Saturday, March 01, 2008
100%
Two Acholi children in Gulu, northern Uganda (Samantha Casolari) We watched a movie about international coffee trade in my human geography class yesterday. It was filmed in about 1989, and besides the distracting continual visual references to stock traders in the World Trade Center, the only thing really notable about the movie was its feeling of gloom. Like so many documentaries of this stripe, I think it left most of us shuffling out of the lecture hall with a sense that humans are a flawed, hopelessly cruel species.
A friend came up to me afterwards as I sat by a windowsill to open up my laptop and said she wanted to talk about what she was going through thinking about her volunteer work in a refugee camp in Ghana last summer and her plans to return to western Africa this summer again. She was having a really difficult time figuring out what to do with a sense of guilt about the potential of her trips to contribute to dependencies in those communities on Westerners coming in (almost on a whim) to volunteer for a while to get funding from the NGOs they arrive with for schools and HIV/Aids clinics.
I think a lot of people in our generation are struggling with this. We receive messages from mostly well-intentioned people fighting for social justice and environmental sustainability that we need to reduce our carbon footprints, feel a sense of shame at the pesticides children are exposed to to get us our beautiful perfect bananas. Which is not to say we shouldn't have these things in mind. But the weight of all this guilt feels counterproductive to me. For myself, I know I often have to fight a feeling of paralysis about things I feel outraged about, ashamed of -- if I go to buy groceries with the mindset that I'm basically choosing between varying degrees of suffering that allowed them to be brought to me cheaply and fresh, how can I act? How can I move?
It's had me thinking a lot about the ceasefire announced last week in Uganda between Museveni's government and the Lord's Resistance Army. After twenty years of war in northern Uganda, the two sides are now through the final stages of negotiating a peace deal! The Monitor reports that the final documents were just signed in Juba on Friday, with a proposed date of March 6th to begin the permanent ceasefire. I think that's pretty incredible. Hearing about what people from Uganda think about the reconciliation process to come after this has turned some of my thinking about healing upside down.
I was walking beside a woman from Kampala during the Guluwalk in Edmonton last year, and we were discussing this idea that although there are still warrants out for Joseph Kony - the LRA leader - and a number of other LRA figures for crimes against humanity, a lot of people in the country seem like they would prefer to see the conflict end than get caught up waiting for the International Criminal Court to drop the warrants, which for a long time looked like the only way the LRA were going to agree to a ceasefire (and might still be the last big sticking point - again, the Monitor article has more).
She said she could see some sense to this. In Rwanda, the UN-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal's trials after the genocide have been extremely slow - the main way people are trying to achieve justice is through small, community-based courts called gacacas. I used to be very certain that some international body needed to try leaders accused of crimes like these. It humbled me to wonder why I felt I had a say in how people in either of those countries determine what justice means.
But I think about it this week and also wonder why we're always looking for silver bullets, for the one simple solution to a problem that will make everything better.
If everyone just...
All we need to do is...
My friend Hayley posed an interesting question to me the other day - if we recognise that the past isn't just one thing, that history is a contested field, why do so many of us think we are bravely pushing towards just one common future? If there are so many stories behind us, how could there be only one ahead?
I don't know if any of this seems to relate to you. But as a perfectionist myself, I think I can see parallels.
Thanks to Samantha Casolari for the amazing photograph you see above from Gulu. You can read more about the kids in the picture and find her flickr account here.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Which way ahead
I've never gotten an email from the Red Cross before today. There's probably a good reason I'm on one of their mailing lists, but until this morning I had never received any messages from them asking me to donate, not for Darfur, not for Java, not for Aceh. It probably says something, then, about the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon right now that they are appealing so directly for help aiding civilians.
This Saturday I saw a group of protesters gathered outside Corbett Hall at the University of Alberta pleading for an end to the bloody conflict, which has claimed hundreds of Lebanese and Israeli lives and displaced an estimated 750 000 people in Lebanon. This isn't the first protest of this kind in Edmonton since the rockets started firing two weeks ago; earlier, about 500 people gathered in front of the Legislature to demand a ceasefire. These are not just Canadians with family in Lebanon (and some from Edmonton have already lost family members), and these are not just a group of eccentrics and anti-Israeli protesters. It takes a lot to get people in Edmonton out on the streets, and a lot of people from all backgrounds here just want the violence to end.
BBC has reported accusations of Israeli soldiers using Palestinian civilians as human shields during incursions in Gaza, Human Rights Watch has published a report condemning the use of cluster bombs in Israeli army attacks in Lebanon, and the United Nations has warned both Hezbollah and Israel may be guilty of war crimes for using excessive or indiscriminate force as the humanitarian crisis in the region mounts. On her recent visit to Beirut, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice showed only the faintest interest in supporting an end to the bloodshed in the region before Israel has unilaterally accomplished its goals, however grave the cost.
There has been a lot of talk about UN Security Council Declaration 1559, which called for the disbanding disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias in the region, as well as the withdrawal of foreign troops (which Syria reluctantly followed through on last year after an upswelling of public pressure in Lebanon following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri). Since Syria's withdrawal, not much has been done in following through with the rest of the resolution, a situation which has made Israel understandably nervous, since Hezbollah had been lining up rockets along the border well in advance of the kidnappings that were the immediate provocation for the escalating war there now. So the Israeli government has been arguing that since no one else has stepped in to enforce Resolution 1559, it must do so itself, by any means necessary. Well, I wonder if Stephen Harper would use the word 'measured' to describe other violent unilateral enforcements of UN Resolutions, like, say, the ones condemning the construction of the barrier through the West Bank.
This is not how peace goes forward.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
And how, and how much
NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT GILAD SHALIT anymore. I think it's clear by now that the escalating violence in Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon has to with a lot more than kidnapped soldiers. I am certain I was not alone in my shock at Hamas' election within the Palestinian authority earlier this year; my only impression of them had been as a militant group, not as a political force. Perhaps I should not have been so surprised, since Hezbollah itself made a similar move in Lebanon not so long ago.Stephen Harper's comments about Israel's response to the kidnappings, first of soldier Gilad Shalit in the Gaza strip and then of two soldiers into southern Lebanon a week ago, are, I think, rather insensitive. What man in his right mind could tell the families of the hundreds of Lebanese civilians killed in the last week that Israel's response to the crisis has been 'measured'? What about the millions in Lebanon and Gaza beng left with rapidly diminishing supplies of food and water, shelled-out roads and homes, no electricity, and no route by land, air, or sea, to reach safety? Would they agree with such a characterisation? Hezbollah's missiles are reaching further south into Israel than ever before, and dozens of Israelis have been killed or wounded in what the Israeli governement has already called a war. Don't they too have a vested interest in resolving the conflict peacefully, especially with speculation of the violence widening to neighbouring Syria? Or are other interests, such as destabilising Hezbollah and Hamas, worth the quickly rising cost of human life?
In her 1997 novel The God of Small Things, Arundhati Roy writes about history's hands, the hold they have on us. The book, set mainly in Kerala, India, tells the story of two twins, Estha and Rahel, caught between these fingers, about lives shaped by loss, and about the walls we construct between each other to draw a line and say, Here, this is where the extent of my love ends. It is with this in mind that I'd like to talk about another violence going on in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, one with perhaps even deeper dimensions than the airstrikes and shelling being hurled across borders in the region now. For some barriers are more devastating, more damaging, than even bullets can be.
It is probably impossible to divorce Arundhati Roy's work and life from her writing. Although The God of Small Things was extremely well-received upon publication, she has not written another novel since; instead, she has focussed on a number of non-fiction books relating to a number of political issues in India that she has been involved in, including the Narmada dam project and India's nuclear policies. Her writing has been compared to Salman Rushdie's in a number of respects--indeed, there are a good deal of similarities in their use of language and casual explanation/exploration of seemingly tragic events. The 'Midnight's Grandchild' epithet that has sometimes been attached to her is probably too narrow to describe Roy's elegant manipulation of voices and quiet sense of a moment's beauty and tragedy. The best parallel to draw between the authors is their passionate use of story-telling to uncover what's invisible, to refuse to allow ideas to go unspoken, to 'name the unnameable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start arguments, shape the world and stop it from going to sleep,' as it were.
The book is told from the perspective of Estha and Rahel, children on the brink of becoming themselves, mostly as the story of a series of events and arrivals in 1969. Occasionally, we are brought back closer to the present, meeting the twins at an older age, and see them in a family torn apart like crumbling driftwood and framed in loss by something that happened that summer. Roy has a talent for giving the impression, throughout the novel, that the ending is contained in the beginning, that you already know how it will end; this does not diminish, however, her sharp tendency to elicit anguish in the midst of otherwise simple, dewdrop moments. There is an unspoken sense of a violence and intolerance lingering under some parts of the book that is most obvious when no one will acknowledge it. This is most clearly evident in the twins' fascinated horror at the brutal beating of a character who would otherwise be, at best, completely unremarkable to most of the Touchables in the town:'Blue-lipped and dinner-plate-eyed, they watched, mesmerized by something that they sensed but didn't understand: the absence of caprice in what the [attackers] did. The abyss where anger should have been. The sober, steady brutality, the economy of it all.'In the book Against the Wall, a collection of essays about the separation barrier by writers from Israel, Palestine, and around the world, Ariella Azoulay and Adi Ophir argue that the strategy being pursued by Israel with regards to the Palestinians is one of continuously exercising violence in the hopes of supressing it; not unrelated to the the attitude that, as Haifa University professor Steven Plaut wrote, 'no terrorist has ever murdered anyone else after being executed.' The belief in what Azoulay and Ophir call 'Violence that prevents violence' assumes that peace is impossible, a continuous renewal of a never-diminishing source of violence is inevitable, and it must be suppressed on a never-ending basis by whatever means possible.
The separation barrier itself, then, is seen as the most effective means of protecting Israeli citizens from attacks by Palestinian militants; it is disruptive, penetrable only on Israel's terms, and an extremely efficient method of communicating a very definitive message. It is a continuous disruption, a barrier being built with no intention of ever being dismantled, as a means of innoculating one population from physical violence by the other. And because it is being built on the terms of what Israel sees as its own security needs, its construction is backed by the seizure of Palestinian farmland, villages, and fields that are deemed necessary to protect the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the ordinary cities and towns on the other side of the UN-backed Green Line border set down in 1967. The material environment in the whole region is being reimagined, with a heavy cost, in the interests of collective safety, and redefining human relationships with an ever heavier toll.
What Estha and Rahel witness in the casual, internalised brutality of that beating is similar; both depend on the belief that mutual understanding and cooperation is impossible, and the animosity is so entrenched in the relationship that it almost goes unnoticed, unseen, noticeable only in its absence; this is simply the way things are, and the only way they can ever be.
Ah, I drift.
If you recall a picture I posted here a few weeks ago of a head with its hands clasped, titled 'The Laws,' I'd like to explain what was behind it. That week was the anniversary of the discovery of HIV/AIDS, and 25 years later, stigma is still extremely strong around those people living with HIV around the world. This is what Roy refers to in The God of Small Things as The Laws of who should be loved, and how, and how much. We draw barriers between each other out of fear, out of anger, out of a lack of understanding, mostly, without realising how very much in common we have. In the novel, these barriers are the background to a loss that hollows out the twins' lives, that of their Ammu, their uncle Chacko, their aunt Baby Kochamma, and all of those around them. Their lives are framed by this absense, this emptiness, and its root is a series of events the book seems to lead inexorably towards, because the characters draw lines between each other, or have them drawn by history, to define what kind of love is allowed between them, if any, and what must happen if those rules are broken.
This wall, that not only divides Israelis and Palestinians, but also Palestinian families and friends from each other in its many incursions behind the Green Line, says that our collective imaginations have been exhausted, that there are no options beyond total separation, at any cost. Estha and Rahel have their futures redrawn for them in dark smudges of grief because the rules of love, its barriers, are broken. I know it sounds vague, but trust me, when you open this book you will be saturated by the ripples of this simple tragedy emanating through their lives. It's been called an apatheid wall, and in a sense, that's exactly what it is: the construction of a division between one group and the Other, which in turn fuels the conflict between them and exacerbates feelings of irreconcilable differences and mutual identification as Others.
My friends, there must be other options. I really believe there must be a way out of this lack of imagination. Perhaps, perhaps rockets will continue to be fired as long as grievances remain. I admit, there is so much that I don't understand about the conflicts in the Middle East. History tells so many of our stories for us before we've even arrived at them.
I'd like to share just one more moment from The God of Small Things; in this chapter, Rahel, a woman now, has sleeplessly wandered to a nearby temple in the night to witness Kathakali dancers buying back their dignity, as it were, by dancing for the gods at night after selling a cheap version of the divinity of their dances to languid tourists by day. Arundhati Roy has such a way of drawing you into her moments, about who we are. I hope the storytellers in Israel and Lebanon and Gaza find a peaceful way to resolve this conflict, to tell this story.
Anyway.
Rahel sat down cross-legged, resting her back against the roundness of a white pillar. A tall cannister of coconut oil gleamed in the flickering light of the brass lamp. The oil replenished the light. The light lit the tin.How does this story end?
It didn't matter that the story had begun, because Kathakali discovered long ago that the secret of the Great Stories is that they have no secrets. The Great Stories are the ones you have heard and want to hear again.The ones you can enter anywhere and inhabit comfortably. They don't deceive you with thrills and trick endings. They don't surprise you with the unforseen. They are as familiar as the house you live in. Or the smell of your lover's skin. You know how they end, yet you listen as though you don't. In the way that although you know that one day you will die, you live as though you won't. In the Great Stories you know who lives, who dies, who finds love, who doesn't. And yet you want to know again. That is their mystery and their magic.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Oh, Baba
THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT BOOK COVERS THAT COMPELS me.It is an admittedly guilty pleasure of mine that I will indulge more than a few moments wondering why a publisher picked a particular image for a certain book. For the copy of The Satanic Verses I picked up, it was butterflies. For The Stone Diaries, it was flowers. For A Complicated Kindness, it's some inscrutable rooster and axe thing. And for Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner, the Canadian edition picks the seminal moment of the whole novel, the one we are forced to come back to again and again... a boy of about 12 staring into an alley, his finger bandaged... Last week, our parliament debated whether or not to renew Canada's commitment in Afghanistan for an additional 2 years, until early 2009. Given the complexities of the situation and the growing debate about our role there, it is worth talking about what exactly we are fighting for (and against), especially considering many of the Tim Hortons-starved Canadian soldiers in the country at the moment are from Edmonton. At the heart of this debate is an important question: does Canada's mandate within the US-led 'reconstruction' mission there reflect the defense and support of Afghani rights, freedoms, and values, the assertion of our own on a global stage, or something in between, and if so, what?
The Kite Runner, salivated over by book clubs across the continent (mine no less) is an 'in,' of sorts, for North Americans, into Afghan culture and history. It is a story about fathers and sons, about friendship, about the ties that bind us to each other, about forgiveness, and most of all, redemption. It is not The Power of One; this is not an uplifting novel and it is unlikely to leave you with any warm, tingly feelings. But Hosseini's tight prose, mouth-watering immersion in the kabob, naan, and rose water of Kabul, and gentle allowances for his characters make this meditation on the nature of goodness worth picking up.
Amir, the main character, is not a straight-forward protagonist. When we meet him in 197os pre-Soviet Afghanistan, he is a young boy, the son of a wealthy businessman in the capital, Kabul, an avid reader, and an achingly lonely boy seeking his Baba's forgiveness for the death of his mother in childbirth. For all his desperate attempts to please his father, he is unable to rouse the love in him he so richly craves, and it is perhaps this disconnect that informs the other most important relationship in Amir's life -- that to their servant's son, Hassan. While Hassan and his father Ali are Hazaras, members of a low-caste ethnic group in Afghan society, they have an intimate bond with Amir and his father, both Pashtuns, the ruling class at the time and most predominant ethnic group. In school, Amir learns Farsi poetry, from Rumi to Khayyám, and at the top of the hill near the house he reads Hassan, who cannot go to school, their favourite stories under the pomegranate tree, where their names are neatly carved with the inscription 'Sultans of Kabul.'
Though Amir never calls Hassan his friend and is quick to abandon him if guests are over, his first memory is of Hassan's 'china doll face,' his chin, his squarely split harelip, and indeed Hassan's first word is Amir's name. This is where the crux of the story lies. Early in the novel, Amir's father is talking to his best friend and business partner, Rahim Khan. His father says he's concerned Amir doesn't fight back when the neighbourhood boys push him around -- he lets Hassan do the fighting for him. 'He's missing something,' he says. 'Yes, a mean streak,' Rahim Khan counters. Frustrated, his father says, 'A boy who won't stand up for himself becomes a man who can't stand up to anything.' This discussion, it seems, is one Amir cannot reconcile either. Later, he tests Hassan's loyalty to him playfully, and asks if the boy would eat dirt if he asked him to. There is a flicker in his eyes, something Amir doesn't yet understand, but he replies simply, 'If you asked, I would. But I wonder, would you ever ask me to do such a thing, Amir agha?'
Again and again, this question of Amir's integrity, of standing up for what is right and against what is wrong, emerges. What happens that winter unravels his simple life in Kabul, and that of his family, and he is forced, on the day of the biggest kite flying contest of the year, to ask himself if sincere and brutal betrayal is worth a taste of his Baba's undivided love at last.
In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to prop up the Marxist government, which had come to power the year before after then-President Sardar Muhammad Daud Khan was assassinated. His government had come to power in 1973 after the king was ousted in a 'bloodless coup;' this battle for power, though, was not so kind. Soviet tanks still litter the country, and some authors believe it was this bloody and costly war against anti-Communist guerrillas, who could attack virtually unseen from the mountainous landscape above the few paved roads, that started the empire on its swift decline in the 1980s. But for Amir and his father, it spells an urgent exodus to America, and much of the rest of the novel takes place in California, as they struggle to build a new life from scratch in an unfamiliar culture and new tongue.
Michael Ignatieff, a human rights professor and one of the few fluently bilingual candidates in the Liberal leadership race this year, asserts that Canada's role in Afghanistan today is 'a test' of a new kind of mandate for our country. The war fought there following the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States bombed the Taliban out of Kabul, certainly, but President Hamid Karzai's current government has far from absolute control over the country. Canadian troops are engaged in Kandahar, a northeastern province near the border with Iran where the Taliban still have a firm hold, and we are unlikely to be leaving anytime soon. What Igantieff coyly argues is that Canada's new role there should be a balance between humanitarian assistance and active military intervention under the auspices of the NATO mission. He voted in favour of the Conservatives' successful bid to extend Canada's mission last week, as did many other Liberals, including acting leader and former Defense Minister Bill Graham (whose Toronto constituency a certain rollerblading reader may be familiar with), a strategic move as much as anything, since the Liberals discussed a very similar piece of legislation just last year.
This weekend, I had a chance to watch Nelofer Pazira in the movie Kandahar. An Afghan-Canadian journalist, the movie is based on her story of receiving a desperate letter in 1998 from her childhood friend in Kabul, seeming to say she was about to commit suicide because her life was no longer worth living. Pazira stars as a woman crossing the Iranian border through refugee camps under very similar circumstances, and is fierce amid a country utterly unfamiliar to her. Amir, receiving a message from Rahim Khan one day telling him 'There is a way to be good again,' makes a journey of his own back to his home. In early 2001, the Taliban, who were first welcomed by many for bringing stability to a country being torn apart by feuding warlords in the early 90s, have transformed the land of his ancestors into something he does not recognise. No more kites, kabob, or pictures of Bollywood actresses to be traded and compared among boys. Yet today, four and a half years after US-led forces invaded with the assistance of Northern Alliance troops in December of 2001, when the burqa, which hid so many Afghani women beneath a veil and made them all but invisible in Afghan society, has ostensibly been lifted, the country continues to face significant development challenges.
On Sunday, Canadian officials announced a new aid project designed to give the power to allocate development resources to local leaders and communities in Afghanistan. The project, under the auspices of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), aims to emphasise local consultations in the decision-making process surrounding the allocation of $900 000 in funds set committed for Shah Wali Kot district. It is an intriguing new idea, and given the $4 billion already spent to fund military operations, perhaps a sign that meeting the basic needs of the people living there in a participatory manner is gaining precedence alongside building bunkers and buying shells.
I wonder, though, if anything will humanise the media's portrayal of rebels fighting NATO-led troops in Afganistan today. As Canadian forces have taken command of NATO missions there in the past few months, the Canadian media has increasingly depicted the soldiers on the other end of the guns sending Canadian troops home in coffins and destroying local infrastructure as faceless 'insurgents' (which is not to say that the deaths of Canadians in Afghanistan are worth any more than the countless civilians dying in this war on a regular basis). The word 'insurgent' is right up there with 'extraordinary rendition' in meaningless, dehumanising doublespeak. It manages to strip the Other of any grievance or reasoning, while heroically legitimising anyone on the friendly side of the front lines, a dangerous path to set upon from any perspective.
The Kite Runner tells the story of a boy growing into a man and wondering if he will ever have the courage to stand up for what he knows to be right, and if he can ever be forgiven for the terrible events of that winter that tear his life, and Hassan's, apart at the seams. It is worth discussing what is right in Canada today as well, and certainly worth stepping back and assessing if sending bombs hand in hand with aid in Afghanistan is the appropriate approach for us to be taking. It is worth remembering that Ignatieff's 'test' involves the lives and futures of real people, and that our actions today will have real impacts in the years to come.
Labels: afghanistan, books, canada, war
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
If This Is Man

WHILE CRIMINALLY NARROW AND INSUFFICIENT, RECENT coverage in the Western media has brought some attention at last to a possible peace deal in Darfur. Proposed between rebel groups there and the Sudanese government, which has been accused of supporting Arab militia groups executing what the United States has termed 'a genocide,' the deal was signed by the government and the largest rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Army, this week, amidst delayed negotiations and a last-minute pullout by two of the other major rebel groups in the region. The conflict has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions more displaced, and the World Food Program recently announced it is cutting a significant portion of its aid to internally displaced people within Darfur due to a lack of adequate funding.
Yet even as it seems drowsy patches of the international community may finally be waking up to the atrocities being committed there, they have thus far ignored altogether the overwhelming humanitarian crisis going on in nearby Uganda, where a decades-long civil war has seen such widespread killing and rape that many children are now being brought into the conflict as child soldiers. Last year's 'Gulu Walk,' an international event that saw thousands march in cities from Amsterdam to Beijing to Toronto, and even Edmonton, highlighted the high cost of this war on Uganda's children by using an 11-kilometre walk of solidarity to demonstrate how far children in neighbouring villages must walk to the city of Gulu every night to avoid abduction or molestation by soldiers during the night, even in their homes. It is in this context that Uzodinma Iweala's Beasts of No Nation emerges, the debut novel from this Nigerian author and graduate of Harvard University.
I have begun to wonder if it is a hallmark on Nigerian literature that many of its great novels are so short and brutal. As Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart mashes the bursting, spinning carcass of a people that have lost their identity between your teeth, Iweala's Beasts of No Nation pistolwhips you with the hands of a child, and asks us to look up at him and decide if he is a man, a beast, or a boy. The novel begins with a claustrophobic, dizzying displacement that quickly shoves you to the ground face-first with its protagonist, a young boy caught alone and brought under the command of the... off-putting (to say the absolute least) Commandant and his somewhat impromptu militia, already comprised of several young children. The boy himself, in an unnamed West African country, has been separated from his mother, father, sister and their village. As such, the road they march on is often marked by intense moments of regret and loneliness for him, as he explains the terror and confusion of a war he does not understand and cannot feel the weight or reasons for.
Iweala leaves the boy unnamed when we meet him, a disorienting detail similarly left out in Clarice Lispector's Hour of the Star to at once pull us away from a child we cannot connect with comfortably, and strip bare the assumptions and baggage a name brings along, forcing us to shake hands with a humanity we are unaccustomed to on an extremely intimate level. The few characters we are shown with any closeness are either left unnamed or given titles, like the Commandant, Rambo, or Preacher, a boy in their brigade who sings church songs to himself every night before he goes to sleep, songs our speaker finds he cannot help himself singing along to. It is in his sense of confusion and frustration with what is happening that we take the hot gun in our hands and see what it means for this boy, who is forced to become something else, to shoot holes over and over and over again in women and sons and daughters that seem vaguely familiar (a feeling that conjures up the story Are You My Mother? in the worst ways).
We see through his eyes the knife he must chop a mother's head away with until there is hot blood in everything and under his skin. Iweala forces us to question if these nameless soldiers are even human, or if they have become something so monstrous there is no trace of men left in them, as they kill without even feeling their hand bring the machete down, as if they are so far lost that the limbs and the blood that fall are just rain on a window they can't or will not look through. But the boy, and he must at heart still be a boy, shows us he is still human when he remembers his teachers at school, of his dreams to be Doctor or an Engineer (capital D, capital E) and when he speaks to his only friend in their uniformless army, a boy named Strika, who cannot speak back.
There are so many things Iweala leaves us to wonder at but will not show us for more than an instant; does the boy see his long-lost friend, who disappeared so violently, in Strika's eyes? At whose hands does his father 'dance' when the boy last sees him, and does it even matter who he is fighting for?
Beasts of No Nation is a visceral kick in the teeth, a bloody meditation on many things, not least of all what remains when a childhood becomes a brutal, eviscerating shove into something else entirely. But could these beasts lurk anywhere, in any heart? As the boy reminds us, he too once had a mother, and was loved.
I have begun to wonder if it is a hallmark on Nigerian literature that many of its great novels are so short and brutal. As Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart mashes the bursting, spinning carcass of a people that have lost their identity between your teeth, Iweala's Beasts of No Nation pistolwhips you with the hands of a child, and asks us to look up at him and decide if he is a man, a beast, or a boy. The novel begins with a claustrophobic, dizzying displacement that quickly shoves you to the ground face-first with its protagonist, a young boy caught alone and brought under the command of the... off-putting (to say the absolute least) Commandant and his somewhat impromptu militia, already comprised of several young children. The boy himself, in an unnamed West African country, has been separated from his mother, father, sister and their village. As such, the road they march on is often marked by intense moments of regret and loneliness for him, as he explains the terror and confusion of a war he does not understand and cannot feel the weight or reasons for.
Iweala leaves the boy unnamed when we meet him, a disorienting detail similarly left out in Clarice Lispector's Hour of the Star to at once pull us away from a child we cannot connect with comfortably, and strip bare the assumptions and baggage a name brings along, forcing us to shake hands with a humanity we are unaccustomed to on an extremely intimate level. The few characters we are shown with any closeness are either left unnamed or given titles, like the Commandant, Rambo, or Preacher, a boy in their brigade who sings church songs to himself every night before he goes to sleep, songs our speaker finds he cannot help himself singing along to. It is in his sense of confusion and frustration with what is happening that we take the hot gun in our hands and see what it means for this boy, who is forced to become something else, to shoot holes over and over and over again in women and sons and daughters that seem vaguely familiar (a feeling that conjures up the story Are You My Mother? in the worst ways).
We see through his eyes the knife he must chop a mother's head away with until there is hot blood in everything and under his skin. Iweala forces us to question if these nameless soldiers are even human, or if they have become something so monstrous there is no trace of men left in them, as they kill without even feeling their hand bring the machete down, as if they are so far lost that the limbs and the blood that fall are just rain on a window they can't or will not look through. But the boy, and he must at heart still be a boy, shows us he is still human when he remembers his teachers at school, of his dreams to be Doctor or an Engineer (capital D, capital E) and when he speaks to his only friend in their uniformless army, a boy named Strika, who cannot speak back.
There are so many things Iweala leaves us to wonder at but will not show us for more than an instant; does the boy see his long-lost friend, who disappeared so violently, in Strika's eyes? At whose hands does his father 'dance' when the boy last sees him, and does it even matter who he is fighting for?
Beasts of No Nation is a visceral kick in the teeth, a bloody meditation on many things, not least of all what remains when a childhood becomes a brutal, eviscerating shove into something else entirely. But could these beasts lurk anywhere, in any heart? As the boy reminds us, he too once had a mother, and was loved.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.


