I'm trying to get out of the habit of saying, "Americans." As a society, we are really a self-centered lot. North America is comprised of both Canada and the United States. Technically, a Canadian could call herself an "American," as she lives on the continent of North America. But, would that make people living in the United States, er, "Statesians?" or, "USians?"
Someone living in Mexico could call themselves an "American," too. By some geographers account, Mexico is part of North America. I tend to prefer to link Mexico with Central America. Even so, "Central America" is an "America," thus qualifying anyone from the Rio Grande to the Panama Canal to adopt the moniker of "American."
South America is also an "America." A few years ago, I spoke with someone from Brazil. The running joke in Brazil is people in the United States think their country is the only one in the Western Hemisphere. Brazilians, I was told, are "Americans" as much as residents of the United States.
Now, don't misunderstand me. I am not saying these other "Americans" fall under protection of the United States Constitution, nor are governed by U.S. Civil and Criminal Codes. I am saying anyone essentially living in the Western Hemisphere, from an area historically described as being the "Americas" has as much right to call themselves an "American" as anyone in the United States.
Which brings me to a couple points, the first I will cover here, the other I will cover in a second post.
Each semester, the very first activity I engage in, before I even determine attendance, or recite the syllabus, is give a map quiz. My map quiz is not any old map quiz. I present the students with a world map. I ask they identify 18 specific countries. The 18 countries I have them attempt to locate are countries featured prominently in the news: Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. I tabulate correct responses and create a frequency distribution.
At the end of the semester, students making their way to the end of the course are then presented with the same map and asked to identify the same collection of countries. I tabulate correct responses and create a second frequency distribution.
I've been collecting statistics for about 8 years or so.
I have no idea if college students are representative of the U.S. population. At first blush, I would say, No, simply based on the fact more than 2/3rds of the U.S. population never receive a college degree.
Walking in the door and sitting down at a desk, the initial results I find disturbing. Also, the initial results have not appeared to significantly improve over my measurement period. Thus, I can only conclude people are just as uninformed today as they were in 2004.
Here are some notable statistics:
Despite having been actively engaged in Afghanistan & Iraq for 10 years or so, both countries are the most commonly misidentified countries, at 99% error rate.
Many people self-identify as "Christian" yet cannot find Israel on a map of the world, with an error rate of 95%, only slightly less than Afghanistan or Iraq.
Venezuela, an important supplier of oil products to the United States, fares about the same as Israel, as does Pakistan and North Korea.
Do people ever incorrectly identify the United States? Yes, a few individuals cannot locate the United States on a world map. The error does not happen very often; out of 100 students I can almost guarantee at least one person will not correctly identify the United States. Whereas about 1% will miss the United States, about 5% will miss Mexico.
Finally, most of my college students cannot label correctly all 50 United States. I'm still working on current statistics, but historically greater than 90% of college students taking my courses cannot identify all 50 United States.
We are buffered by two of the world's largest oceans. Yet, in today's globalized economies, I cannot find any excuse or reason why we, U.S. citizens, should have such a poor grasp of our planet's geography.
I would like to give a map exam to all of our state and national leaders, see how well they do. Then, fire all the ones which get less than a 70% (C).
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Book Review: Pakistan On The Brink, by Ahmed Rashid
I have grave concerns over the future health of Ahmed Rashid. Pakistan is not friendly towards journalists, aid workers, politicians, business people, or anyone critical of Pakistani leadership.
Since 1992, 42 journalists have been killed in Pakistan (CPJ.com.) April 20th, 2012, Mutaza Rizvi was found murdered in Karachi, the southern port city of Pakistan. Rizvi was a senior editor for "the Dawn" newspaper, a leading newsource in Pakistan. He had been bound and strangled (ABCNews.com.) According to the web site, "Violence Against Journalists in Afghanistan," eight journalists were bullied, threatened, beaten, or killed in 2011.
Mr. Rashid is a highly esteemed Pakistani author, journalist, former revolutionary, and Central Asian expert. Pakistan On The Brink is the third book in a series which began with Taliban and continued with Descent into Chaos.
In Pakistan on the Brink, Ahmed Rashid presents in a series of essays the importance of Pakistan in the regional affairs of South Asia. The key to a successful Afghanistan is a stable Pakistan. In fact, the cornerstone of a stable South Asia, from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, is a stable democracy and the Rule of Law in Pakistan. The last 12 years in Pakistan, and South Asia, has been anything but stable.
Weaving together a continuous narrative of events transpiring since September 11th, 2001, Mr. Rashid pulls all regional players, the United States, and NATO supporters to describe the political calculus of the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship, referred to as AFPAK. One cannot adequately analyze, interpret, or seek to explain the nature of geopolitical affairs in Afghanistan nor Pakistan without considering them as AFPAK. Any analysis must also include the influence of respective neighbors, including Iran, India, China, and Russia.
The sub-title of his book, "The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan," is not accurate, in my opinion. Mr. Rashid's essays describe recent conditions and the state of affairs as of 2011 between people, political parties, and countries named, not so much future-looking commentary. If Taliban was a treatise on the modern history of the Taliban, and Descent Into Chaos an examination of the U.S. role in Pakistan during the Bush Presidency (2001-2008), then Pakistan On The Brink provides an interesting framing of the delicate economic, social, and political climate currently existing in Pakistan.
His essays are captivating for those with little a priori knowledge of the geopolitical mires of South Asia. Even with some knowledge, Mr. Rashid clearly demystifies the web of intrigue in AFPAK relations. Mr. Rashid names specific people and organization he views as responsible for tactical and strategic failures across the region. Politicians across the board are implicated, President George Bush, President Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and the current Pakistani President Asif Zardari and the Pakistani Prime Minister Raza Gilani. Bush was described as "congenial," establishing a rapport with Afghan President Karzai but Afghanistan never was a priority for him. Obama is characterized as aloof, cool and distant, especially in regards to Afghan leadership, yet has done more for Afghanistan in his tenure as U.S. President than in all eight years of Bush's presidency. Economic and military aid for Afghanistan increased substantially under Obama but his reticence to develop a relationship with Karzai has undermined peace negotiations.
The Pakistani leaderships comes across as nothing more than stooges for the Pakistani military and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI). Zardari and Gilani are completely ineffectual for a number of reasons. First and foremost, each is fearful of being removed from office (in the best case), or killed (in the worst case.) The military is the most powerful leadership authority in Pakistan currently, with the ISI close behind. Zardari and Gilani have done nothing to restrain the military and have gone as far as to support myths, lies, and anti-American propaganda aimed at the United States. The 2011 assassination of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan under the noses of the military, ISI, and Pakistan's government gave evidence to Pakistani anti-American sentiments. Silent for two months after the killing, the first Pakistani government comments protested the violation of their airspace. Later, neither Zardari nor Gilani would quell rumors among the general Pakistani population the assassination was an utter fabrication.
Military officials on all sides are named and their ineffectual leadership decisions detailed. The Pakistani military is no doubt complicit in aiding and abetting the Haqqani Network, and by proxy, al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Haqqani Network is a family-run terrorist organization, operated by Jalaluddin Haqqani. With considerable wealth earned in business and construction, Haqqani is able to purchase equipment and run terrorist cells against anyone or any organization in the region. The Haqqani Network is known to support and train al-Qaeda, plus Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organization managed in Pakistan against organizations in India.
The Taliban cannot be described as a unitary organization. While affiliations may overlap, the Taliban consists of at least two groups, one based on Afghanistan, and one based in Pakistan. Membership may overlap, some philosophies may parallel, both favor the withdrawal of U.S./NATO forces from Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban are "nationalists," they support an independent Afghan state, free of U.S., Pakistani, or Iranian influence. The Taliban in Afghanistan today are not the same Taliban faced by the U.S. military in the early 2000s. The U.S. military dealt with those Taliban already; the previous leaders are dead. Today's Taliban are the sons and cousins of those earlier Taliban leaders. Under the current Taliban authority, some restrictions have eased. About 100 schools have been built throughout Afghanistan, thought most in the north and northwest. Girls are allowed schooling, and more girls are in school in Afghanistan than ever before, over 8 million. The Taliban have banned attacks against schools and have allowed UN organizations to inoculate children.
The Pakistani Taliban, on the other hand, aid and support al-Qaeda, the Haqqanis, and train suicide bombers. The Pakistani Taliban actively fight against the Pakistani government. Members are far more extreme in their ideals. Pakistani Taliban favor overthrowing the Pakistani government, the creation of a regional state based completely on Sharia. Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba are their allies.
Mr. Rashid's writing is compelling. As a Pakistani, his frustration with his country is evident. He often says so, citing Pakistan's important geography, wedged between Iran and Iran, a potential conduit for a world's worth of goods and services, with a population of once highly educated people and noted not long ago as a viable destination of foreign direct investment. How could Pakistan not be successful? he argues.
Pakistan will not be successful for the foreseeable future. The government is weak and unwilling to restrain the military or the ISI. The Pakistani military and the ISI leverage all sides against the other, incite fear and violence, work with adversaries of the U.S. and NATO. The government is fearful of an Afghanistan influenced by Shia Iran. The Pakistani government is fearful of an Afghanistan influenced by rising economic powerhouse of India. External players like the United States, vacillating between support and withdrawal, cutting economic aid and repairing damaging relations simply add to the chaos.
Mr. Rashid's writing feels fast and loose. Months and days are frequently mentioned but no year. Getting lost in all of the details is easy, I discovered. I found myself searching the web for events so I could better establish timelines as his telling might move back and forth over days, months, and years upon a single page.
The level of detail and his familiarity with many of the important people made for fascinating reading. Mr Rashid had lunch, dinner, and breakfast with most of the top-level personalities, Asif Zardari, President Bush, President Obama, and Hamid Karzai. His love of Pakistan and his concern for his country, people, and culture is beyond reproach.
To truly understand the geopolitical complexity of peace and stability in South Asia, in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and become quickly educated on the regional nuances, Mr. Rashid's "Pakistan On The Brink," should not be passed over.
Pakistan On The Brink. Ahmed Rashid. Penguin/Viking Hardback. 212pgs. 2012. $26.95
Since 1992, 42 journalists have been killed in Pakistan (CPJ.com.) April 20th, 2012, Mutaza Rizvi was found murdered in Karachi, the southern port city of Pakistan. Rizvi was a senior editor for "the Dawn" newspaper, a leading newsource in Pakistan. He had been bound and strangled (ABCNews.com.) According to the web site, "Violence Against Journalists in Afghanistan," eight journalists were bullied, threatened, beaten, or killed in 2011.
Mr. Rashid is a highly esteemed Pakistani author, journalist, former revolutionary, and Central Asian expert. Pakistan On The Brink is the third book in a series which began with Taliban and continued with Descent into Chaos.
In Pakistan on the Brink, Ahmed Rashid presents in a series of essays the importance of Pakistan in the regional affairs of South Asia. The key to a successful Afghanistan is a stable Pakistan. In fact, the cornerstone of a stable South Asia, from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, is a stable democracy and the Rule of Law in Pakistan. The last 12 years in Pakistan, and South Asia, has been anything but stable.
Weaving together a continuous narrative of events transpiring since September 11th, 2001, Mr. Rashid pulls all regional players, the United States, and NATO supporters to describe the political calculus of the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship, referred to as AFPAK. One cannot adequately analyze, interpret, or seek to explain the nature of geopolitical affairs in Afghanistan nor Pakistan without considering them as AFPAK. Any analysis must also include the influence of respective neighbors, including Iran, India, China, and Russia.
The sub-title of his book, "The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan," is not accurate, in my opinion. Mr. Rashid's essays describe recent conditions and the state of affairs as of 2011 between people, political parties, and countries named, not so much future-looking commentary. If Taliban was a treatise on the modern history of the Taliban, and Descent Into Chaos an examination of the U.S. role in Pakistan during the Bush Presidency (2001-2008), then Pakistan On The Brink provides an interesting framing of the delicate economic, social, and political climate currently existing in Pakistan.
His essays are captivating for those with little a priori knowledge of the geopolitical mires of South Asia. Even with some knowledge, Mr. Rashid clearly demystifies the web of intrigue in AFPAK relations. Mr. Rashid names specific people and organization he views as responsible for tactical and strategic failures across the region. Politicians across the board are implicated, President George Bush, President Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and the current Pakistani President Asif Zardari and the Pakistani Prime Minister Raza Gilani. Bush was described as "congenial," establishing a rapport with Afghan President Karzai but Afghanistan never was a priority for him. Obama is characterized as aloof, cool and distant, especially in regards to Afghan leadership, yet has done more for Afghanistan in his tenure as U.S. President than in all eight years of Bush's presidency. Economic and military aid for Afghanistan increased substantially under Obama but his reticence to develop a relationship with Karzai has undermined peace negotiations.
The Pakistani leaderships comes across as nothing more than stooges for the Pakistani military and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI). Zardari and Gilani are completely ineffectual for a number of reasons. First and foremost, each is fearful of being removed from office (in the best case), or killed (in the worst case.) The military is the most powerful leadership authority in Pakistan currently, with the ISI close behind. Zardari and Gilani have done nothing to restrain the military and have gone as far as to support myths, lies, and anti-American propaganda aimed at the United States. The 2011 assassination of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan under the noses of the military, ISI, and Pakistan's government gave evidence to Pakistani anti-American sentiments. Silent for two months after the killing, the first Pakistani government comments protested the violation of their airspace. Later, neither Zardari nor Gilani would quell rumors among the general Pakistani population the assassination was an utter fabrication.
Military officials on all sides are named and their ineffectual leadership decisions detailed. The Pakistani military is no doubt complicit in aiding and abetting the Haqqani Network, and by proxy, al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Haqqani Network is a family-run terrorist organization, operated by Jalaluddin Haqqani. With considerable wealth earned in business and construction, Haqqani is able to purchase equipment and run terrorist cells against anyone or any organization in the region. The Haqqani Network is known to support and train al-Qaeda, plus Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organization managed in Pakistan against organizations in India.
The Taliban cannot be described as a unitary organization. While affiliations may overlap, the Taliban consists of at least two groups, one based on Afghanistan, and one based in Pakistan. Membership may overlap, some philosophies may parallel, both favor the withdrawal of U.S./NATO forces from Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban are "nationalists," they support an independent Afghan state, free of U.S., Pakistani, or Iranian influence. The Taliban in Afghanistan today are not the same Taliban faced by the U.S. military in the early 2000s. The U.S. military dealt with those Taliban already; the previous leaders are dead. Today's Taliban are the sons and cousins of those earlier Taliban leaders. Under the current Taliban authority, some restrictions have eased. About 100 schools have been built throughout Afghanistan, thought most in the north and northwest. Girls are allowed schooling, and more girls are in school in Afghanistan than ever before, over 8 million. The Taliban have banned attacks against schools and have allowed UN organizations to inoculate children.
The Pakistani Taliban, on the other hand, aid and support al-Qaeda, the Haqqanis, and train suicide bombers. The Pakistani Taliban actively fight against the Pakistani government. Members are far more extreme in their ideals. Pakistani Taliban favor overthrowing the Pakistani government, the creation of a regional state based completely on Sharia. Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba are their allies.
Mr. Rashid's writing is compelling. As a Pakistani, his frustration with his country is evident. He often says so, citing Pakistan's important geography, wedged between Iran and Iran, a potential conduit for a world's worth of goods and services, with a population of once highly educated people and noted not long ago as a viable destination of foreign direct investment. How could Pakistan not be successful? he argues.
Pakistan will not be successful for the foreseeable future. The government is weak and unwilling to restrain the military or the ISI. The Pakistani military and the ISI leverage all sides against the other, incite fear and violence, work with adversaries of the U.S. and NATO. The government is fearful of an Afghanistan influenced by Shia Iran. The Pakistani government is fearful of an Afghanistan influenced by rising economic powerhouse of India. External players like the United States, vacillating between support and withdrawal, cutting economic aid and repairing damaging relations simply add to the chaos.
Mr. Rashid's writing feels fast and loose. Months and days are frequently mentioned but no year. Getting lost in all of the details is easy, I discovered. I found myself searching the web for events so I could better establish timelines as his telling might move back and forth over days, months, and years upon a single page.
The level of detail and his familiarity with many of the important people made for fascinating reading. Mr Rashid had lunch, dinner, and breakfast with most of the top-level personalities, Asif Zardari, President Bush, President Obama, and Hamid Karzai. His love of Pakistan and his concern for his country, people, and culture is beyond reproach.
To truly understand the geopolitical complexity of peace and stability in South Asia, in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and become quickly educated on the regional nuances, Mr. Rashid's "Pakistan On The Brink," should not be passed over.
Pakistan On The Brink. Ahmed Rashid. Penguin/Viking Hardback. 212pgs. 2012. $26.95
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Movie Review: Charlie Wilson's War
Who says one man can't make a difference?Okay, well, a lot of people say that. What happens when one person tells another that they CAN make a difference, but they have to go to Pakistan first?
What you get, at least in this case, is the US proxy war against the Russians, with Afghanistan the battlefield, and the Afghanis the army.
At the onset of hostilities between the Russians and the Afghanis, just what was the US foreign policy? Uh ... well ... we don't have one, sir. Not exactly true. Our plan, at least according to the CIA Section Chief in Pakistan, was to let the Russians keep killing Afghanis until they completely run out of ammunition. Okay ... what happens when we run out of Afghanis and the Russians still have bullets?
Not really fair for the Afghanis, particularly when the Russians do not belong there, and hundreds of thousands of Afghanis are living in squalor in refugee camps in Pakistan. Meanwhile, the Russians are picking apart cities, villages, and outposts with impunity. Not a fair fight.
Charlie Wilson, a senator from Texas' 2nd district, is an interesting character, more ethical and moral than he lets on. His heart is in the right place, let's put it that way. His mind, however, is engaged in more carnal pursuits. Encouraged by the 6th most wealthy woman in Texas, he visits Pakistan. The Pakistanis think the US assistance in the region is a joke. The Afghanis were given military assistance by the US - WWI issue rifles and ammo - which has no effect on Russian armor. The Pakistanis ask Charlie to visit the refugee camps before his departure.
What he sees changes him, changes his mind, gives him raison d'etre for bringing down the Russians. Working with a rouge CIA operative, Charlie gets U.S. support and begins the takedown of the Russia military, via Afghani rebels.
But at what cost?
Gust has some interesting insight at the movie's end, weaving in some Zen. Make sure and listen to it.
The crazies come back to Afghanistan.
Movie Review: Taxi To The Darkside
Abu Ghraib.
Merely thinking about Abu Ghraib makes my skin crawl. Such an honorable example of American culture. But wait, that isn't right. American military culture under Bush. It doesn't represent me, my ideals, my concerns, or my beliefs. Anyone with any ethical or moral fibers in their bodies are probably not represented by Abu Ghraib, hopefully.
Taxi to the Darkside tells the story of what happens when someone is at the wrong place at the wrong time. And he dies from bad timing. Not because he was holding a weapon, firing weapon, in possession of a weapon. He dies from being impoverished. He dies from the color of his skin. He dies from excessive violence promoted with a wink and a nudge from the US military apparatus.
Watch the movie.
Merely thinking about Abu Ghraib makes my skin crawl. Such an honorable example of American culture. But wait, that isn't right. American military culture under Bush. It doesn't represent me, my ideals, my concerns, or my beliefs. Anyone with any ethical or moral fibers in their bodies are probably not represented by Abu Ghraib, hopefully.
Taxi to the Darkside tells the story of what happens when someone is at the wrong place at the wrong time. And he dies from bad timing. Not because he was holding a weapon, firing weapon, in possession of a weapon. He dies from being impoverished. He dies from the color of his skin. He dies from excessive violence promoted with a wink and a nudge from the US military apparatus.
Watch the movie.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Movie Review: The Kite Runner
My wife and I watched The Kite Runner the other night, the last DVD in a multi-movie and Guitar Hero '80s weekend. We didn't begin watching until late, around midnight. My hopes on staying awake throughout the length of the movie were pretty low. Once the movie began, however, we were riveted throughout the entire 2-hr length.
Amir and Hassan are friends; two young boys growing up in the same house in the time prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Flying kites is their one of the their major enjoyments together. Amir flies the kites, taking Hassan's advice. When Amir cuts the line of a competing kite, Hassan becomes the Kite Runner, having an innate gift to track the defeated kite as it descends toward the winding streets and alleyways of Kabul, Afghanistan. Amir is also a noted storyteller for his age, able to craft words and passages that entertain children and adults alike. His father does not think much of this ability, prefering Hassan's ruggedness and masculinity, noting that Hassan tends to defend Amir in fights, although Hassan is quite smaller than Amir.
Amir and Hassan seem inseparable as friends, though one thing does separate them: race. Amir is Pashtun, the preferred people of Afghanistan. Amir's father is very wealthy, driving a replica of Steve McQueen's Mustang around the streets of Kabul. Hassan is a second-class citizen, barely tolerable by most Pashtuns, as he is Hazara. The story takes a violent turn as a result of this racial divide, and the friendship between the two boys is never the same. Soon after, the Soviets invade and occupy Afghanistan, forcing Amir and his father to flee, leaving Hassan and his father behind.
Leap forward to 2000, and Amir is living in Fremont, California, still intractably tied to the Afghani-Pashtun culture. A phone call one night forces him to revisit the ghosts of his past, and he embarks on a journey back into the heart of his homeland, no longer ruled by the Soviets, but by the Taliban.
I flew kites as a kid. My dad put together a World-War I byplane kite, which we flew once. We crashed it, breaking it, but not seriously. It then hung from my bedroom ceiling for years. Kites take on a whole new meaning in this movie and prove to be an calming counter-point to the serious themes permeating the movie.
Events in the movie take place in Fremont, California, the portions that are set in Kabul, Afghanistan were shot in Kashgar, Tashgarkan, and in the Pamir Mountains - all of which are in western China.
The Taliban are also portrayed, accurately, at least superficially so. From the street hangings, the bearded gunmen, women wearing the chadri, the full-length blue burqa, to the atrocities committed at Ghazni (Ghazi) Stadium.
Inspired as it is from true events, Kite Runner is a work of fiction. We can achieve some insight into culture, wealth, trust, and honor, through this story: the wealthy and elite in Afghanistan, moderate Islam versus radical Islam, racism, and the radical rule of the Taliban.
Rent it; it might be one of the best 2hrs you have spent in front of your television in a long time.
Amir and Hassan are friends; two young boys growing up in the same house in the time prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Flying kites is their one of the their major enjoyments together. Amir flies the kites, taking Hassan's advice. When Amir cuts the line of a competing kite, Hassan becomes the Kite Runner, having an innate gift to track the defeated kite as it descends toward the winding streets and alleyways of Kabul, Afghanistan. Amir is also a noted storyteller for his age, able to craft words and passages that entertain children and adults alike. His father does not think much of this ability, prefering Hassan's ruggedness and masculinity, noting that Hassan tends to defend Amir in fights, although Hassan is quite smaller than Amir.
Amir and Hassan seem inseparable as friends, though one thing does separate them: race. Amir is Pashtun, the preferred people of Afghanistan. Amir's father is very wealthy, driving a replica of Steve McQueen's Mustang around the streets of Kabul. Hassan is a second-class citizen, barely tolerable by most Pashtuns, as he is Hazara. The story takes a violent turn as a result of this racial divide, and the friendship between the two boys is never the same. Soon after, the Soviets invade and occupy Afghanistan, forcing Amir and his father to flee, leaving Hassan and his father behind.
Leap forward to 2000, and Amir is living in Fremont, California, still intractably tied to the Afghani-Pashtun culture. A phone call one night forces him to revisit the ghosts of his past, and he embarks on a journey back into the heart of his homeland, no longer ruled by the Soviets, but by the Taliban.
I flew kites as a kid. My dad put together a World-War I byplane kite, which we flew once. We crashed it, breaking it, but not seriously. It then hung from my bedroom ceiling for years. Kites take on a whole new meaning in this movie and prove to be an calming counter-point to the serious themes permeating the movie.
Events in the movie take place in Fremont, California, the portions that are set in Kabul, Afghanistan were shot in Kashgar, Tashgarkan, and in the Pamir Mountains - all of which are in western China.
The Taliban are also portrayed, accurately, at least superficially so. From the street hangings, the bearded gunmen, women wearing the chadri, the full-length blue burqa, to the atrocities committed at Ghazni (Ghazi) Stadium.
Inspired as it is from true events, Kite Runner is a work of fiction. We can achieve some insight into culture, wealth, trust, and honor, through this story: the wealthy and elite in Afghanistan, moderate Islam versus radical Islam, racism, and the radical rule of the Taliban.
Rent it; it might be one of the best 2hrs you have spent in front of your television in a long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)