Two Graphic Histories of Anti-Americanism

For my final paper I wrote that,

The graphic novel, with its comic origins, has the ability to invite readers by way of images which enhance the text. Many people’s memories of American Imperialism are collected and brought to life in Howard Zinn’s historical novel, A People’s History of American Empire, which has been graphically depicted by Mike Konopacki and Paul Buhle. Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel, The Complete Persepolis presents the complicated images of self memory. Images enhance the way people remember the written word and these two graphic novels make a double imprint on the minds of readers. They make visible the memories of people who have endured the hardships of imperialism, racism, sexism, classism, revolutions, wars, and resulting regimes.

In A People’s History of American Empire, Zinn shows how American imperialism is the motivation behind many historical events, which by now have affected the entire world. The cartoon rendition of Zinn stands on his soap box shouting, “It’s important to remember that our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are not unique events. They are part of a continuing pattern of American behavior” (7). This pattern of American intervention is marked by the American government’s intrusions into countries during times of political vulnerability, such as revolutions or civil wars. Zinn’s cartoon rendition continues to say, “U.S. expansion began in 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine, which declared the western hemisphere a sphere of influence. It continued with Manifest Destiny—the conviction that the U.S. was destined to rule the continent from coast to coast” (7). There were those who caught on to this pattern of American imperialism for the sake of empire, which has resulted in the countless deaths of innocent people. While protestors made themselves heard in the United States, anti-Americanism grew in the rest of the world.

Satrapi begins her graphic novel by showing the effects of anti-Americanism, a direct effect of American imperialism, when she was a child in revolutionary Iran. The cartoon rendition of Satrapi as a child is shown veiled and frowning, while the adult Satrapi narrates overhead, “This is me when I was 10 years old. This was 1980,” then she says, “We didn’t really like to wear the veil, especially since we didn’t understand why we had to,” under which is a drawing of her and her female classmates playing childhood games with the veil (3). Just as the people affected did not always understand American imperialism, they did not always understand new anti-American, pro-tradition laws.

While both ideologies are oppressive, people have resisted. Satrapi shows a bearded man at a podium in her school saying harshly, “All bilingual schools must be closed down. They are symbols of capitalism, of decadence. This is called a ‘cultural revolution,’” (4). Satrapi goes on to say, “Everywhere in the streets there were demonstrations for and against the veil,” below which is the drawing of female protestors shouting “the veil!” or “freedom!” (5). Without American imperialism, the religious leaders of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 would have had nothing to react against. In fact, this Islamic revolution arguably would not have happened at all.

According to Zinn, the American government had been involved in the Iranian government which the revolution of 1979 protested. Zinn describes the anti-American backlash, saying,

On November 4, 1979, angry Iranians seized the U.S. embassy in the capital city of Tehran and took everyone hostage. They demanded that Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, the notorious Shah (king) who had fled with U.S. help when rebellion swept the country, be returned to face trial,

below which is a photo of Iranians burning the American flag (232). He goes on to add, “The hostage takers also demanded an apology from the U.S. for overthrowing the government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953,” below which is a photo of Mossadegh, a smiling older man (232). The hostage takers and anti-American sympathizers did not simply hate American freedoms or democracy itself. They were and are reacting to the disgraceful and aggressive actions of the American government in the name of capitalism. Once harmed by the actions of the American government, people have grown to associate all things American with greed and cultural conformity. They refuse to “do as we do” when it comes to capitalism as well as democracy and culture.

The Iranian people rejected Reza Shah because he was viewed as a puppet for American capitalism. Satrapi shows her parents protesting the Shah, saying “My parents demonstrated every day,” above a drawing of a large group of angry people shouting “Down with the king!” (18). She goes on to show how tired it makes them, and when she suggests that they play monopoly her dad says “Now is not the right time,” and to his wife, “Monopoly! I can’t believe it. Ha! Ha!” because monopoly is a capitalist game, to which the young Satrapi replies innocently, “It is never the right time!” (18). When Satrapi later tells her father she learned in school that the Shah was chosen by God, he sets out to teach her who really chose the Shah.

Satrapi’s father explains that the Shah’s father was a low ranking soldier who wished to overthrow the emperor and establish a republic. Luckily for him, the British wanted to back him in order to take advantage of Iranian oil. The cartoon Shah says, “Emporer, me?” to which a Brit replies, “But of course, my friend. It’s much better than being president” (21). When the Shah says, “But there already is an emperor! I want to create a republic,” the Brit says, “The religious leaders are against it and they’re right. A vast country like yours needs a holy symbol,” and when the Shah asks “What do I have to do?” The Brit replies, “Nothing! You just give us the oil and we’ll take care of the rest” (21). The graphic rendition of these two men talking in an army camp is presented as Satrapi’s childhood image of the placement of the Shah by the west. This dramatic visual helps to reinforce the historic text and make it more memorable. The ironic humor involved owes only to the shocking audacity of pro-Imperialism in the east, like the Shah, and Imperialists in the west, like the British and American governments.

Satrapi’s father, like many Iranians against the Shah, supported the populist uprising against his decadence. Many religious leaders saw this as an opportunity to promote the virtues of Islam against the American materialism of the Shah. Satrapi shows her childhood image of her father in the tumultuous streets, saying “He took photos every day. It was strictly forbidden. He had even been arrested once but escaped at the last minute” (29). The drawings of her father’s photographs show images of people running, armed soldiers, fires, and the wounded. Many Iranians supported the 1979 revolution because they demanded the right to freedom of speech.

Zinn narrates that shredded documents in the seized U.S. embassy in 1979 were found by the hostage takers. When pieced back together, these documents “Exposed deep U.S. involvement in propping up the Shah’s brutally repressive regime” (233). To the Iranian people, the American government did not support their freedom of speech. Anti-Americanism is also a reaction of the hypocrisy of the American government when it comes to human rights. Zinn view of who chose the Shah is similar to Satrapi’s father’s. Zinn says from his lecture podium,

To stabilize control over Iran’s oil, the British ousted shah Reza Khan in 1941 and installed his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But discontent continued. On May 1, 1951, Mossadegh—an aristocrat, a nationalist, a doctor of law, and a founder of the National Front of Iran political party was elected Prime Minister by the Iranian Parliament

(234). Zinn goes on to explain how Mossadegh championed a parliamentary democracy, reducing the Shah’s power, and forcing Britain to give up control of Iran’s oil. Mossadegh even nationalized the Iranian oil industry and renamed it the National Iranian Oil Company.

Britain did not want Iran to have democracy if it meant the loss of British oil control. Zinn explains the U.S. involvement, saying,

Great Britain asked the U.S. to help overthrow Mossadegh. C.I.A. operative Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, presented a plan to the Dulles brothers [John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, Director of the C.I.A.] and other officials on June 25, 1953,

below which is a photograph of Kim Roosevelt and then a cartoon Roosevelt handing over a document marked “top secret” to the Dulles brothers (235). This secret plan, says Zinn, “was written by Tehran-based C.I.A. agent Donald Wilber and British Intelligence Officer Norman Darbyshire. Wilber…was in charge of the propaganda. The plot he hatched was called Operation Ajax” (235-236). Zinn switches to the perspective of Wilber, to personalize the story of the failed U.S. and British plot to once again place a puppet into the Iranian government. The cartoon Kim Roosevelt says to Wilber, “the British have agreed to our replacement for Mossadegh: Fazollah Zahedi,” and Wilber replies, “We’ve got $135 to influence key people” (236). Zinn’s characterizations simplify and bring to life the complicated political story behind anti-Americanism.

Zinn describes further U.S. involvement, saying, “Our large network of agents organized street gangs—The Chaqu Keshan—to pretend to be pro-Mossadegh. They broke windows and attacked innocent bystanders” (244). Mossadegh’s followers turned against him. U.S. agents, including Kim Roosevelt, paid people to hold pro-Shah demonstrations. With the help of Roosevelt, Zahedi overthrew Mossadegh and became the new Prime Minister. “The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was renamed British Petroleum. U.S. oil companies got 40 percent of the oil business,” says Zinn (248). While the U.S. and Great Britain were reaping Iran’s resources, Iranians opposed to the Shah and his backers were beaten by police and kept in inhumane prisons.

When the Shah is overthrown, two of Satrapi family’s friends, Siamak and Mohsen are released from political prison, along with 3000 other prisoners. They visit the Satrapis and relate the stories of their torture in the Shah’s prisons. Mohsen says, “Our torturers received special training from the C.I.A,” and Siamak replies, “Real scientists!!! They knew each part of the body. They knew where to hit!” while the Satrapis look at the two men in horror (50). Marjane Satrapi’s father asks them, “Any news of Ahmadi?” and Siamak replies, “Ahmadi…Ahmadi was assassinated as a member of the guerillas, he suffered hell. He always had cyanide on him in case he was arrested, but he was taken by surprise and unfortunately he never had a chance to use it…so he suffered the worst torture…” (51). Below this statement are drawings of a man undergoing several humiliating sorts of torture, including being burned with an iron. Satrapi says, “I never imagined that you could use that appliance for torture” (51). These drawings force readers to visualize the torture that is the result of American Imperialism. Although human rights were clearly being abused by the Shah in the 1970s, the United States continued to support the Shah because he allowed continued U.S. oil profits.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini began heavily criticizing the Shah until he was arrested by the Shah’s police, tortured, exiled to Iraq, and from Iraq exiled to France. The rebellion in Iran gained force and the Shah was finally forced to flee. According to Zinn, “In 1979, Khomeini returned to Iran” and the cartoon Khomeini says, “That evil traitor is gone. He suppressed our culture, annihilated our people, and destroyed our resources. His government is illegal. I shall appoint my own government with the backing of this nation because this nation accepts me” (252). That year Iran’s government became an Islamic Republic.

At first President Jimmy Carter refused to give refuge to the exiled Shah, and Satrapi’s father says to Marjane and her mother, “It looks like Carter has forgotten his friends. All that interests him is oil!” (43). But Zinn explains that,

Jimmy Carter kept the Shah at arms length. Finally on October 22, 1979, he allowed the Shah, who was dying of cancer, to come to the U.S. for medical treatment. On November 1, 1979, Khomeini called for mass demonstrations. Three days later, Iranian students stormed and occupied the U.S. embassy, taking 52 hostages,

below which is a photograph of a street packed with angry anti-American demonstrators. Khomeini derived support for his religious state because of his popular anti-Americanism at a time when the Shah was synonymous with the United States. Zinn says, “One wonders: what would Iran be like today if Mossadegh’s dream of democracy had come true?” (253). Below this question is a photograph of Mossadegh examining the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. The United States government deliberately crushed an Iranian grassroots pro-democratic movement in order to protect its own capitalistic interests. As a result, the anti-American Islamic Republic gained support and came to power.

The Complete Persepolis and A People’s History of American Empire not only show the causes and effects of American Imperialism, they show the false beliefs that lead to the justification of the dehumanization of people for the sake of profit by both American Imperialists and anti-American sympathizers. Sexism, racism, and classism are examined by Satrapi and Zinn, and found to be the roots of revolutions. Satrapi shows the mandated sexism of the new Islamic Republic, saying “And so to protect women from all the potential rapists, they decreed that wearing the veil was obligatory,” then a bearded man on television in front of the Satrapis is shown saying, “Women’s hair emanates rays that excite men. That’s why women should cover their hair! If in fact it is really more civilized to go without the veil, then animals are more civilized than we are,” to which Satrapi’s father says, “Incredible! They think all men are perverts!” and her mother says, “Of course, because they really are perverts!” (74). Veiling by law based on gender is the sexist reaction to the unveiled and, in the opinion of the Islamic Republic, over-sexualized American woman. Women in the United States must also endure sexism, a form of imperialism, with lower wages and the capitalization on the female body. The Iranian government’s mandatory covering of women is a direct reaction to what they see as American capitalism’s uncovering of women for profit.

The racism of United States government officials during the Iraq War is shown by Zinn to result in the coldblooded murder of countless innocent Iraqi civilians. Zinn recalls how in 1996, 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl questioned democratic President Bill Clinton’s future Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about the U.S. trade embargo with Iraq. The cartoon rendition of Stahl says, “We have heard that over half a million children have died. That’s more than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?” and Albright replies, “We think the price is worth it” (257). The disregard for the deaths of Iraqi children can only be the result of the misunderstanding of a people. This apathy is a result of racism and the idea that an Iraqi child’s life is not worth the same amount as an American child’s life. Anti-Americanism is a response to white oppression through Anglo-Saxon imperialism. While the United States and Western Europe are made up predominantly of whites, the countries they take advantage of economically are made up predominantly of people of color. American prosperity resulting from governmental extortion of other countries, based on race, is justified by the idea that the United States people deserve what they have for being a hard working society.

Satrapi is conscious as a child of being well off. She even has a maid, named Mehri, who has a crush on the neighbor’s son. When the son finds out that Mehri is not a Satrapi, but is in fact their maid, he no longer wants to marry her. Satrapi is upset by this and her father tells her, “You must understand that their love was impossible,” and when she asks, “Why’s that?” he says, “Because in this country you must stay within your own social class” to which Satrapi asks, “But is it her fault that she was born where she was born??? Dad, are you for or against social classes?” (37). Satrapi then says, “When I went back to her room she was crying. We were not in the same social class but at least we were in the same bed” (37). Because of this class injustice Satrapi is moved to demonstrate in the Iranian Revolution. She and Mehri break the rules and march with anti-Shah demonstrators. When they get in trouble with Satrapi’s mom, she slaps them both. Satrapi says,

We had demonstrated on the very day we shouldn’t have: on ‘Black Friday.’ That day there were so many killed in one of the neighborhoods that a rumor spread that Israeli soldiers were responsible for the slaughter. But in fact it was really our own who had attacked us,

below which is a drawing of Satrapi and Mehri with handprints on their faces (39). Many Iranians who protested and participated in the Iranian Revolution were fighting for class equality and their struggle was met with the brutality of the Shah’s soldiers, who were funded by the U.S. To the Iranian revolutionaries, the U.S. became synonymous with class inequality.

The graphic depictions of the characters in both A People’s History of American Empire and The Complete Persepolis make them the memorable histories of people affected by American Imperialism and anti-Americanism. Imperialism is fueled by racism, sexism, and classism which are used to excuse the capitalization on countries with desired resources. Anti-Americanism is a reaction to Imperialism and the only solution is to do away with the Imperialism. Though imperialism continues to dictate American governmental policies at home and abroad, progress has been made in the area of human rights with regard to racism, sexism, and classism. If this progress continues, it should follow that apathy, the cause of the unnecessary destruction of innocent people, even those that live across the globe, will dissolve. While showing the causes of hate, these two graphic novels cannot help but show the resistance to hate present in Satrapi, Zinn, and those they admire.

Iranian Advancement

I found the PBS mini series, Iran, Yesterday and Today, hosted by Rick Steves, both informative and problematic. On one hand, it provides a brief (helpful for the unfamiliar viewer) political and cultural history of Iran. On the other hand this history is littered with commentary comparing Iran with western European countries, using the latter as the standard.

Steves approaches Iran from the admittedly bias viewpoint of an American, and to his credit, he reacts well to anti-American murals. His bias becomes problematic as he attempts to react to Iran as his country's "other." He says things like, "This shopping district could be in Paris or London." It left me wishing that he could just present this country without calling attention to the pre-existing negative stigma it gets in the United States. By constantly declaring how surprised he is that parts of Iran are "modern" and even that women attend college, Steves orientalizes Iran. His way of defending and befriending Iranians is to show their similarities to Americans and Europeans. Their differences, in turn, are treated as "advancements only of Iran's past." Steves looks at Iran with a strictly American definition of advancement.

Azadeh Moaveni's Identity Struggle

In her memoir, Lipstick Jihad, Azadeh Moaveni tells the story of her outsider status as an Iranian in America and as an American in Iran. Because her struggle to fit in depended on two cultures bent on separating themselves between East and West, she could never successfully mash the two together. But it is her very outsider perspective which becomes her strength, as she is able to separate herself enough to deeply analyze her two "opposing" cultures.

Moaveni discusses her mother's attempts to reconcile the culture clash, saying, "It seemed never to occur to her that values do not exist in a cultural vacuum, but are knit into a society's fabric; they earn their place, derived from other related beliefs" (20). For Moaveni, she and her mother were not immigrants, but exiles waiting to return to Iran once another Iranian revolution overthrows the oppressive Islamic regime.

When she gathers the courage to move to Iran in order to discover if she can fit in in her "country of origin," she learns that such another Iranian revolution is not supported by anyone. As she interviews students, who consider themselves radically political, she learns that their views of progress are more moderate than those of Iranians exiled to America. But as she spends more time in Iran, she discovers the small ways in which Iranians are "taking back their country," for instance the application of lipstick, which remind her of her short-skirted rebellions against her mother back in her Californian childhood.

A Coming of Age Story

Marjane Satrapi's graphic novel, Persepolis, is not only a story of a childhood, but the story of a people and a nation. Her consistent wit and humor in the face of traumatic violence drew me in as a reader, opening my mind to more dry political subjects. Her novel is indeed an incredibly affective teaching tool for teens and adults alike.

As a young girl, Marjane is a good student who only begins to rebel when her formerly secular school becomes strictly religious. She can't help but point out the irony of religious rules and punishments. Her parents, who share and encourage her liberal political views, are very proud of the strong woman their daughter has become. But Marjane's strength under Iran's new fundamentalist regime, where women are discouraged from having a voice, becomes her weakness, and her parents begin to fear for her safety.

I loved this graphic novel and I hope that everyone is able to read it at some point during their lifetimes. Persepolis is a coming of age story, focusing as much on self identity as on cultural identity. It is a healthy read.

The Silencing of the Female Voice

The four stories I read from Salwa Bakr's The Wiles of Men and Other Stories, titled "Thirty-one Beautiful Green Trees," "Dotty Noona," "An Occasion for Happiness," and "That Beautiful Undiscovered Voice" affected me deeply. These stories address the societal and marital entrapment of women in Egypt as well as the United States.

In "Thirty-one Beautiful Green Trees," Kareema Fahmi, the narrator, expresses her dismay at having forgotten her brassiere while she is on her way to work. She says, "I went on my way again thinking about brassieres and who had invented them and what was the significance or the point of them," and "what was so shameful about a woman's breasts?" (18). Fahmi's sexual oppression is the same oppression faced by women all over the world who are made to feel ashamed of their bodies and sexuality.

Later in this story, after constant criticism for speaking her mind, Kareema decides that cutting off her tongue, which she sees as the root of her trouble, is the only solution. Although her literal opinion is extreme, Kareema's desire to silence herself mirrors the self silencing of the women of the world. She also draws a parallel between her vocal silence and sexual silence, saying, "I remembered my circumcision operation when I was nine and said to myself: Never mind!" (25).

The theme of the cultural and self silencing of women's voices continues throughout these stories. In "Dotty Noona," Noona, a servant, is slapped for making fun of her employer's little boy for not knowing the answer to a math question, which Noona knows the answer to. Along with women's rights, this story also addresses class differences, and the fact that being a poor girl is a double burden. In "An Occasion For Happiness," Fawziyya learns that becoming a woman means speaking "in a subdued voice, as her mother always asked of her," (53).

In "That Beautiful Undiscovered Voice," Sayyida, a house wife, discovers one day that she has a beautiful singing voice. She begins to dream of singing in front of other people so that her gift does not go to waste. When she tells her husband, he believes she has gone mad and urges her not to tell anyone. Sayyida realizes she has no friends to discuss her problem with, so she tells the grocer, who promptly tells her husband. Enraged and determined to "help" his wife and family, her husband brings her to a male doctor, who prescribes her some pills. No one in this story is willing to even listen to Sayyida sing her song. In the end she learns to suppress her "voice," and thereby her creativity. This story made the strongest impact on me, because of it's representation of the misled and even love-driven stifling of women's voices, told through the clever metaphor of the silencing of one woman's beautiful singing voice.

Turkish Halva

For last Thursday's class I prepared a popular Turkish dessert dish called "Halva," which turns out to be quite tasty. It was also easy to make in about twenty minutes. Here's how:

Ingredients:

• 1/2 cup unsalted butter
• 2 cups farina (finely powdered cream of wheat, I used Indian Soji)
• 3 cups sugar
• 4 cups water

Directions:

1. Melt the butter over a medium flame.
2. Once the butter begins to bubble, pour in the farina and toast to a light golden brown.
3. Add the sugar and mix thoroughly. Do not take too long, the more toasted the farina is, the more crumbly it will be.
4. Add the water and let it boil out. Keep an eye on it because it will burn quickly if the water runs out.
5. Let it cool and enjoy.
   

Colonialism and the Collective Identity

In my analysis of Orhan Pamuk’s The White Castle, called "Colonialism and the Collective Identity," I wrote that his novel

questions whether any difference lies between the lives of people who come from different societies. Such perceived differences are the basis for Orientalism and Occidentalism. The idea of ‘difference’ instigates the idea of ‘identity,’ or that one person’s qualities are unique and therefore better or worse than another person’s. This novel breaks down the idea of ‘difference,’ and therefore ‘identity,’ by building the relationship between two men caught in a power struggle and identity crisis. In the end the two men exchange lives, demonstrating that the complex differences in their original cultures are also able to be broken down and exchanged. By doing away with ‘identity,’ the novel deconstructs the idea of ‘power’ intrinsic in Orientalism and Occidentalism.

When the two men first meet one another, the narrator says, “The resemblance between myself and the man who entered the room was incredible! It was me there…” intuiting their similarities in personality by their similarities in appearance (22). At first, the narrator believes there is nothing he knows that his companion does not know, saying “as I walked to my look-alike’s house I imagined there was nothing I would be able to teach him. But apparently his knowledge was no greater than mine” (23). The narrator’s reaction may be read as an allegory for the reaction of one country’s initial immersion in the culture of another country. Soon they each begin to use each other’s shortcomings to reassure themselves about their own identities. The narrator says, “it was perhaps only in this way we understood each other: each of us looked down on the other,” describing, in turn, the Orientalism and Occidentalism between countries as well as people (25).

The narrator’s disdain for his ‘other,’ called Hoja, or master, is coupled with a strong curiosity for what his ‘other’ knows. The two men begin to mistrust each other, believing that each knows some truth he is hiding. Their obsession with each other mirrors the obsessive qualities of Orientalism and Occidentalism. The narrator says, “Hoja gradually ceased to use the word ‘teach’: we were going to search together, discover together, progress together” (32). The narrator is comforted by their resemblance, as if intuiting the lack of an important difference which would prove one man better than the other or one country better than the other. Their similarity is simultaneously interpreted as a burden to both men, as Hoja says, “reality has shadows, don’t you see; even the most ordinary ant patiently carries his shadow around on his back like a twin,” claiming that since they have met, they will never again be able to separate (49). Hoja’s thought allegorizes the permanent impact the colonizer makes on the colonized and the colonized makes on the colonizer.

After working on many projects together, the two men sit down each night, face each other, and attempt to discover their identities through the act of writing. Although a slave to Hoja, the narrator feels a sense of power in he and Hoja’s perceived difference, saying, “I knew he didn’t have the courage to write without first hearing my opinion of his ideas,” and “what he really wanted was to learn what ‘they’ thought, those like me, the ‘others’ who had taught me” (54). As each man attempts to discover himself, he ends up only questioning the qualities of the other man. In this way countries also search for their identities. Each man finds it easier to look at the other’s face than his own. By analyzing the fault of other men, Hoja concludes they are all ‘fools.’ Similarly, the narrator criticizes Hoja for his belief that everyone else is a fool. By analyzing others and not himself, each man elevates himself above the others. These perceptions of ‘I’ or ‘us’ as better than ‘them’ are the basis of Orientalism and Occidentalism.

As each man struggles to discover his own identity, his search is continually hampered by the distraction of the other’s identity. This finger pointing outward instead of inward is however, just another form of pointing inward. By accusing one another, the narrator and Hoja are able to finally confess their own guilt without the anxiety of doing so directly. When Hoja says to the narrator, “You are a fool,” he is really saying it to himself (59). The narrator explores this concept of blame, asking, “just as we wrote together, would we also look at ourselves in the mirror together?” comparing the act of writing to looking in the mirror, an act of self discovery (62). He acknowledges that while they outwardly blame one another, they are trying to discover themselves. The narrator goes on to say, “I encouraged him, perhaps because I already sensed then that I would later adopt his manner and his life-story as my own,” and “A person should love the life he has chosen enough to call it his own in the end; and I do. He thought all his brothers were fools,” (63). Hoja begins to love the narrator as he loves himself and to despise the narrator as he despises himself. Similarly, a colonizing country is only able to interpret the qualities of the country it colonizes by referencing its own qualities.

The only way that two men who study one another, attempting to study themselves, can actually benefit from their study and better themselves is by outwardly admitting their own faults. By pointing his finger, each man might subconsciously realize that he is searching for himself, but this search is only helpful to the man who applies it through action to his own betterment. The narrator says, “Hoja should write about his own faults too,” so that Hoja will actually realize that their faults are the same (65). When Hoja begins to admit his own faults, the narrator feels a sense of power over him, saying “he would be the slave and sinner of the house, not I,” and “He could no longer believe in himself, so had begun to seek my approval” (69). Self questioning may be read as the antithesis and destroyer of self confidence. Likewise, the examination of the errors of one’s country and culture may lead to a decline in nationalism and colonialism.

Along with humility, self analysis may bring insecurity and envy. Hoja questions the narrator about his home in Venice, asking, “Do they always live happily like that there?” and the narrator takes pleasure in making him feel jealous by saying, “I was happy!” (79). Their dialogue allegorizes the willingness of one country to fake its good qualities, even happiness, to make another country jealous. Nationalism, Orientalism, and Occidentalism, often become more about hurting the ‘other’ than truly reassuring or bettering the ‘self.’ Just as the two men’s differences trouble them, their similarities are especially unnerving. When Hoja fears he will die of the plague, he forces the narrator to look in the mirror with him, as he had forced the narrator to write while facing him. The narrator says, “I had seen someone I must be; and now I thought he too must be someone like me. The two of us were one person!” and Hoja says, “Now I am like you…I know your fear. I have become you!” (82-83). The fallibility of Hoja’s statement calls attention to the difficulty of truly understanding another person, and therefore one’s self. Two countries may be essentially no different from one another, but their qualities will be difficult to assess from either vantage point of ‘self’ or ‘other.’

The narrator realizes the only differences between he and Hoja are those of experience, and the more they share their experiences, the more alike they become. When Hoja decides they must literally switch lives by dressing as each other and adopting each other’s pasts, the narrator says, “I felt like saying that his too could have been, my life could have been lived like this,” and “I listened in confusion to what ‘I’ would do in my old world,” changing the word ‘he’ to ‘I’ (85). The two men begin to see fewer differences between their lives and cultures, just as countries will begin to break down Orientalism and Occidentalism by sharing experiences. When the narrator tries to escape from Hoja, he is unable to forget him, likening Hoja to his sense of self. He says, “I could almost blame myself for abandoning a man who looked so much like me,” (89). Over time the two men develop a need for each other and a sense of brotherhood, just as countries and cultures do.

Hoja recaptures the narrator, admitting that he needs the narrator’s knowledge. But soon Hoja receives all the credit for their joint efforts to please the sultan who employs Hoja. The narrator says, “It wasn’t that I wished to seize a share in the triumph…I should be by his side, I was Hoja’s very self! I had become separated from my real self and was seeing myself from the outside” and “perhaps what I felt could be called jealousy, but what he didn’t realize was that this was a fraternal feeling” (98, 101). The narrator’s feeling addresses the threat power struggles pose to brotherhood and therefore the threat colonial advantages pose to peace and international unity. The narrator says, “All those years I’d been waiting for the day when he would lose hope and become like me” and “perhaps defeat meant to accept the superiority of others and try to emulate them,” (105). His statements parallel the sentiment of colonized countries who resent their feelings of inferiority and powerlessness.

The sultan’s realization that the narrator has as much to do with Hoja’s discoveries as Hoja has, results in the furthering of the two men’s role reversal. The narrator says, “I went to the palace and he stayed home with his dreams as I used to do,” begining to identify more with Turkey than Italy and to take on the role of Hoja, the master (117). In turn, Hoja wants to travel abroad and live among ‘them.’ When the narrator looks at Hoja he begins to see his former self and youth. When they accompany the sultan to war in Europe, the two men finally completely switch lives, each believing he is literally the other man. The narrator even begins speaking as if he is Hoja. When contemplating the subject of ‘identity,’ the narrator asks, “Of what importance is it who a man is?” concluding, “The important thing is what we have done and will do” (149). The sultan goes on to ask, “was it not the best proof that men everywhere were identical with one another that they could take each other’s place?” implying that the only differences between cultures lie in unshared experiences (151).

The idea that all men are inherently the same contradicts Orientalism and Occidentalism, which like all forms of ‘othering,’ have given way to nationalism and colonialism. The borders between people and countries are not inevitable but created to avoid the settling of differences. Peace may be achieved only through self analysis and shared experience. Not only do the colonized have nothing to gain from being weakened, but the colonizers have nothing to gain from their false sense of security attained through power and separation. The only true security for all peoples may be realized through the understanding that no one is better or worse.