Reem Fakhoury – Dance Ensemble Campus Commentary

I recently attended the Dance Ensemble performance here at Davidson per request of on elf my friends who was involved in one of the performances. They were in the Bhangra group.

I very much enjoyed all of the performances, they were all extremely well choreographed. It so much so intrigued me that I almost went again the next day to watch it once again.

During these performances, it made me wish I would have joined something like this with my time at Davidson, however, considering how swamped I have been with work etc, I found myself having much respect for those who put all their hard work into this, as it was absolutely amazing.

The one group that caught my most attention, besides my close friends of course, was BEST. BEST is a group that work with adults who have special needs, watching this performance almost made me cry. In this performance, from what I remember, they performed to around 4-5 songs with different dances, and it was the most heart warming thing to see. Not only were the dances very well choreographed and included lots of different moves, but the amount of happiness that was on these adults faces was extremely evident. Their performance was the most heartwarming thing I have seen in a very long time, and it almost gave me a sense of hope back into our world.

Reem Z. Fakhoury – 12.04 Unit Post

The page I have chosen to talk about is connected to a Childs place during these protests. We are given the context of the protest I regards to Jim Bevel, who left the SNCC and joined the SCLC, to “train Birminghams children.” ( Page 131 ). From Page 131-135, We are given the context for the pages I have chosen, which revolves around these young children who are protesting and then are arrested.

The pages I have chosen had greatly impacted me, while reading the comic, I took pages of these pages to keep for myself before I knew what the post for this week was.
With this being said, these two pages have left a long standing impact on me. Through the illustrations themselves, you are able to look at some things through a perceptive in your own, in your point of view. This is shown most specifically though the last row of opals, on page 134, which is in the middle panel. In this middle panel, you are able to almost perspective of being at the back of this police truck with these other children. It is hard for me now to imagine what this would be like, and I am 18 years old. Therefore, I cannot imagine the diminishing of these children’s innocence, it seems to take me directly back to the Raymond Santana talk, which completely shifted my perceptive on things.

However, my main focus of this post will be based off of the full page illustration on page 135, in this drawing we are shown a very young black girl talking face to face with a white, large, police officer.
In the word bubbles he is asking this young girl what she wants and she replies, F’eedom. Meaning Freedom. The contrast of this kills me, as this officer also has a confederate patch stricter onto his uniform.
I myself am afraid of police officers being a minority, which is why this page and pages has resonated with me so deeply. As you will also notice the last panel on the last page is this little girl, once again close up and personal with this police officer, and the fear on her face is clouded with fear.

With all of this being said, this brings me back to my personal experience and also the impact the Raymond Santana talk has had on me.

Reem Fakhoury – Raymond Santana Campus Commentary

I recently attended the Raymond Santana talk here at Davidson at the Lily Gallery.

During my time here at Davidson, I have had a lot of trouble personally and mentally, and I can day with certainty that attending this talk with Mr. Santana has completely uplifted me. The Exonerated 5’s story has always been absolute insane to me to being with, but to think I have met this man and heard his story first hand. He did not focus and dwell on the negatives and how the world has wronged him, but rather on what needs to be done so this does not happen again.

He explained his experience, his situation and how it has motivated him to change the situation, to make things better for all of us who the system was made to attack and target. He was completely vulnerable, told us about his healing process and intimated us into his world and we should all be aware of the privilege we have to see this side of the man who experienced hardships that were not his to own. His vulnerability and strength is something I will forever hold close and dear to me.

Unit 3 – Assignment 3 – Reem Fakhoury

Both authors present this idea of nearness and distance of war.

Gourevitch touches onto the fact that these acts were aired and able for people to see, they were able to see these acts being committed and nothing was done. This connects to Sontag’s statement about humans ability to distance oneself from war or feel a nearness. This leads to the also similar point that Sontag makes in regards to the impact of photography and the documentation of these acts. People are watching, but people are not doing. I personally find this very interesting because it retreats back to nearness and distance, depending on how you are impacted by the documentation determines, what you do and how you react.

Reem Fakhoury – Macbeth Commentary

Saturday night with my mom I went to see Macbeth, it was absolutely amazing.

The portrayal of Lady Macbeth was what I found most interesting, my mom, being a Chicago Public School Teacher, and a member of the scholarly conversation when it comes to Shakespeare, gave me lots of insight into Macbeth. She has seen many versions of Macbeth, and she has never seen Lady Macbeth portrayed in such an innocent way before, when in reality she was much more of an orchestrator in the murders committed by Macbeth.

However, overall it was an amazing production and I would 100% see it again.

Sontag Reading – Summaries – Reem Fakhoury

Chapter 1 Paragraph Summary :

There is a need for further explanation within the concept of “we”, Sontag goes into how viewers are all different and identify with different parts of their identity, gender, sex, race, religion etc, also including the amount of privilege we have. With this being said, this also can lead to misinterpretation of images and their representation of war. Sontag states “The pictures Woolf has conjured up do not in fact show what war, war as such, does.” (Sontag, Page 9)

Chapter 1, Sentence Summary : Photography of war can be misinterpreted, however it still holds its strength and impact.

Chapter 6 Paragraph Summary : In this chapter, Sontag addresses the idea of humans interest in these gruesome images. However, she also addresses this idea of being able to understand the tragedy rather than being intrigued. Additionally, she also talks about our ability to disconnect ourselves from these pictures or acts. Some have become normalized Sontag states “As everyone has observed, there is a mounting level of acceptable violence and sadism in mass culture : films, television, comics, computer games, imagery that would have had an audience cringing and recoiling in disgust…” (Sontag, Page 101)

Chapter 6 Sentence Summary : Humans fascination with violent pictures, however, its connection with humans ability to disconnect and dehumanize with the acts we are looking at.

Chapter 8 Paragraph Summary : Humans non ability to differentiate and understand the difference between the importance of remembering and understanding these events rather than taking them in and forgetting after they are over. This lead me to the idea of history repeating itself, therefore, if we forget then it’s almost like permission to repeat itself.

Chapter 8 Sentence Summary : Remembrance’s ability to impact the future and perception of events, allowing them to become an actual reality.

Banality of Evil & Adolf Eichmann Research – Reem Fakhoury

  • Adolf Eichmann was a member of the Nazi Party, and as time progressed he made his way up through the hierarchy of the party.
  • Eichmann was responsible for the assembly, transportation, and also the identification of Jews all over Europe, until they reached concentration camps.
  • Eichmann escaped from a prison camp and took refuge into the Middle East, he was then arrested by the Israeli secret service near Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  • Eichmann was then transported to Israel to be convicted, he was placed in front of a three judge court. It’s said that his trial was extremely controversial from the beginning.

  • Eichmann was “one of the most pivotal actors in the implementation of the “Final Solutions” ”
  • Eichmann was charged with managing and facilitating the deportation of Jews to concentration camps and ghettos.
  • He was also considered a major organizer of the holocaust as he controlled all of the transportation of Jews.
  • Mossad agents, seized Eichmann from outside his home, and then brought him to Israel. It was considered a kidnapping and then proceeded to an international incident due to Argentina protesting as a violation of their sovereign rights.
  • Eichmann was also charged with membership in criminal organizations. Such as, Storm Troopers, Security Service, and Gestapo which were all considered criminal organizations during the verdict of the Nuremberg Trial.
  • On June 1st, 1962, Eichmann was executed by hanging. Eichmanns death sentences was the only time Israel has enacted the death sentence.

  • The Banality of Evil, something Arendt believes is directly reflected in Eichmann. Banality of Evil meaning, “the dilemma between the unspeakable horror of the deeds and the undeniable ludicrousness of the man who perpetrated them.”

  • Banality of Evil, doing Evil without being Evil?
  • Eichmann is considered the Banality of Evil because of his continuous claims around being unaware as to what he was doing, in a sense of disengagement .
  • Additionally, Arendt says that Eichmann was not inherently evil, this was just a task he was invoke din in which he was unaware of.

Reem Fakhoury – Unit 2 – Post 3

What is the best way to reduce the amount of bullshit?

I actually have a question in regards to the question. Is there even a way? The world is such a complex way with so many different opinions and people I don’t actually know if this is a possibility. And if there is there is so much complexity in the ability to do this. Everyone has their own push, something that makes them want to do something. Therefore, in order to do this, it would not be universal. Everyone would have to pin point everyone else motivation, something they care about and use this to explain why the presence of bullshit is so terrible.

With this being said, are we going to be able to do this? Pin point every person’s motivation, and explain it all?

Unit 2 Question

My question is based upon the idea of translation, as this part of the unit resonated with me very personally. I am curious of you’re opinion on the ability to have a universal translation for things. Would we ever be able to do this, because doesn’t this mean that we would have to learn as humans top completely separate our personal beefs and perspectives within language. Is this realistic?

Language and Translation – Reem Z. Fakhoury – Unit 2 Assignment 2

My question about translation, and more related to Thursday’s panel is, will there ever be a way to universally understand and be able to translate languages? Or will perception and personal experience, usage, always affect translation? Is there a version of this now?

I ask this because I have a personal connection to this with the Arabic language. In Arabic the word hurriya means freedom, however, with the way I have always used it and perceived it has always directly translated to “you have a choice” or “it’s up to you”. With that being said although that basically is the definition of freedom, it is not that same freedom. Added to the fact that freedom and having a choice does not have the same connotation’s. I personally believe that both words have certain uses and connotations, I feel like the act of making a choice is more insignificant, such as the choice to pick if you want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or a peanut butter and strawberry jelly sandwich. While, my perception of freedom leads to the idea of being free from constraints, place of war etc. Therefore, will my translation of hurriya be wrong depending on the conversation, and if I have my own way of understanding of a word I am more than sure everyone doe, therefore, will we all ever have a universal ability to translate things?

Go Rogue :

Translation’s ability to keep things alive amazes me. Once you start thinking about it, can you actually ever completely understand and fully analyze a work if you don’t translate it into different languages. I personally believe that you will either be able to better understand something and make amazing connections while translating things into different languages. You might be able to find completely different sides to things which you may have not reached without translating these languages. For example, also

Science vs. Humanities – Unit 2 Assignment 1 – R.Z.F

The question I have chosen is related to the passage on page 73 of, The Scientific Revolution, by Lawerence M. Principe. On this page it states “The technique of reducing the physical world into mathematical abstractions… played a key role in producing a new physics and stands, as a distinctive feature of the Scientific Revolution ( Principe, P. 73).

Personally, I do not believe this should be the ultimate distinguishing factor between Humanities and Science. I say that because it seem to be the same end goal to me. Something new is accomplished, this happens in both science and humanities. The purpose of humanities that I have reached is looking at many different human perspective in hope to better understand humanity. With this being said, we use analysis f people, and perspectives to understand their place, role, and perceptive in our world, to better understand. From this excerpt, I am understanding it as the role f math t0 understand things within science is considered the point of difference, when in reality math is how they are analyzing, to find a new definition and type. This is the same within humanities, we are always trying to understand definitions of things to find an overarching one. For example, our entire discussions on being human, who is considered a human? Who decides who is human? And who determines the ultimate definition?

I believe this same analysis can also take place within science, although it is a different type of analysis, I believe it is still the same as it is analysis with the same goal, to understand.

My question is based upon this idea of variety, Variety has been very adamant topic throughout our courses of humanities so far, and a question that keeps popping into my head is, Does variety diminish the meaning of something?

Reem Fakhoury – Sept. 8th Assignment #3

I chose to base this assignment off of “Black Skin White Masks” by Frantz Fanon.

During this reading, I found myself fascinated by Fanon’s explanation and depth within code switching and its connection to dehumanization of minorities, and more specifically Black men. In this text, Fanon makes a connection between whiteness of the black man and his state of being as a human. When this claim is be presented, Fanon brings this idea that the whiter the black man is, the more of a human he is considered to be. Once the black man has began to show rejection towards his blackness, it allows him to be seen as more white, which then falls into the obscene category of more human.

Fanon’s entirety of this chapter also deeply falls into the category of language. In relation to this, he has presented the idea of how the language of the black man is part of what has been dehumanizing him. And how his ability to code switch, and essentially, defy his blackness, has allowed him to become more human.

Overall, this text as a whole has struck me in many different ways. I have always been aware to what code switching looks like, as I myself do it. However, when actually being shown the influence of code switching, I am forced to see the harsh reality of it. It is essentially gentrification of races, it is being forced to allow the whiteness to take over in order to be considered a human being. I believe this deeply resonated with me as much as it does, because I am a person of color and majority of those I associate myself with are people of color. With that being said, we all code switch, and we all do it because we have been taught to do so because that is how you survive in the white mans world. However, I have never allowed myself to think so deeply into code switching to realize it is the repellence of my own culture in order to feel human, when I and ALL people of color, Black men and women included, are human regardless of our DNA and our skin color. Lastly, it has brought me to the strong realization that none of us should have to completely revert to a new persona when someone who is not a person of color comes around to validate out humanness, because we are all human. This is something I have already known, however, I never realized I had unintentionally been doing things, such as shifting my persona, to feel human to someone who does not even accept me.

Three Authors –

I have chosen John Locke, Frantz Fanon, and Karl Marx. I have chosen these three for my panel because I believe they all have different perspectives regarding the idea of human and which characteristics are needed to make someone human. I also wanted to allow for a checking of privilege for Marx and Locke.

Three Questions –

What characteristics are needed for someone to be human? Do these characteristics change based off of situational senses ?

What groups are excluded from being considered as human for things that are out of their control? Is this okay? And why?

Who determines what the definition of human actually is and what characteristics are actually needed in order to be considered human? Check your privilege when answering. Is this okay?

Reem Fakhoury – Diderot’s Natural Law

I chose Diderot’s excerpts because when originally going over them in class, I could not find myself being able to understand his purpose. Therefore, when originally reading Diderot’s Natural Law excerpts, I found myself caught in his distinguishing between man and animal. Through one of his excerpts he focuses in on the difference between man and animal, and if these supposed characteristics are not applied to man, then he is therefore not man/human. After reading and focusing in on this excerpt I found myself sticking to this overall claim I believe Diderot was making which was defining whom he believed was actually human and ultimately, who he believed was worthy of Natural Law/Natural Rights. When allowing myself to focus in on this, I found myself allowing the belief that this was the main idea he was trying to prove, however in reality after re-reading and simplifying some of the sentences on my own, I began to realize in reality Diderot was validating those whom he believed were seen as less human or less worthy of Natural Law and rights being applied to them. After allowing myself to open up to the idea that Diderot wanted to redefine human and explain that the distribution of Natural Law and Natural Rights, his last statement in these excerpts began making sense, as he believed that these laws were for everyone and not a select group. This helped me connect to a question posed regarding Natural Law and who actually has them versus, who is supposedly granted them. 

Overall, in these excerpts Diderot’s purpose was to advocate for the use and application of the Natural Law and Natural Rights to all humans, as they are not and should not be exclusive.