The crimewave that shames the world

September 10, 2010 3:05 AM

A series of powerful, prescient and englightening essays from the author of 'The Great War for Civilisation' and award winning journalist Robert Fisk on so called 'Honour' killings from this weeks Indy. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Concluding Part 5.
posted by numberstation (11 comments total)

Many thanks for this post, numberstation. Powerful, prescient and englightening indeed.
posted by aqsakal at 4:24 AM on September 10, 2010

I'm halfway through Part 2 and can't read anymore right now. Sickening.
posted by never used baby shoes at 7:50 AM on September 10, 2010

Thank you for posting this.
posted by mareli at 8:07 AM on September 10, 2010

Honor killings have to be seen in the context of Cultures of Honor, which is what much of the Middle East has been traditionally for a very long time:

cultures of honour typically appear among nomadic peoples and herdsmen who carry their most valuable property with them and risk having it stolen, without having recourse to law enforcement or government. In this situation, inspiring fear forms a better strategy than promoting friendship; and cultivating a reputation for swift and disproportionate revenge increases the safety of one's person and property.

I really believe the solution to the Middle East can be found here, I suppose it's no great insight to say a culture of law and order is the best answer. On the other hand, it has to be understood how difficult the task is since it's not only a logistical question of creating law and order, but changing a culture whose values are deeply ingrained.
posted by stbalbach at 8:07 AM on September 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

That most Arab of sayings - my neighbor against a stranger, my cousin against my neighbor, my brother against my cousin - implies family loyalty above everything. Until you get to the "me against my sister" part which exposes it as so much bullshit.
posted by three blind mice at 8:17 AM on September 10, 2010

me and my neighbor against a stranger, me and my cousin against my neighbor, me and my brother against my cousin

(sorry. someone broke into my office - again - and this time made off with my wireless keyboard. it's gonna be me against that thief for certain.)
posted by three blind mice at 8:33 AM on September 10, 2010

I really believe the solution to the Middle East can be found here, I suppose it's no great insight to say a culture of law and order is the best answer. On the other hand, it has to be understood how difficult the task is since it's not only a logistical question of creating law and order, but changing a culture whose values are deeply ingrained.
posted by stbalbach at 11:07 AM on September 10

I'm not so sure. I think it's possible to stop these honor killings and retain the culture, if that's something they want. You could simply discourage the murder, and instead have women being thrown out on the streets.

There are a couple of problems here. There are the age old problems of property and poverty in what amount to pre-capitalist societies. You have the failure of multiple western cultural revolutions that would have (and did for a time) protect women's rights and the like.

The problem is not how to bring these places into the modern era. In the 50's and 60's, these places Fisk writes about were very westernized. In Afghanistan, women attended universities without being covered up. In pre-revolution Iran, men and women socialized openly. The problem is, how did the feudal patriarchy re-assert itself? That's what has to be unlocked.

My guess is that whatever poor and exploited remained in these countries during their brief socialist eras were allowed to fester and rot, and into that a radical ideology found a foothold. From there it was easy to point at the "decadence" of their more modern countrymen. I think the critical flaw was that modernity in these societies was not able to mount an effective counterargument. They were arguing that Westernization meant money and the good life, without realizing that what they called a good life was how the underclass was defining decadence. So the middle classes were effectively making the radicals point for them.

Instead the argument, as it always must be, is that modernity is the true embodiment of the local culture, and that the radical element is the corrupting agent.

Consider Israel. The radical orthodox believe they are the true Jews of Israel, and everyone else is decadent, lapsed, etc. And what do we see there? Exploitation and marginalization of women, physical abuse of children, layers upon layers of patriarchal authority etc. The orthodox jewish community has more in common with the radical islmaic community it fears and reviles that it does with mainstream israeli society. The difference is that mainstream Israelis consider themselves to be the true embodiment of Jewish culture, a culture which includes the rabbinical traditional, but also includes the secular tradition of 19th and 20th century jewish scientists, philosophers, artists, etc.

In America, we are seeing the early stages of this. Who are the flag-waving patriots? Who claims to be from the heartland of America? Who claim to hold true to the founding Christian principles of the country? Who do they consider to be the corrupting influences? do the "true Americans" treat women differently than men?

To avoid this happening, and to undermine the radical element where it has taken hold, the progressive element has to identify itself as the truly modern force, the torch bearer for that society's culture and principles, and the greatest expression of those principles in that culture's history. The progressive force has to declare that it is unamerican to deny women the right to chose. It has to declare that a father who "honor kills" his daughter is an infidel and not a muslim.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:46 AM on September 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

Man. This isn't the first time I've read about this sort of thing, but I've never understood it, and doubt I ever will. I mean, honestly - how do you just get so *angry*, overy anything, that you're willing to kill someone who loves and trusts you and is begging you not to kill them?
posted by Mr. Excellent at 9:11 AM on September 10, 2010

But each time I heard this tale, I asked myself the same question. Tribal "law" may have prevented violence – but what about the sister who was forced to marry the divorced husband? [...] So of course, women must inculcate these values to their children. You fail as a mother and a wife if your children don't meet these standards.

In the early eighties my aunty* had a thirteen year old daughter who was repeatedly abused by a thirty-five/forty year old man. When it was obvious she was pregnant there was this whole conundrum. Obviously having a child out of wedlock was impossible and would ruin her life, on the other hand being nice people they'd like her not to be thrown out into the streets for having sex. The man said he loved her, so clearly the best thing for her was for her to marry the man. Which she did, at fourteen. He was a terrible husband and she had four children then quietly divorced him when she was nineteen on some socially acceptable grounds.

There were plenty of legal, financial, social and other ways around this in 1980s England and I just couldn't get over how all the women relatives cried and regretted the situation, but not the actions. It wasn't about poverty or education really, it was about how things would look. Particularly how the girl would look, and how she'd ever get a husband anyway so her only chance now was to marry this one.

But they didn't think of her as property. She was property, but they really didn't think of her like that. They honestly loved her. They were okay with her divorce and now they love her new family. They see each other regularly and are mostly like every other family. I have no idea how she doesn't kill them in their sleep every time she stays over.

On the other hand, I feel that we severely underestimate the power in our own cultures for the same sort of thing. I could type similar stories about how my white christian relatives were expected to get married early to men they didn't like, and that only if by 'expected' you mean absolutely forced. I don't know what people imagine when they talk about forced marriage but people are rarely actually dragged down the aisle at gunpoint, they're just made aware that there isn't a choice.

So I think you can feel love for someone and be completely, indescribably evil to them at the same time. When they kill women though I'm not sure who they think it is good for.

*not my relation by blood
posted by shinybaum at 9:27 AM on September 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

How refreshing to find Fisk at long last not blaming all ills in theat region of the world upon the evil Israeli Zionists, where, by the way, they do not have honor killings.
posted by Postroad at 12:23 PM on September 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Cultural relativity be damned. This is wrong and it must be stopped, yesterday! Reading this well-reported outrage is almost unbearable. What is to be done? Hard to say. How do you change centuries of ignorant tradition?

Controlling anyone's appetite for sexual and relationship fulfillment is a powerful weapon; it establishes a true power relationship, which is really what this stuff is all about. This reporting should be spread far and wide, with considerable public loathing directed at individuals and cultures that continue these practices. How about "Radio Free WOMEN" beamed to all the barbaric villages and cities/countries that permit this outrage?
posted by Vibrissae at 4:23 PM on September 10, 2010 [1 favorite]