lorenz | antropologi.info | Page 354 of 695

"Hodeplagg er obligatorisk": Den skjulte islamiseringen av 17.mai

Published on May 14, 2006 by lorenz Posted in kjønn, Kultur tradisjon kunnskap, nordmenn, Norge, sosialantropologi i Norge, Sverige og Danmark, vi og de andre

Hijab-tvang på 17.mai? “Hodeplagg er obligatorisk”, skriver VG i 10 bud for bunadsbruk i anledning nasjonaldagen 17.mai. En skjult islamisering er igang! advarer Muhammad Mohsan Basit i et (satirisk) innlegg i medlemsbloggen på nettstedet underskog. Siden teksten er så bra og en må være medlem for lese den her noen utdrag, gjengitt med forfatterens tillatelse (Bilde til høyre fra Eirik Newth, kilde: flickr, bildet lenger nede fra Atle Brunvoll, også fra flickr)

Advarsel! Skjult islamisering av Norge er i gang!

Av Muhammad Mohsan Basit

Kjære landsmenn, det er med skrekk og gru at jeg skriver om det jeg har oppdaget. Og jeg anser det som min plikt overfor fedrelandet og grunnloven å dele denne erkjennelsen med dere, mine kjære venner: Det land som våre fedre bygget med sine bare hender og oljesølte lommer, mens mødrene har grett, er kuppet av våre egne medier som kjemper for å islamisere landet – foran øynene våre! Og (nesten) ingen taler imot dette, som de fleste ikke engang vil innse!

I dekke av å treffe nasjonaldagsstemningen, trykker særlig papirmediene artikkel etter artikkel for å få oss til å bruke bunad-plagget. Til og med pålitelige og nasjonslojale VG har blitt med i denne kampen.

Bra med bunad-artikler, tenker du? Akk, om det bare var så uskyldig! Faren er helt åpenbar i en Aftenposten-artikkel der bunaden framstilles som et kult plagg for menn. Og oppi denne verbale voldtekten av det norskeste av det norske, legger avisen inn bilder av kvinner som bærer dette satanske kvinneundertrykkende sløret!

(…)

Også på selveste 17. mai ifjor ble min landsfølelse vanæret, da NRK intervjuet en ”ekspert” på bunader på selveste Karl Johans gate. Det hun fortalte om de tilsynelatende uskyldige “tradisjonene”, var at kvinner ikke skal bruke sminke eller solbriller når de går i bunaden, og i tillegg er ikke bunaden komplett før hodeplagget er på plass. Dette viste denne “eksperten” demonstrativt ved å dekke til de to modellene som hadde stilt opp i bunad. “Nå er dere virkelig fine”, sa journalisten mens modellene forsøkte å bevare det falske smilet.

Jeg er redd vi er under et ekstremt farlig angrep. Disse såkalte “norske” bunadsreglene er blitt gjengitt i VG. Der regel nr 1 er: Hodeplagg er obligatorisk: Dette er en del av alle bunader, både for kvinner og menn. Hodeplagget hører med.

Jeg spør, hvem vet ikke innerst inne at alle kvinner som dekker til sitt hode – om det ikke er med en hatt eller en hjelm på krigens fronter – at disse enten er ofre for tvang eller ikke vet sitt eget beste?

Tidspunktet kan ikke være tilfeldig. Samtidig som Carl I. Hagen trer av, ser vi at den fjerde statsmaktens sanne ansikt tør vise seg. Vi står i gjeld til Herr Hagen som avslørte at norske kvinner kun har båret tørkleet for å beskytte seg mot vær og vind; for sannelig var det norske været hardt i gamle dager; men siden det i vår tid har sluttet å blåse så kraftig er det slutt på bruken av den slags. Med unntak av disse eldre damene man kan støte på, men som sikkert er senildemente alle sammen. La dere ikke forledes til å tro at tørkleet eller sløret eller skautet er en del av vår kulturarv.

Hagen, takk for dine mange år som landets beskytter! Og måtte Dovre unngå fall, også uten deg, i all framtid!!

Artikkelen utløste en lang debatt, hittil er det 72 kommentarer. Muhammad Mohsan Basit presiserer at han ikke har noe imot bunader:

Jeg hater ikke bunader, men det er i stor grad fordi bunaden for meg virker fryktelig unorsk. Faktisk ganske internasjonal. Det er en del indianske tradisjonelle drakter som ligner så mye at de for et utrent øye kunne vært en bygdebunad fra Norge. Og ikke bare blant indianere. Tradisjonelle drakter over store deler av sentral-asia ser ut som bunadene. Derfor er det kult. Nordmenn er asiater de også.

bunad Gudbrandsdalen Jeg kan legge til at spørsmålene og svarene i Dagbladets nettmøte med en Bunads-ekspert er en studie verdt! På nettsiden til Bunadsrådet er det mange norske kvinner med skaut, f.eks. kvinnen til venstre (fra Gudbrandsdalen)!

OPPDATERING:

Teksten ble nå publisert i en post-17.mai-versjon i Dagbladet!

SE OGSÅ:

Et barneperspektiv på hijab – om boka Hijab i Norge

Begrepsforvirring om hijab – om boka Hijab i Norge – Trussel eller menneskerett?

Et flerkulturelt Bunads-Norge og norske stammeidentiteter

17.mai, nasjonale symboler, særtrekk, drømmer og andre pinligheter

17.mai for alle

Haan ji, hume is mulkh se mohabbat hai – For «Ja, vi elsker dette landet» på urdu! (Vårt Land, 15.5.06)

Hijab-tvang på 17.mai? "Hodeplagg er obligatorisk", skriver VG i 10 bud for bunadsbruk i anledning nasjonaldagen 17.mai. En skjult islamisering er igang! advarer Muhammad Mohsan Basit i et (satirisk) innlegg i medlemsbloggen på nettstedet underskog. Siden teksten er så…

Three interviews about multiculturalism, arranged marriages, honor and dignity

Published on May 12, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, Europe, migration, Us and Them

Three interviews that I’ve conducted earlier this year have been translated from Norwegian to English:

Take on the multiculturalism debate – Interview with Alexa Døving
Does culture exist? What is integration? What defines Norwegianness? Is nationalism excluding? How useful are cultural explanations? Should special rights be awarded on cultural and religious grounds? What groups make up a society? Alexa Døving has chosen to write about the big issues. >> read the interview

Unni Wikan with plans for a new book about immigrant men, honour and dignity
Previously Unni Wikan has been interested in immigrant women and children. She now wants us to be more concerned with the men. Better insights into the mens’ situations could prevent conflicts, says the anthropologist, who is working on the analysis of two court cases to do with honour killing and forced marriage. >> read the interview

To engage the reader with a complex message – Interview with Anja Bredal
Do not underestimate free will and do not trivialize coercion! This is the conclusion in Anja Bredal’s doctoral thesis on arranged marriage. After ten years of research, one doctorate and several journal and newspaper articles this sociologist is still interested in the topic. She wonders about one thing in particular: How is it possible to maintain a nuanced moderate position and yet still be interesting? >> read the interview

Three interviews that I've conducted earlier this year have been translated from Norwegian to English:

Take on the multiculturalism debate - Interview with Alexa Døving
Does culture exist? What is integration? What defines Norwegianness? Is nationalism excluding? How useful are cultural explanations?…

Neoliberal applied anthropology: Who owns the research — the anthropologist or the sponsor?

Published on May 12, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, applied anthropology, corporate & business anthropology, ethics, University / Academia

At the Society for Applied Anthropology Meetings this year Hugh Gusterson had a startling experience: A “practicing anthropologist” refused to tell me him who or what, she studies. That has never happened before. In the article Where Are We Going? Engaging Dilemmas In Practicing Anthropology in Anthropology News May 2006, Guterson poses fundamental quiestions. The number of anthropologists working for industry and government agencies grows. So:

Who owns applied anthropological research—the researcher or the sponsor? If applied research is confidential, and thus exempt from peer review, how do we assure its quality and integrity? What recourse is there for an anthropologist under contract of confidentiality who decides they have an obligation to make public what their sponsor wants to keep quiet (say, information about indigenous opposition to a dam, or native Americans’ experience of abuse at the hands of the Department of the Interior, or corruption in the Pentagon or the World Bank)?

Is it acceptable to study people not in order to advocate for them or to interpret them in the open literature, but for the purpose of providing privileged information to sponsors who want to control them? What will happen to our professional meetings, to their warm conviviality, if more people come to them refusing to discuss their research? And how is our discipline even to keep track of possible conflicts of interest if anthropologists are refusing to identify their research in public?

He continues and concludes:

One colleague suggested that we acknowledge two separate communities: those doing academic anthropology and those doing what he called “dirty anthropology” (as, I think, in “quick and…”). He suggested each have its own ethical guidelines. But do we really want to say that anthropologists are no longer a single community guided by a common code of conduct?

The rise of neoliberal applied anthropology is a scandal waiting to happen. We ignore it at our professional peril. It is time to lay out some clear rules of the road to give guidance to applied anthropology colleagues working on this new frontier, and to enhance their bargaining power with powerful contractors.

>> read the whole article in Anthropology News (link updated)

“War on terror”: CIA sponsers anthropologists to gather sensitive information

Anthropology and Counterinsurgency: The Strange Story of Their Curious Relations

Murray L. Wax: Some Issues and Sources on Ethics in Anthropology

USA: Censorship threatens fieldwork – A call for resistance

Published on May 12, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, fieldwork / methods, politics, University / Academia

Not so easy to be researcher in the USA: There’s more and more censorship. Not long ago I wrote about Iranians not allowed to publish papers. Another form of censorship are the Internal Review Boards (IRB ). In Anthropology News May, James Boster calls for a three graded stages of response: Reform, Resolve and Resist:

The faculty head of the University of Connecticut IRB recently told me that the IRB would not now permit me to do the field work I have recently completed with the Waorani, because she considered Waorani as far too belligerent for me to have risked my own safety in doing research with them. It was a shock to learn that I could be regarded a human subject of my own research.
(…)
Many human scientists, anthropologists included, have experienced ever-increasing burdens of regulation and oversight by IRBs in their research with human subjects. Most of what is onerous about the regulation has nothing to do with providing protection to human subjects and has everything to do with requiring human scientists to submit to the arbitrary exercise of power and authority.
(…)
IRBs at a number of universities have instituted policies that have no foundation in ethics or law, ones that violate our most sacred academic freedoms and civil rights. The first amendment to the constitution states: “Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Yet what is regulated here is speech—the freedom of investigators to speak with other members of the society. The freedom to find things out is a basic human right, not a privilege to be licensed, especially when the obstacles to inquiry have never been demonstrated to prevent any actual harm to human subjects. The unconstitutionality of these restraints on free speech are clearly and comprehensively laid out by Philip Hamburger in a 2005 article for the Supreme Court Review, “The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards.”

>> read the whole text in Anthropology News May 2006 (link updated)

Another anthropology-specific problem is mentioned in an article by As Rena Lederman: IRBs are comprised mostly of researchers from non-ethnographic disciplines “folks whose picture of “real research” looks nothing like ethnographic fieldwork.” Therefor this advice (!):

So it is crucial that your board view participant observation as a sound, productive research method. This cannot be taken for granted. If IRB members are mystified or horrified by participant observation—if they imagine that it is useless or even itself unethical—then your proposal may be denied even if your project’s topic is completely innocuous!

>> read the whole story in Anthropology News

>> Blog: Censorship and Institutional Review Boards

Not so easy to be researcher in the USA: There's more and more censorship. Not long ago I wrote about Iranians not allowed to publish papers. Another form of censorship are the Internal Review Boards (IRB ). In Anthropology…

“Anthropologists Should Participate in the Current Immigration Debate”

Published on May 12, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, migration, Northern America, politics, Us and Them

“There is ample need for anthropologists and other social scientists to contribute to the immigration debate by providing greater context to the discussion and by describing the effects that immigration policies would have”, JC Salyer argues in Anthropology News May 2006. Anthropologists and the AAA (American Anthropological Association) should counter the many false claims which depict immigrants as national security threats or as hoards depleting the nation’s economic, health care and educational resources, he writes:

While it is always difficult to translate anthropological work into publicly accessible statements, AAA members should support AAA taking immediate steps to assure that the knowledge gained from the valuable body of research conducted by anthropologists on the subject of immigration is not ignored during this crucial period. Whether AAA’s action should take the form of a statement, the creation of an annotated bibliography, or some more creative proposal is for AAA’s leadership to decide, but it would be a true shame if AAA chooses not to join this important public discussion at all.

>> read the whole text in Anthropology News May

Rose Wishall Ediger has attended two rallies in Washington DC — the seventh largest immigrant gateway in the US and home to immigrants from over 30 countries, she writes in another Anthropology News article:

I was struck by the religious and patriotic overtones of the rallies. Both drew on prayer and included regional religious leaders of diverse faiths. In fact, churches have been important to the movement’s organization, helping to kick it off when Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles stated that HR 4437 countered the Church’s teachings to “feed the poor and welcome the stranger.” But also there was a display of US patriotism at the second rally: a great many demonstrators wore red, white and blue—especially white, which organizers advocated as a symbol of peace. And instead of the homemade signs of the first rally, attendees at the second event overwhelmingly waved US flags.

These rallies call in , Rose Wishall Ediger’s view, anthropologists to address issues of “race,” “human rights” and “engaged anthropology.”:

While rally participants and the media compare the movement to the 1960s civil rights movement, the relationship between ideas of race, racism, and immigration are still surrounded by open questions. For instance, while there is widespread agreement that those falling into the diverse category of US immigrant—legal or not—face discrimination—there are also claims that immigrants fill occupations and class positions that natives do not. And, how does the competition for resources among and within various minority groups complicate civil and human rights issues?

(…)

An even broader question about immigration that we should consider is what does it say about global inequalities and how human rights are practiced and demanded of different governments, and how do global, transnational, and national public and private policies differentially affect the movement and well-being of people, and what might that mean in terms of social justice. And, finally, on a more personal note, how do our own consumer practices play into it?

>> read the whole article in Anthropology News May 2006

Immigration laws: More Global Apartheid?

"There is ample need for anthropologists and other social scientists to contribute to the immigration debate by providing greater context to the discussion and by describing the effects that immigration policies would have", JC Salyer argues in Anthropology News…