De Capo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

THE DARK KNIGHT ASCENDS

**** [4 STARS]

[NO SPOILERS]

The Dark Knight boldly deconstructs and resurrects the superhero movie, confidently allowing the comic book genre to soar beyond superficial assumptions and transcend new heights as a legitimate, epic, philosophical narrative. The highly anticipated sequel to Batman Begins is surely not without its faults and not quite a “masterpiece,” but nonetheless it rightfully breaks new ground in tackling the much derided and mocked “comic” culture with a mature, intense sophistication; one that refuses to carelessly disavow the question, “What if a billionaire really did fight crime dressed like a giant bat?” Talented and intelligent filmmaker Christopher Nolan answers the question as philosophical meditation on morality, with an ethical code and moral boundaries as defining the nature of heroism and identity all amidst the vast backdrop of an old fashioned crime “epic” – oh, and with tons of massive explosions and excellent special effects, too.

It’s precisely the cast and filmmakers’ intense dedication in sculpting the movie into something “more” than just “pulp” that makes The Dark Knight successful on so many different levels. In lesser hands [Joel Schumacher, ahem, cough], the production would resemble a garish, cartoonish parade blowing millions on a formulaic “good hero vs. colorful villain” narrative, which would be easily digested and just as easily forgotten by the time the audience walked to their cars. Wisely, the filmmakers acknowledge and celebrate the comic medium as a landscape of the fantastic that can embody and personify very real human idealizations of heroism, bravery, tyranny and sacrifice.

Indeed, some suggest that comic books have become the pop culture equivalent of modern day “mythology.” As illustrated in Joseph Campbell’s seminal work, Hero of a Thousand Faces, each culture, regardless of its religion or government, defines for itself an archetypal hero: an embodiment of those virtuous characteristics that make him a “super man,” an ideal, yet unattainable, model; a symbol; a legend. The hero, however, truly defines himself only when juxtaposed to his opposite – the Manichean duplicate whose existence, behavior and ideology is his complete antithesis. Thus, we witness the emergence of the “super villain:” the yin to the hero’s yang, the other face of the same coin, a terrifying reflection of what the hero could become if he abandons his code and virtue. One needs the other to define itself, and society, ultimately, needs both as archetypes existing at opposite ends of the “moral” gamut.

With this construct in play, we are introduced to Batman’s foil, his arch nemesis The Joker, inhabited brilliantly by the late Heath Ledger who literally channels the spirit of comic’s most terrifying, anarchic, murderous sociopath. After having successfully created the “legend” and symbol of “The Batman” in Batman Begins, the brothers Nolan, Director Christopher and co-writer Jonathan, introduce The Joker as a literal agent of “chaos” and deconstruction, whose existence is disorder personified. At the end of this Joker’s “dance of death” with Gotham City and its inhabitants, the legend of Batman that was systematically and carefully created to inspire hope and heroism is all but shattered.

Like Nero – only with a knife and handgun instead of a fiddle – the Joker desires to see the world burn, especially those sanctimonious, goody two shoes arbitrators of morality and “justice,” personified by Commissioner Gordon (Played to subtle perfection by Gary Oldman), Assistant DA Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gylenhall replacing Katie Holmes), and specifically District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), the square jawed “White Knight” who represents the City’s best hope in legitimately and successfully fighting crime. The introduction of Dent allows Nolan to play with a symbolic “triptych” that he frequently uses throughout the movie: the love triangle between Bruce Wayne-Rachel Dawes-Harvey Dent; The Icons of Order represented by Batman-Lt. Gordon- DA Harvey Dent; and, finally, The Model of Hero and Villain personified by the superego (good) of Batman – the raging id (bad) of the Joker – and the duplicitous ego of Two Face (the ugly.)

In fact, Nolan has stressed in interviews that Harvey Dent is the thematic core of The Dark Knight, whereas the more colorful Joker zig zags throughout the movie like the shark from Jaws, a boogeyman, agent of chaos. Eckhart does a commendable job in his transformation from the idealistic, brazen Harvey Dent to the tortured and tragically demented Two-Face. If Batman and Joker represent opposite sides of the spectrum, Two-Face is their unholy bastard child forever torn between each “parent.” Towards the end of the movie, The Joker himself acknowledges that his legacy is “Two Face” – his “avenging angel.”

It’s precisely this agonizing, brooding theme of “identity” and nuanced morality that makes Nolan perfect for this job. The Nolan brothers are, quite simply, obsessed with “obsession” and the tragic sacrifices it requires and the toilsome burden it reaps. The obsession is usually mirrored by an opposite, a similarly placed individual who usually “oversteps” the boundaries. Nolan examined this most recently in the highly entertaining The Prestige, starring Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman as dueling magicians, whose near insane rivalry wreaks havoc on all who enter their lives. Ultimately, the “heroes,” if you can call them that, are defined not by what they do, but what they aren’t willing to do: murder and kidnap In Insomnia, Nolan examined the gray fog that barely separates the line between hero (Al Pacino’s well intentioned but corrupt cop) and villain (Robin Williams’ unassuming murderer.) In Nolan’s most celebrated movie Memento, the amnesia afflicted protagonist knowingly makes a decision to believe a lie in order to “exist” with a righteous purpose; namely, to destroy his foil, the corrupt cop, played by Joey Pantoliano, who uses the protagonist’s amnesia for selfish, criminal purposes.

How does a hero define himself amidst a world gone mad? Does he crack and join the ranks of the madmen? Or, does he endure and rise above it? That’s Batman’s test, as scripted by the Joker, in a series of elaborate “games” throughout the movie, and his difficult choices result in him being symbolically labeled “The Dark Knight,” which, by the way, doesn’t occur until the final moments. The Joker, through his seemingly impulsive and psychotic, yet quite deliberate, actions, believes that in an insane world only the insane man is the truly sane. His disdain for order is only outmatched by his love for anarchy. Ledger with his hollow eyes, maniacal grin and cheap, cracked face paint deserves accolades – and an Oscar nomination – for creating one of the most memorable villains of the 21^st century. He’s a magnetic presence, one that is equally charismatic and fascinating, but also oppressive and frightening as an assured harbinger of chaos and death. In fact, Ledger’s role finally brings to life the true depravity and villainy of The Joker known only to comic fans; this is not an amusing, flamboyant clown as portrayed by Jack Nicholson (which I enjoyed); in fact, if you’re laughing at or with the Joker, it’s a sure sign that either you should be admitted to Arkham Asylum or the actor and director has truly f’d up in the execution [no pun intended.]. Although the Joker makes significant appearances in the film’s first act, it isn’t until the second act that his true mayhem is unleashed, and not surprisingly, this tightened focus represents the high point of The Dark Knight.

The movie itself is 2 hours and 32 minutes and in equal measures a variation of an epic crime drama in the vein of Heat and The Departed, a solid police procedural reminiscent of Law and Order, and a big budget, Summer E-ticket experience. Nolan, in a determined effort to make Batman as “real” as possible, substitutes Chicago as Gotham City, a wise move that cements his fantasy in the grit, dirt and modern sheen of a modern day, metropolitan city. Batman even goes global, making a daredevil crash landing into a Hong Kong skyscraper to retrieve a villain. Again, this is executed on an ambitious narrative landscape, where dozens of characters and stories are inevitably intertwined with the fate of the city in the hands of a methodically deranged villain.

Nolan admits to being influenced by Jeph Loeb’s The Long Halloween graphic novel and Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke, both excellent and highly influential works greatly expanding the Batman mythology. Halloween’s labyrinthine, gangster narrative is used to by Nolan to create a Gotham as a city whose mobster criminals are forced to go “underground” with the emergence of “Batman.” It also uses the novel’s introduction and transformation of Harvey Dent as Two Face: a passionate and honest cop, whose zeal barely conceals a simmering demon waiting to be unleashed. Moore’s work, The Killing Joke, is used to establish the endless “dance” between Batman and The Joker, two foils who realize their “relationship” can only end with the other’s inevitable death. During a fantastic jail cell confrontation scene, Ledger’s Joker tells Batman with utmost sincerity: “You complete me.” Towards the end, he remarks, “Why would I ever kill you? You’re too much fun!” Frank Miller, author of the landmark “The Dark Knight Returns,” hit the nail on the head in characterizing The Joker. In his dystopian vision, the Joker becomes comatose after the alleged death of “The Batman.” Only after Batman re-emerges from several years of exile does Joker also “awaken,” again enticing the now renegade and unhinged Batman to a final duel: challenging the Batman by forcing him to “break” his golden rule of never committing murder. Knowing Bats will never break, the Joker subsequently mocks him, reminding him of how many innocents he could have saved and still save – since it’s inevitable the Joker will only escape from jail – if only Batman had killed him. [Batman does “break” in Miller’s version and in the process breaks The Joker’s spine.]

It’s that same taunt and game that Ledger’s Joker decides to play against Bale’s Batman. The movie, which is perhaps one of the most relentlessly intense exercises since James Cameron’s Aliens, personifies “escalation”: the warning given by Lt. Gordon at the end of Batman Begins suggesting Batman’s arrival can only ensure the emergence of an equally fantastic but ultimately depraved villain. After taking its time to establish its vast universe, filled with subplots, minor characters and thematic arcs, the movie explodes after the 75-minute mark and never relents. In fact, Nolan and company, especially Ledger, should be commended for creating such a sustained momentum steeped in pressure and tension, constantly confounding audience expectations, tightening the screws in our heroes’ dilemmas, and adding tragedy upon tragedy right up until the final credits. Major characters die, heroes turn into villains, and the body count rises – this is dark, mature and glorious terrain for the genre. After the movie is over, you’ll most likely feel exhausted; absolutely drained, which is both a sign of the film’s unrelenting tension and brutality, but also a testament to the high craftsmanship and skill of a truly cinematic experience. [Which, by the way, deserves to be seen on IMAX since 6 key action sequences were filmed, for the first time ever, on IMAX cameras.]

The movie is not perfect, however. The final twenty minutes seem unable to contain the numerous themes and characters in a suitably elegant fashion, and one can sense the seams bursting – but just a bit. One feels that Nolan had another ten minutes or so to nicely wrap the narrative arc, but the studios pressured him into a 2.5 hour time frame and forced some edits. I, for one, could’ve easily tolerated the extra 10 minutes, and the movie, as a whole, would have ended with a thunderous knockout instead of a series of frenetic jabs.

The ending suffers from that infectious malady known as “superhero narrative syndrome” where the audience knows the climactic battle will be between the “good guy” and “the bad guy,” and the action sequence involving sonar and the “dueling ferries,” although effective, lack the immediacy of earlier scenes. However, even though Nolan and all other directors of the genre are saddled with such a narrative anvil (Iron Man’s last perfunctory and formulaic 20 minutes come to mind), The Dark Knight is able to ascend the limitations precisely due to heavy consequences that each character bears as a result of their heroic, and costly, actions. The movie doesn’t give the audience a much-needed catharsis, allowing us to release the relentless death, gloom and unfairness of it all, but instead zooms (literally) ahead – paving the road for the final chapter in the (fingers crossed) trilogy. If Batman Begins created the symbol and legend of Batman, then The Dark Knight brilliantly smashes it into a million broken pieces. Even if they never make a third one, I have to thank the filmmakers’ vision in allowing me to dream and ask, “What if a billionaire really did fight crime dressed like a giant bat?”

Wajahat Ali is a Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and Attorney at Law, whose work, “The Domestic Crusaders” is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at wajahatmali@gmail.com

]]> http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/the-dark-knight-movie-review-the-dark-knight-ascends/feed/ http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/interview-with-shirin-ebadi-nobel-peace-prize-winner/ http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/interview-with-shirin-ebadi-nobel-peace-prize-winner/#comments Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:08:46 +0000 Wajahat Ali http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/?p=552

 PORTRAIT BY RUSTY ZIMMERMAN (www.rustyzimmerman.com/)

By Wajahat Ali and Omid Safi

For Americans, an Iranian human rights activist seems like the greatest oxymoron since military intelligence. However, Shirin Ebadi was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize precisely due to her unflinching and indefatigable commitment in advocating human rights and progressive reform on behalf of women, children and political dissidents. The 61-year-old Ebadi was the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to be honored with the prestigious prize. Recently, she was named one of the top 100 public intellectuals alive by Foreign Policy, and their reader poll, which brought in nearly 500,000 global votes, placed her at number 10 on the same list.  Despite her international influence and highly effective advocacy, Ebadi remains a controversial figure in Iran, primarily earning the ire of the current government due to her human rights complaints on behalf of political dissidents and minorities, such as members of the Ba’hai faith.

Despite threats and some hostile opposition, Ebadi soldiers on. Interestingly, she fiercely retains her identity and remains proudly “Iranian” and “Muslim” suggesting the proper interpretation and application of Islam is compatible with human rights, and that the Iranian people, unlike some notable personalities in the government, are yearning for progressive reform and enlightened change. In this exclusive interview, we discuss her most recent work with refugees in Iran, her reaction to hostile rhetoric against Iran by the United States, her uneasy relationship with the Iranian government, and how a correct interpretation of Islam can usher forth both democracy and human rights.

You just published a new book about the rights of refugees in Iran. Can you talk about the main issues discussed in your book?

Refugee Rights in Iran[1] is a book that I had written in Persian and that had already been published in Iran.  The book was brought to the attention of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).[2]  In particular, this is the first book written in Persian dealing with the rights of the refugees, a comparative study of the rights in Islam with individual human rights, and the legacy of refugees in Islam.   It is the first and only book in the Middle East written on this topic.  The UN High Commission for Refugees had this book translated into English and published it.   

A celebration for the release of this volume was held in London, under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and I was there to introduce this volume. [3]

The problem of the refugees, which I have discussed in the book, is that Iran has a large number of refugees.    The bulk of our refugees are Afghan, and to a smaller extent Iraqi.  The Afghan refugees are more numerous.  The reason for the large number goes back to the beginning of the Iranian revolution (1979), which was at the same time that the former Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan.  A large number of Afghans sought refuge in Iran.   Since the Iranian government was of the opinion that Islam recognizes no [national] borders, and that Iran is an Islamic homeland, it decided that we should open our borders to Muslims.    Therefore, the Iranian government permitted many Afghans to come to Iran.

In a short amount of time, many Afghans, about 4 million, came to Iran.    The Iranian government had in reality given them permission to enter the country, but issued immigration cards to only a very, very small number of them.    As a result, a large number of refugees lived in Iran, and continue to live in Iran, but without having all the legal papers and identity cards as refugees or legal residents of the country.   This has resulted in a large number of legal problems for these refugees—refugees that had come to Iran with the knowledge and implicit permission of the Iranian government. 

However, since they had no residency cards or legal documentations related to their refugee status, they could not obtain any legal, wage-paying jobs.   For example, they could not open a bank account to deposit their money.  They would get married, but had no way of officially registering their marriag

es.   They were living in the country, but in an illegal way, which has caused them a great deal of problems. 

In the United States we also face similar issues, particularly with Mexican and other Chicano refugees to the U.S., who have often bore the additional burden of racial prejudices directed at them.    Is there a similar challenge of racial prejudice faced by Afghan refugees?  How would you characterize the treatment Afghan refugees have received from the Iranian government and the Iranian people?

As I mentioned, the problems that confront the Afghan refugees arise from the improper behavior of the Iranian government.  For example, they could not enroll their children in Iranian schools.  This has resulted in the growth of poverty—both economic and cultural—among the Afghans who reside in Iran.

However, the sentiments of the Iranian people towards the Afghans are different:  they have sought to be of assistance to the Afghans.  There are a number of NGOs in Iran which try to defend the rights of the Afghan refugees.   For example, after the Iranian government had started to exile Afghans, the Iranian people and the defenders of human rights in Iran held large-scale demonstrations against this policy.

It seems like we are in a delicate situation:  on one hand when we look at the problems of the refugees, or consider the many criticisms that you yourself have made of the Iranian government, there are real challenges there to deal with.  On the other hand, we see that the American government continues to speak of “regime change” in Iran.  How do you think cultural, political, and social changes and transformations in Iran can take place in the midst of these opposing discourses?

Before I look at the type of the government and the name of the government, I examine how it treats people.  The correct treatment of a country’s citizen is conveyed through the upholding of human rights norms.

Therefore, from my perspective, any government that seeks to uphold the norms of human rights in terms of its dealing with people meets the criteria of being legal and acceptable.  And likewise, if any government, whatever it calls itself, whether secular or religious, seeks to trample human rights, then that regime does not meet the criterion of being legal or acceptable in my eyes.   The name of the government is not important for me:  the government’s upholding of the standards of human rights is.

In the recent United States presidential nomination campaigns, some, such as Senator Clinton, have spoken harshly against Iran, stating that if Iran continues to develop atomic energy, she would seek to “completely obliterate” Iran.   At the same time, we saw the military operations on behalf of Israel preparing for a strike against Iran.  In the meantime, we have also heard the comments of Elbaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stating if the military plans from Israel move forward, it would be catastrophic for the whole region. 

What do you think is the best possible set of relationships between Iran and United States at this time, being an election year in the United States?  As a representative of the Iranian people, how do you respond to words such as the ones from Senator Clinton or the actions of Israel?

I am of the opinion that war solves no problem and can solve no problem.   War, on the contrary, creates many new problems for the Middle East.  It also creates new problems for the American economy.    I am hopeful that the political differences between Iran and the United States can be solved through the path of dialogue and negotiations, and that this can lead to the normalization of our political relations.  

In my opinion, dialogue has to be direct, transparent, and at three levels:  civil society, parliamentary, and between heads of government.  In these dialogues, we have to be able to discuss issues of atomic energy, past political tensions between the two countries, but we also have to talk about the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran.

How do you see your own role as a person who has become an icon for supporters of human rights and women’s rights for many around the world, for many Muslims, and for many Iranians?  There are so many who project onto you their own hopes and aspirations.   What is the best way for the NGOs that are involved in issues of human rights and women’s rights to have a positive impact on Iran?   How do you see your own role in Iran today, and your own relations with the Iranian government?

Western NGOs can play a positive role in terms of democracy and human rights in Iran.   For coming together in terms of human rights, we don’t look to foreign governments.  But we do welcome intellectual assistance from NGOs and civil society from the West.   We are convinced that collaboration with Western civil societies can be very helpful.  

How can they help us?  By conveying the real news from Iran, not any rosier than it is, and not more bleak than it is, but what it actually is, to the people of the world.   That way popular opinion of the world community can be an ally for us.  We need moral and spiritual support.    Cultural exchange between civil societies of Iran and West, at the level of NGOs and universities, definitely needs to take place.

As to my own relationship with the Iranian government… I regret to say that it is not a positive relationship.  The Iranian government was not even willing to announce the news of me having received [the 2003] Nobel peace prize from the public TV and radio stations, which are government-owned.  After 24 hours, when all of the news sources had announced it and everyone knew about it, and people were complaining (about the lack of broadcast of this news on government owned media), the government relegated the news to a brief announcement on the 11 pm, and that was the end of that.    Nevertheless, in spite of this censorship against me and my work, the Iranian people came to welcome me in a warm and generous way in the Iranian airport.  Up to today, many continue to volunteer in the NGOs I work with for the causes of human rights, and for this I am always grateful.

In many places, particularly in the West, there are many questions about women’s emancipation and whether it is possible to reach these freedoms from within an Islamic framework. In many of your own speeches, you yourself have spoken about the intertwined nature of women’s rights and human rights.   You have repeatedly stated that it is impossible and meaningless to speak of human rights that don’t already include women’s rights.

Many seek to arrive at a reading and interpretation of Islam that is compatible with women’s rights and human rights.  But there are two ways of discussing this: The first is that there is a “real and authentic” reading and interpretation of Islam that leads us to that. The second is that there is need for a new understanding, a new interpretation, of Islam that can be compatible with these notions.   Which one do you support?

Lastly, we would be interested in hearing your final thoughts on the future of human rights and reform movement in Iran.

Islam, like every religion, and for that matter any ideology, has multiple interpretations.  In the West we see that there are Christian denominations which support a woman’s right to abortion, whereas other denominations are opposed to it—even though both follow the religion of Christ.   Or, to take another example, one church supports the right to same-sex marriage, whereas another denomination opposes this—even though they both follow the religion of Christ. 

Therefore, it is not such a strange thing for me to say that Islam too contains multiple interpretations.   The situation of women’s rights in different countries proves this very reality.  In a country like Saudi Arabia, women cannot even drive a car.   On the other hand, we see that in other Muslim countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia, women have become prime ministers and presidents over the course of the last twenty years.  In the U.A.E., there is no real parliament. But in another Islamic country like Malaysia, there is a relatively more advanced notion of democracy.

The real question is this:  what does Islam have to say about democracy and human rights?

In my opinion, with a proper understanding and interpretation of Islam, it is possible to honor and acknowledge democracy and human rights.   One cannot use cultural relativism as an excuse to overlook the norms of human rights.    In Iran, the people desire a more advanced democracy.   

Over the course of the last 29 years, we have experienced a revolution, and an 8-year war with Iraq.   We are tired of violence and bloodshed.  We, the people of Iran, have chosen the path of reform, and are walking on this path.   We want to get to our goal without violence.   Reform is a long path.    But in the end we will arrive at our destination, and we will not resort to violence.  So long as the people of Iran chose reform, the future of reform in Iran is bright.  You can count on it.

[Special thanks to Omid Safi for English translation]

Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and Attorney at Law, whose work, “The Domestic Crusaders” is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at wajahatmali@gmail.com