While I understand that there are many reasons why people would not want to watch the video - and I think they are for the most part valid - my reason for choosing to watch it was simple: to bear witness. I think that is one of the most important things we can do as human beings to show solidarity for one another. That is why the act of telling personal stories or taking photographs or spreading information is so powerful, because it reminds people of our common humanity and makes it difficult to "other" each other. If it was not so powerful, then governments and powerful interests would not invest so much time in trying to control the flow of information.
If someone in power does not want us to see something, I think that makes it all the more imperative that we do see it.
People who use Twitter are being urged to change their account setting time zone to +3:30 (Tehran) time. Apparently security forces there are monitoring Twitter in order to gather information on protesters and such. The idea is to jam things up with a huge amount of traffic.
Has anyone heard of this? Does it sound plausible?
Everyone is missing the point. Neda's death in so brutal and gruesome fashion does not make her a martyr or an icon -- it makes her a victim. That her death should be so painful to watch is important, lest we forget that death is real, shocking, violent. We have let Hollywood and video games turn violence into a toy, set dressing for irredeemable stories and aggression. We have been separated from the true import of death in the context of life. We spend our time taking our lives for granted.
As Megan has so wonderfully composed here, this woman was interested, not in parties or platitudes, but in freedom for herself and her country. She was not seeking to be famous in any way, alive or dead. She merely wanted a better life, a life unencumbered by the fear and fanaticism generated be the Iranian government. Her death, regrettable, final, disturbing, is both a warning that the Iranian government is so desperate to hold onto power, that they will treat protesters as cannon fodder, and a rallying point, to show that freedom bears a heavy price, but it is worth the sacrifice.
Watch it, or don't, but the importance of this video cannot be minimized. The situation in Iran is not about "those people over there," but about all of us, all of us who desire freedom: freedom to play, to worship, to work, to live. The situation in Iran right now is the potential birth of new democracy, in the shadow of totalitarianism. We should admire it, we should support it, and more importantly, we should not look away. What happens there, stands to change our world in ways we cannot foresee.
@cassiemajestic: I think the point is that us idiot Americans generally don't know that, and/or don't care because they're still "other." I suspect the majority of us think Persians are Arabs, because, you know, Muslim = not white.
I don't think that the comparison Tami makes between Neda's death and the 9/11 and Columbine deaths is entirely fair. The Iranian situation is different because of the removal of all foreign media from the scene and the active attempts to suppress citizen distribution of information. That makes information more rare, and thus, more weighty. The power of the Neda video is that no one can watch it and not be completely appalled by the behavior of the Iranian government. It communicates the gravity of the situation in a way that is simply very hard to do given the lack of readily available information. Andrew Sullivan has run a series of posts from Iran with pictures and video under the heading 'This Is What Fascism Looks Like' - which I think sums it up pretty well.
@thegogglesdonothing: I gotta say, I think if Columbine happened today we'd have YouTube videos of it. The fact of the matter is that in 1999, most teenagers didn't even have cell phones, and no one had phones that took video or photos. Right or wrong, if it happened today someone would be taping it. In this day and age, the mainstream media doesn't, and can't, control what gets disseminated because technology is cheap and thus ubiquitous.
That Tami at racialicious post is dumb on so many different levels. First of all, most Iranians would be pretty surprised to hear that they're not white. (read a little on the history of the name change from Persia to Iran and the eye-opening reasons behind it.)
And second, the primary consumers and distributors of the horrifying death footage of Ms. Agha-Soltan haven't been Americans, but Iranians at home and in the diaspora. I saw those pictures pop up on the Facebook pages of Iranian-American friends long before they became the subject of furrowed-brow editorials in American newspapers. And to take those images being circulated by people from a culture with very specific ideas about martyrdom and the imagery surrounding violent death and map onto them Western (or specifically liberal-lefty identity politics American) notions about the propriety of seeing them is simply indulging in shallow ethnocentrism.
Or, put more simply: you may be uncomfortable with the widespread circulation of those pictures and videos of a dying young woman, but at the end of the day, it's not about you.
@Zack Stentz: I have found the posts at Racialicious and Tami's insights, in particular, to be eye-opening, provocative, and illuminating, but honestly, never dumb.
Also, have you given any thought to the definition of white that Tami was using? I think you will find that her characterization of Neda as non-white makes a lot of sense, if you are familiar with the ways in which white does not simply equal Caucasian?
@Zack Stentz: Tami's point, however, seems to be a critique of the Western response - one that has been "making it about us" - rather than an analysis of Neda's significance as a symbol within Iran and for Iranians. I agree completely with your statement that "you may be uncomfortable with the widespread circulation of those pictures and videos of a dying young woman, but at the end of the day, it's not about you," but the crux of the matter, at least for the Racialicious post, is pointing out that the American response has been doing just that.
@Zack Stentz: I agree with you 100%. I feel like it is incredibly diversionary to talk about race when it's not really an issue in the example at hand.
Americans and westerners in general tend to have a very different perception of death than people in other regions and cultures. We fear it, we censor it and we talk about it in hushed tones. Westerners also do not usually hold martyrdom in as high regard as the Iranians do - they are less likely to use a graphic death photo to further a cause. There are, of course, some exceptions such as the famous image from Oklahoma City of the firefighter cradling a dead (white) infant.
Another example of this is the "falling man" from the World Trade Center. I've heard of many soldiers citing that image as a reason that they enlisted.
As for whether Neda is white or not, it is irrelevant. She was presumably murdered in cold blood. Isn't that what we should be focusing on? Is it necessary or even helpful to make this into a discussion about race? People are dying in Iran to have their voices heard and the government is murdering its own citizens - that should be the primary focus when we talk about Neda.
Racialicious has made a lot of interesting, important points and observations in the past, but in this case it just comes across as an attempt to locate racial controversy in an unrelated tragedy.
@truckasaurus is jackie jormp-jomp: I don't see a problem with looking at this story through the lens of racial analysis (especially coming from a website with a focus on that issue). It doesn't mean that it's the only story, or the central story, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.
I disagree with the point that we turn away from the sight of white corpses, or white people dying. From the WTC, there were a lot of airings of people jumping, both on tv and in print. Plenty of people documented it and distributed those images.
I think that there's a fine line between showing graphic imagery for a cause, and using those graphic images for profit. After a certain point, we felt that we didn't need to see more WTC images, because the point had been made, and further showing of those images felt like we were exploiting them.
Are we exploiting the image of Neda? Possibly. I know quite a number of people (unfortunately) who are watching the film because of the gruesome factor.
And what about that sad couple whose daughter died in the porsche? Jezebel posted something on that, where the cop leaked photos of her terrible car accident and fatal injuries on the net, and her parents would like it stopped. At what point do we cross the line?
The line is thin. I remember visiting a Holocaust museum, like Yad Vashem, with plenty of graphic images of corpses and death. And there were several with images of naked people, waiting to be shot by a rifle squad. I looked away. We may need to have gruesome images to have an event hit home, but we don't have to deny these human beings their dignity. Some would even argue that any of these photos are awful, and I don't blame them. Death is painful and seems to rob everyone of dignity.
@deeemer: I like what you've said here. Also, on the race issue--let's not forget the images that came from Hurricane Katrina. Was the image of a black man floating in the floodwaters more tolerable than if he were white? I remember just having a bad taste in my mouth, a sinking, deeply uncomfortable feeling when I saw that photograph. I wish I never saw it yet I couldn't look away. I have not viewed the video of Neda's death and frankly, I don't think it's necessary for anyone to do so in order to show respect. I think it IS exploitation and... really, an invasion of privacy.
@deeemer: I'm an historian and for decades I looked at Holocaust photos, saw film, was familiar with all the media images. It wasn't until one night that PBS showed soundless footage of a camp that the British Army had filmed and Hitchcock had edited. And something, for lack of a better word, clicked. I really saw what I'd been seeing for years. I almost smelled it, it. was. so. real. And it was truly heartbreaking. Sometimes it takes an image or footage to awaken you and make it all real. I don't think bearing witness to a death exploits the dead, in some ways it allows their lost or stolen humanity to continue on in you.
I am well aware that death and violence happens every day in our world, and has happened throughout our history. You use an example of the Holocaust, but I'll use an example of lynchings in the South. I knew they happened, I knew they were fucked up, but until I saw a photo of a dead black man swinging from a tree while a group of white people practically held a party below, I didn't realize the full levels of depravity inherent in what was going on.
I do not "need" to see these images and don't need anyone telling me I "should" look or asserting that they make the issue "real" - for that I have the creative power of empathy, which doesn't entail making it about me. I do agree that having such imagery made available to the public is important so that we understand what real violence actually is, be it terrorism, torture, war, or execution, so that it is that much harder to gloss over, abstract, romanticize, and fetishize; but do I agree that one can be made into an icon or a symbol and still fully retain their humanity? No, and I fear that the "Both" in this post's title is all too easily elided, especially when it comes to young women (particularly those of color) who suffer.
@andBegorrah: I think, sadly, there are many people in the world for whom it just doesn't sink in that something is real until they see it or a visual representation of it. Just as there are many people for whom strangers don't register as human beings deserving of consideration, respect etc. -- they reserve their empathy, understanding etc. only for their family and personal friends, until they are confronted with/forced to deal with the full visceral tragedy of a situation. Those people "need" to see the images in order for Neda's fate and the struggle in Iran to seem "real" to them, and I agree that it's very important for these images to be available so as many people as possible will know and understand and remember. But I do think that those images can also be fetishized, and that that, as you say, runs the risk of dehumanizing this young woman and making her story seem less real.
Well I've seen plenty of movie violence - I actually enjoy fight scenes, car chases, explosions, you name it. But I know the difference between fantasy and reality, and I cried when I saw the video of Neda's death. I wasn't desensitized at all.
@Gingerlime: I was honestly surprised at how much it upset me. Watching the news on twitter come in as the militants attacked the university, the tweets from the protests, I was compelled by those, I knew what was going on (best we could), I knew I was watching something historic happen and I knew their was violence. I wanted to watch Neda because I felt equally compelled, but I wasn't expecting to be literally shaken by it. I didn't expect such a visceral reaction from myself.
@jenniferhill: Fake violence tends to be either subdued, like old Hollywood rules: no blood; or sensationalized like Tarantino's blood spatters; or sentimental, like Pitt at the end of The Devil's Own.
Real violence is utterly horrific and I've never seen it approached on fictional film (except maybe the bull in Eisenstein's The Strike, as that was real). Thankfully, I've only seen it on documentaries or clips like Neda's. Real violence has an utterly casual, factual nature to it; and that might be what's most disturbing. Well, that and the eyes.
Desensitized to sensational film violence, sure, but I can't imagine who is desensitized to real violence. It is possible people are confusing a calm clinical reaction to real violence as 'desensitized' because they've never been in a situation where the stakes are so high your body/brain finds that route to cope.
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
06/24/09
If someone in power does not want us to see something, I think that makes it all the more imperative that we do see it.
06/23/09
Has anyone heard of this? Does it sound plausible?
06/23/09
06/23/09
As Megan has so wonderfully composed here, this woman was interested, not in parties or platitudes, but in freedom for herself and her country. She was not seeking to be famous in any way, alive or dead. She merely wanted a better life, a life unencumbered by the fear and fanaticism generated be the Iranian government. Her death, regrettable, final, disturbing, is both a warning that the Iranian government is so desperate to hold onto power, that they will treat protesters as cannon fodder, and a rallying point, to show that freedom bears a heavy price, but it is worth the sacrifice.
Watch it, or don't, but the importance of this video cannot be minimized. The situation in Iran is not about "those people over there," but about all of us, all of us who desire freedom: freedom to play, to worship, to work, to live. The situation in Iran right now is the potential birth of new democracy, in the shadow of totalitarianism. We should admire it, we should support it, and more importantly, we should not look away. What happens there, stands to change our world in ways we cannot foresee.
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
And second, the primary consumers and distributors of the horrifying death footage of Ms. Agha-Soltan haven't been Americans, but Iranians at home and in the diaspora. I saw those pictures pop up on the Facebook pages of Iranian-American friends long before they became the subject of furrowed-brow editorials in American newspapers. And to take those images being circulated by people from a culture with very specific ideas about martyrdom and the imagery surrounding violent death and map onto them Western (or specifically liberal-lefty identity politics American) notions about the propriety of seeing them is simply indulging in shallow ethnocentrism.
Or, put more simply: you may be uncomfortable with the widespread circulation of those pictures and videos of a dying young woman, but at the end of the day, it's not about you.
06/23/09
Also, have you given any thought to the definition of white that Tami was using? I think you will find that her characterization of Neda as non-white makes a lot of sense, if you are familiar with the ways in which white does not simply equal Caucasian?
06/23/09
06/23/09
Americans and westerners in general tend to have a very different perception of death than people in other regions and cultures. We fear it, we censor it and we talk about it in hushed tones. Westerners also do not usually hold martyrdom in as high regard as the Iranians do - they are less likely to use a graphic death photo to further a cause. There are, of course, some exceptions such as the famous image from Oklahoma City of the firefighter cradling a dead (white) infant.
Another example of this is the "falling man" from the World Trade Center. I've heard of many soldiers citing that image as a reason that they enlisted.
As for whether Neda is white or not, it is irrelevant. She was presumably murdered in cold blood. Isn't that what we should be focusing on? Is it necessary or even helpful to make this into a discussion about race? People are dying in Iran to have their voices heard and the government is murdering its own citizens - that should be the primary focus when we talk about Neda.
Racialicious has made a lot of interesting, important points and observations in the past, but in this case it just comes across as an attempt to locate racial controversy in an unrelated tragedy.
06/23/09
06/23/09
I think that there's a fine line between showing graphic imagery for a cause, and using those graphic images for profit. After a certain point, we felt that we didn't need to see more WTC images, because the point had been made, and further showing of those images felt like we were exploiting them.
Are we exploiting the image of Neda? Possibly. I know quite a number of people (unfortunately) who are watching the film because of the gruesome factor.
And what about that sad couple whose daughter died in the porsche? Jezebel posted something on that, where the cop leaked photos of her terrible car accident and fatal injuries on the net, and her parents would like it stopped. At what point do we cross the line?
The line is thin. I remember visiting a Holocaust museum, like Yad Vashem, with plenty of graphic images of corpses and death. And there were several with images of naked people, waiting to be shot by a rifle squad. I looked away. We may need to have gruesome images to have an event hit home, but we don't have to deny these human beings their dignity. Some would even argue that any of these photos are awful, and I don't blame them. Death is painful and seems to rob everyone of dignity.
06/23/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
I am well aware that death and violence happens every day in our world, and has happened throughout our history. You use an example of the Holocaust, but I'll use an example of lynchings in the South. I knew they happened, I knew they were fucked up, but until I saw a photo of a dead black man swinging from a tree while a group of white people practically held a party below, I didn't realize the full levels of depravity inherent in what was going on.
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
We've been paying a lot of attention to this. It's hard not to.
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
Real violence is utterly horrific and I've never seen it approached on fictional film (except maybe the bull in Eisenstein's The Strike, as that was real). Thankfully, I've only seen it on documentaries or clips like Neda's. Real violence has an utterly casual, factual nature to it; and that might be what's most disturbing. Well, that and the eyes.
Desensitized to sensational film violence, sure, but I can't imagine who is desensitized to real violence. It is possible people are confusing a calm clinical reaction to real violence as 'desensitized' because they've never been in a situation where the stakes are so high your body/brain finds that route to cope.