The Scarf That Wouldn't Die

I thought this was an interesting post, and then I was like, "what does it have to do with judaism or this blog?"

I saw someone wearing one yesterday, and while he seemed to not be American (specifically was French, but I don't want to bring up my anti-France bias), he walked around with such a casual attitude ... ahh!! I hate that! Like all the Che Guevera merchandise - wear it if you believe in it, but do you know what he actually did and actually thought??

Just to play devil's advocate: Isn't the whole point of fashion in our po-mo era that it's all surface?  Meaning is so loosely tethered to appearance that the bonds can easily be broken.   In practical terms, that means that every time someone like Cameron Diaz shows up in a fashion magazine wearing a keffiyeh, the symbolism of the scarf moves one step further from "PLO accessory" and one step closer towards "American celebrity neckware."  The trendier it gets, the more defanged.  In fact, if anyone should be irritated at the popularity of the keffiyeh, it's terrorists, who are now at risk for being mistaken for Kirsten Dunst's boyfriend.

Umm, folks, keffiyehs are worn by lots of us who resist or protest against Israeli crimes, not just terrorists. I expect this sort of "paint 'em all with the same brush" stuff from the more feral pro-Zionist sites, but not from Jewcy, where moral tone-deafness to Israeli misbehavior usually takes a more subtle and genteel form.

I'm not sure if you're responding to Helen or my last comment, but I'm willing to concede an insensitive use of language.  People protesting Israeli crimes are also now at risk of being mistaken for Kirsten Dunst's boyfriend.

That said, isn't the "paint 'em all with the same brush" stuff exactly what's wrong with making a scarf-based political statement?  Fashion can never be nuanced enough to state "I'm opposed to the Israeli government's actions, but I'm also against using violence to solve problems."  

I found this worthy of posting in Faithhacker because I view the marketing of this particular accessory to young people as a cheap manipulation of the adolescent search for meaning and purpose, acceptance and affirmation.  In a lot of ways, that's a spiritual thing.  Who am I?  What do I believe?  Who do I want to align myself with?  It might not seem like it when you're 17, but those are spiritual questions.  I realize a lot of it is surface fashion, but I don't believe that's all there is to it.  I believe that the kids are all right, but they're clueless and want to be involved in (or at least to look like they're involved in) something a little bigger than themselves.  And I believe that Alloy knows this. 

Delia's/Alloy seems to be hellbent on keeping this accessory available to their customers.  Why?  How much profit would they lose if they cut their losses on the (God-knows-how-many) scarfs they bought?  How much would they save in customer services complaints and inquiries? 

If they see a demand with their demographic for fashion with "meaning" why don't they create a super cool "Save Darfur" T-Shirt and donate part of the profits?  How about a bad ass "Free Tibet" tote.  What gives?  

I was responding to both of you.

I'm a wizened old cat, so no one but maybe Nabokov would mistake me for Dunst's boyfriend. Anyway, I hear she's a bit of a shikker, so no thanks.

If one's only political statements were sartorial, you'd be right. But just because symbols by their nature lack nuance and exegesis doesn't mean they're not useful to folks. After all, someone wearing a peace sign could be an appeaser, an opponent of a particular war, a thorough pacifist or an apolitical hippie. Doesn't strip the symbol of its utility. Context helps here. And the wearer's other political activity.

Arabs are consistently represented in both entertainment media and in journalism as wild-eyed terrorists. This suits Israel enthusiasts just fine. The reflexive association of the keffiyeh with terrorism is another brick in that particular wall.

As long as we're talking fashion and prejudice, and lest you think this issue lacks real importance, look at what happened to Debbie Almontaser, the former principal at an Arabic culture charter school in Brooklyn (excellent piece on this in yesterday's NY Times). Despite her sterling performance in the system for 15 years, despite the seal of approval she got from, among others, a couple of rabbis who knew her, despite there being no trace of subversion or violence in her history, she was forced to resign. Why? She wears hijab. She was insufficiently energetic in distancing herself from the word "intifada", which all non-Arabic speakers know with certainty refers only to ....terrorists, of course.

Lesson? Be on guard for one's political opponents trying to appropriate one's symbols for their own purposes. Resist when you discover such an attempt. Repeat as necessary.

Now I'm not much for public schools espousing the sort of cultural tribalism Almontaser's place represents. Arabic schools, Jewish ones, black, gay-I don't think this kind of essentialism helps anyone, and certainly oughtn't be subsidized through public money. So shitcan the school for being tribal, but not the principal for wearing hijab and for using her native language correctly.

Match a "peace scarf" with a Che t-shirt and perhaps some appropriate "footwear of resistance", and voila! You're now ready for your first Poli-Sci 101 class at Brown. Viva la resistancia, abajo mom y daddy!