Does Tragedy in Boston Mean Persecution for Regular Muslims?

[This was an article I wrote for the student newspaper - it was changed by them without my knowledge, so I have re-published the version I want to be read here].

This week, the bombers involved in the recent Boston marathon massacre have been identified as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnev. The two brothers - of Chechen origin and Muslim faith - are naturalised U.S citizens. Whilst the arrest of these suspects has been met with joy by the majority of the American population, for the American-Islamic community, this arrest is a bitter-sweet occurrence. 

Not long before the dust had settled in Boston, Muslim groups had begun to urge their members to display an active presence on social media: calling for prayers for victims, promising to provide aid, and vehemently condemning the perpetrators of the crime. On Monday April the 14th, Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was quick to issue the following statement: ‘American Muslims, like Americans of all backgrounds, condemn in the strongest possible terms today’s cowardly bomb attack on participants and spectators of the Boston Marathon’. Meanwhile, the Muslim Public Affairs Council called upon ‘all of us as Americans to work together to bring those responsible to justice.’ Why have individuals and organisations felt the need to be so blatant and vocal regarding their support for justice - and, implicitly, eschew any suspicion of Muslim involvement in the crime?

As David Gibson, journalist for ‘religionnews.com’ argues, ‘almost as soon as the smoke cleared around Copley Square [the Muslim community] knew that some would immediately point the finder of blame in their direction’. At times of tragedy and terrorism, the Muslim community recognisably suffer an increased level of persecution and suspicion towards them; even when, in cases such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing the perpetrator of said crime was uncovered to be Timothy McVeigh, a white, American militiaman. ‘The Los Angeles Times’ corroborated Gibson’s argument, suggesting that there has been a great fear in the Muslim community, because they have ‘dark memories about the pervasive suspicion‘ they the received following the 9/11 attacks. Gibson and the Times’s arguments are not without evidence: from the moment of explosion, Muslim’s became the target of a backlash. On his radio show, conservative host Glenn Beck - seemingly unaware of evidence contrariwise, i.e. Oklahoma, or the various mass-shootings in American history, such as the 2012 Aurora massacre - declared that ‘no American citizen blows up random people; that’s a Middle Eastern scene, that’s not an American scene’. Affirmations such as this would suggest that, for many, it never crossed their mind that the perpetrators could be anything but Islamic. 

Christina Warner, campaign director of Shoulder-to-Shoulder - a national interfaith alliance committed to combatting religious prejudice - argues that ‘discrimination against Muslims has been a real dynamic in the United States’. Before the Tsarnevs were arrested, a Saudi man - himself wounded in the bombing - was falsely accused and taken into custody, causing a substantial rift with the Saudi community. Arguably, when a tragedy such as the Boston bombing occurs, every individual with a Middle Eastern background becomes a suspect; as spokespeople from CAIR have commented, ‘Sikh men who wear beards and turbans as part of their faith are often targeted by bigots who mistake them as Muslims’.

However, speaking last week Naeem Baig, President of the Islamic Circle of North America said that he had been impressed by the ‘cautious and balanced approach from the media’, asserting that ‘it shows a lot of responsibility on their part, not jumping to conclusions’. Yet, Baig also added that the religion and ethnicity of the criminals proved to be a ‘matter of concern’ for the Muslim community; now the perpetrators have been found to be Muslim extremists, these concerns have become even more pressing. Steve King, a congressman from Iowa suggested that if a Saudi or other Middle Eastern national was involved in the bombing, serious immigration reforms could be in order. King, speaking to the ‘National Review Online’ stated that the nationality of the bombers would almost definitely require the U.S. government to ‘take a look at the picture’: suggesting a further tightening of already strict laws on movement within America. 

Looking at another side of the argument, perhaps Americans are to some extent justified in harbouring suspicions against the Islamic community. A 2011 report by the American National Counterterrorism Centre revealed that 70 percent of terrorism is committed by Muslim terrorist groups. And, as many anti-islamists Americans might be keen to note, the 9/11 bombings - recognised as the worst terrorist attack in the U.S in recorded history - were indeed committed by Islamists, 15 (out of 19) were from Saudi Arabia alone. As the website ‘Religion of Peace’ has observed, since 1st January 2013 2,807 individuals worldwide have been killed as a result of terrorist attacks committed by Islamists. 

In addition, some have claimed that Muslims falsely portray investigations into terrorist attacks such as the Boston bombings as religious man-hunts. Robert Spencer, of ‘Jihad Watch’, is said by NBC to have claimed that ‘it [is] appalling how Muslims frequently attempt to portray such tragedies as attacks against them, rather than against the true victims of the crime’. Rush Limbaugh has gone as far to suggest that - due to political correctness - some politicians and the media have been terrified of the suggestion that the bombers would be Muslim: ‘they’re [the media] frightening people against coming forward with information that might offend people’. 

Yet, despite the figures, Spencer’s testament, and Limbaugh’s criticism I would suggest that the persecution of ‘normal’ American Muslims is wholly unwarranted, their fear and outrage is appropriate, and that the media have not been as politically correct as Limbaugh implies. When the bombings occurred, Daisy Khan, director of the American Society of Muslim Advancement started to use the twitter hashtag ‘#ihopeitsnotamuslim.’ Sadly, her hopes have not been fulfilled. Attacks such as Boston continue to fuel hatred for religious groups, as Khan attests ‘it will feed into the perception than Muslims are terrorists. Children are more likely to be bullied [...] individuals at work will be treated with suspicion by their coworkers’. Evidence of growing anti-Muslim bigotry is on the rise; since September 11th the Justice Department has investigated more than 800 incidents of racial violence, and there has been a 150% increase in workplace discrimination. Fear of persecution by association is a real, everyday, widespread issue, and it will not stop being an issue until the day - not when terrorism is abolished - but when racial stereotyping is annihilated: that day seems to be but a distant dream.

Venus and Adonis: She loves, she is love: and yet she is not loved.

Yesterday, I had my first 'real' Renaissance theatre-going experience, with a visit to Shakespeare's new Globe theatre in London, to see Venus and Adonis, performed by the Isango Ensemble from Cape Town, South Africa.

Firstly, a word on the theatre itself. I had been anxiously watching the weather all day, because I thought I had booked groundling tickets. When we arrived, it was a nice surprise to find that we'd actually got seats, under shelter (phew! it hailed at one point!). The theatre was extremely impressive, and I'm led to believe, authentic, with gilt edgings, colourful facades and worn-out posts and framing. There was, as I'd expected three tiers of seats (in a circle), and of course the middle section, for groundlings to occupy. I was pleasantly surprised that, as one would of in Shakespeare's time, the people standing could go right up to the front of the stage - practically resting on it! (with our current health and safety climate, I had assumed there would be some sort of barrier - especially as 'death' was wielding some dangerous looking, bloodstained cleavers uncomfortably close to the expectant eyes of the people at the front).

The performance began with the opening lines of the play, sung in a conglomeration of South African and English, by the female actors. It is worth noting that each one of the cast was profoundly vocally accomplished, able to sing as well in English as in other languages, and the majority of arias were truly spell-binding. The first scene featured Venus and Cupid, a comically morbidly obese man in a romper-suit, who got a lot of laughs, frolicking. Venus is accidentally pricked by one of Cupid's arrows, and this is how the love-story begins. Now, I have a slight bone to pick here. After studying Shakespeare's 'Venus and Adonis' in horribly deep depth for a recent second-year undergraduate essay, I know, as many of the theatre-goer's probably wouldn't, that this is not how his epyllion begins. However, it is found in his analogue Ovid's Metamorphoses, and I'd like to think that Shakespeare's overwhelming admiration for and indebtedness to the master-poet overrides that fact that this scene is not authentic to his poem.

Once pricked, Venus' wooing begins. Unusually, Venus was not played by a single actress. Almost every actress in the ensemble took a turn to play her, each wrapping a white linen cloth around them when they would assume the role. Usually, I might consider this to be slightly twee, however, for the character of Venus it is extremely appropriate. Shakespeare's Venus is a veritable emotional whirlwind; at some points she playfully jokes with Adonis, at others is comically lustful, occasionally extremely sensitive and loving, and, disturbingly regularly, is stiflingly oppressive and/or ferociously aggressive. Although each of the actresses displayed these various, shifting emotions during their performances, the literal changing of Venus effectively conveyed just how capricious, conflicting and perplexing she is, in the midst of overwhelming love and passion.

Another aspect of the Venuses performance was their use of the cloth (used to identify her) to bind, constrain and envelop Adonis at various instances. The company has successfully drawn out the aspect which I believe Shakespeare tries to emphasise most strongly in his poem - Venus's oppressiveness - and made it a visual symbol. This effect is particularly helpful when considering that, i'd say nigh on 99%, of the audience, maybe more, was not versed in South African. When language is a barrier, spectacle takes over.

A further notable characteristic of the Venuses performances throughout the wooing scenes, was their use of their bodies/sexuality. I'm keen to avoid stereotyping, however, the Venuses truly were beautiful, buxom ladies who knew exactly what moves to make, or hips to shake, to illustrate the lustful, sexual aspect of Venus's pursuit. Part of this was their sly glances, or covert winks at the audience, which made it lucidly clear - when language again confounded interpretation - exactly what Venus's intentions were. Oozing subtle sensuality at times, secreting raging passion at others, this female company had the goddess of Love (the vicarious goddess of Sex) down to a tee.

If they perfected Venus's sensuality, so too with her hopelessness. 'She's Love, she loves, and yet she is not loved', says Shakespeare. In her most desperate moments, the Venuses haunting, mesmerising voices give a true sense of her despair: her illimitable capacity to love, to cause other's to love, yet, paradoxically, her inability to make Adonis love.  

Now for Adonis. In Shakespeare's poem, Adonis is frustratingly reticent, declining to speak until around line 80, and largely vocal only to reject Venus's advances and/or, like the petulant teenager he is, to complain about the sun, or about her wringing grip. I was happy that the Isango Ensemble maintained this aspect of Adonis's character - it is not an unwarranted swipe to say that, for Shakespeare, he is not much of a character at all - as it would have been extremely tempting to make him vocal earlier, for the sake of theatrical interest. Really he is uninteresting, and uninterested: throughout Venus's elaborate wooing process, he'd much rather be somewhere else. Mhlekazi Mosiea, who played Adonis throughout - a petulant, stoic consistency which was a lovely contrast to Venus's capriciousness - had perfected the disdainful glances, pained grimaces, and violated vocal objections that characterise Shakespeare's young, narcissistic mortal beloved. Like the Venuses, Mosiea had a beautiful voice: he sang in English (which seemed quite appropriate for the young, unloving chap) and carried each note perfectly, with a tad more clarity than the rest of the company.

Other notable mentions include:

1. The treatment of the palfrey and jennet - a focal point in Shakespeare's poem, illustrating the successful sexual love which Venus attempts to persuade Adonis to - was very well done. The company used horse heads, yet, moreover, their bodies to convey the sexual act - securing a lot of laughs, imbuing the episode the comedy it deserves. 
2. The cast performing African songs and dances together, bare-footed and raw, were truly magnetic. All of the ensemble were enthusiastic, vocal, and spell-binding: this is clearly a cast who knows how to work well together.
3. Death, played by Zebulon Mmusi - not embodied in Shakespeare's poem, but embodied here, I assume, for some clarity/ to add some perspective to Venus's speech - was particularly harrowing. His frame painted as a skeleton, cavernous red mouth and serpentine tongue, bloodstained hand-held scythes and occasional menacing, animal-like hisses combined to make him a truly terrifying figure. We realise, perhaps before Venus, that he is not a character to be chastised - and his vengeance costs Venus her love.     
4. The boar was similarly effective. Wild, ferocious, rabid, we are given a true sense of the danger he can inflict.   
5. I know this is purely coincidental, but at one point, as Venus said 'the sun that shines from heaven shines but warm', the sun prophetically gleamed on the so-far gloomy stage. A sheer chance occasion, but a beautiful one at that. 

I only have a couple of criticisms about this performance. 

• One, is that I believe at some points, the cast was playing for laughs (at the cost of sentiment of the poem). I appreciate that they must cross a language barrier, and appeal to a popular audience, yet I would argue that pathos overrides comedy, and theatre trumps pantomime. 'Venus and Adonis' is an indubitably humorous poem, yet it is also a poetic master-piece: any more comic moments, and the play could have descended into farce. 
• Two, they could have made a lot, lot more of the final metamorphoses (after all, Shakespeare's analogue was Ovid's Metamorphoses!!!,  and Adonis's growth into a purple flower gives Venus far more hope and joy that this simple, unmemorable conclusion conveys.) However, I did appreciate when all the Venus's joined together again to indite her horrible prophesy (love will now be jealous, unkind, unrequited etc.), each woman versing the different afflictions in a round: they say do not mess with a woman scorned, but a woman thwarted by death is even worse.  
• Finally, not really a criticism but a piece of advice: it may be too late for Venus and Adonis, as it only had a short run here, but, if you are going to see a play in another language, read the English version. It was clear that almost 80% of the time, almost 80% of the audience had no clue at all what was going on. Obviously, not knowing the language (here, a mixture of IsiZulu, IsiXhosa, SeSotho, Setswana and Afrikaans) will always prevent anyone from grasping the exquisite lilts and facets of Shakespeare's verse (I recall them all too familiarly from my recent studies), yet having a general gist of the basic arguments definitely helps. I saw far too many confused (and quite disinterested) faces in the audience, which rather distracted me from the play itself. I know some people like to be surprised by a plot, but, if the play's in another language, you won't be surprised by the plot, you will never know it! The cast did their absolute best to transcend the language-barrier, but the audience needs to helps themselves. 

In conclusion, I was thrilled with my theatre trip. I was slightly skeptical following the recent theatrical-disaster of Hamlet, but all those concerns were dispelled from the first song of Venus and Adonis. A highly accomplished cast, a beautiful translation, a captivating, rich, multi-cultural performance. 

****

Video - http://vimeo.com/42139882