The Mobs that Never Came

Thinking of the relative calm and order during the disorderly time last week, when the storm laid low the western sections of Fairfield County, I decided to probe more deeply into the causes of the relative discipline and stoicism on display in these parts. Since these parts are what I call home for the forseeable future, I would like to, er, compare and contrast, analyze, etc.

Hurricane Katrina laid waste to Louisiana and Mississippi. New Orleans is in ruins, and the total breakdown there meant that people were pretty much on their own, which meant that there was widescale looting and rampaging through stores by members of the general public. The January earthquake in Haiti was also followed by lawlessness, looting and rioting. Last month's earthquake in Chile also triggered some sporadic looting of shops in Concepcion and Santiago (although nowhere near what the media reporting would have us believe).

I'd like to think that we are a special people here in Fairfield County, the We Don't Behave Like That kind of people. And yes, all of us who were affected behaved exceptionally well. Those without power and hot water ate at diners and restaurants, built fires and went without showers. Those who had power took in whole families for three days at a time, with no complaint. We all took a break from life and just chilled (well, some perhaps a little too literally for comfort). But might not our good behavior here have also to do with the fact that a) the storm did not affect all of Connecticut, so reinforcements could come in quickly but just as importantly b) we simply never imagined that the powers-that-be would NOT respond to our plight. They had to respond, this is Fairfield County!

Perhaps, that is the difference between us here in Fairfield County and the others in New Orleans, Port-au-Prince and Santiago. We don't loot and riot because the government comes in quickly to aid us in times of trouble, and we expect it to do so. The folks in the other places have no such grand expectations from the authorities. They know quite well that during a catastrophe, they will be abandoned. Rioting, looting, mayhem are not just a result of a breakdown, they are symptoms of a basic lack of faith in government because during normal times, the institutions of authority bypass those in the ghettoes and the shanties. When the punitive powers of the state - the police, the national guard, etc. - recede during earthquakes and hurricanes, the general feeling is that it's every person for himself or herself. Nobody's coming with repair crews and hot food, or at least not soon. It's the jungle and the best-armed will rule, even if briefly. To sum it up even more clearly - it is finally about class and access to power. I would have said that it's about race too but in this country race and class (especially in Louisiana and Mississippi) are so intertwined, that it doesn't need to be said.

The Storm

The Storm of 2010. What else do they call it? The worst weather-related disaster here in fifty years? The worst in 25 years? Well, basically, the worst in a long time. And we lived through it! People throughout lower Fairfield County lost power for several days. Hotels were sold out for miles around. Some people went away to New York (where things could not have been much better, especially in Westchester County) or to New Jersey to stay with friends and family. Many people had to toss out the contents of their fridges and freezers, a kind of Mother Nature-enforced deep cleaning, I guess.

At the risk of sounding Pollyanna-ish in the face of so much physical destruction and so much disruption to people's lives, may I just say that Fairfield County denizens were amazing! There was no breakdown of law and order. Nobody looted shops and warehouses. Firefighters did what they had to do, electrical workers worked long hours, and it helped that even the most frustrated people who had no power for days did not have meltdowns, at least not in public. Community spirit showed itself in the quiet opening of doors to friends and neighbors. Larger meals were cooked, more showers were taken in many households, and life went on despite the stress and the strain of being homeless, so to speak. Restaurants and hotels did fabulous business, of course, and the libraries were the gathering ground of hundreds. On Monday, I couldn't even park in the library's lot because there were so many people there.

How did we fare? Well, we were very fortunate, because we only lost power for one hour on Monday. We did have friends staying with us, which was fine because we drank wine and tea and ate cookies and pie. And the children just loved the extended sleepover-cum-playdate. We do have a pine tree in the neighbor's yard that is leaning over into our property, but the power's still on and one of these days, CL&P will take care of the tree. I'm not complaining.

Religion and Bollywood

There has been some commentary recently about Bollywood's take on Islamic terrorism. It did in fact occur to me too, that of all the major film industries in the world, it has been Bollywood, in all its overblown, screechy melodrama, that has had the guts to take on the most vexing question of our times - Islamic terrorism and Islamic identity post 9-11. Films like A Wednesday dealt with the problem of domestic terrorism in India and one man's (Naseeruddin Shah) quest to end it in the manner he knew best. More recently, at least three films have tackled the status of Muslims in post-9/11 America: New York, Kurbaan, and My Name is Khan.



I have seen (and liked, although I cannot endorse its solution) A Wednesday. Fast-paced drama and action with a central theme that lifts it way above the usual cop thriller genre. The manner in which the harmless, middle-class Naseeruddin Shah transforms himself into a ruthless killer (without firing a shot himself) was just amazing. I confess to not having watched the others, mainly because I dread the treatment of a serious issue such as Muslim profiling in a mainstream Bollywood fashion. I suppose I will rent and watch these films at some point, but I feel that all these movies will suffer from the same weakness - a director's temptation to take full advantage of a location shoot to throw in all kinds of things irrelevant to the main theme. Eyewitness reports for My Name is Khan confirm that, along with the central character's religious identity, the film also throws in Asperger's Syndrome, Hurricane Katrina and racial problems in the south. Can one film possibly be so many things to so many people?


But overall, what is interesting is that Bollywood films are trying to present these issues for discussion, in a manner in which Hollywood and western film industries are unable to do, except via exasperating acts of provocation like the Dutch filmaker, Geert Wilder's Fitna.

In India, in general, there is a meaningful discussion of Muslim identity in the news. What I found refreshing about the program on NDTV was that the panel included a range of Muslim opinion, including Bollywood stars like Shahrukh Khan and Soha Ali Khan but also verging-on-Taliban-type Dr. Zakir Naik. Perhaps, this is because there are so many Indian Muslims that one has to take their views into account, not just marginalize them.

Perhaps, the most interesting part of the program was the audience participation. There was a young Muslim woman in hijab who stated that she would try to "counsel" any potential hijab-less friend about the "correct" way. Another woman got up and said that if any young girl in her neighborhood suddenly started wearing a hijab, she would be "worried" about her. That, in my opinion, is at the heart of the differences between orthodox Muslims and others. The orthodox don't just consider that they are following their own path to God and please could the rest of us just leave them alone to do it. They do actually consider the unveiled and the unorthodox as "bad" or "misguided". Meanwhile, the unveiled and unorthodox consider the taking on of restrictive clothing and visible markers of identity (such as beards) as "abnormal" and "worrisome." Personally, I would side with the liberals and the progressives on this matter. I would never restrict the right of a woman to veil herself or that of a man to grow a beard and to wear a skull cap (as has done Nicolas Sarkozy of France). But, I am not sure whether the orthodox of any faith would respect my right to wear what I want and practise my faith freely, if they were in a position to influence public policy. That is the real difference between us.

Of Writing and Criticism

I’ve noticed on some expat blogs I read (occasionally), a posting or two that deals with comments and criticism. The blog authors are often of the view that the blog is their personal journal, opinions, reflections. Several have said that the blog is the equivalent of a personal diary, the random jottings-down of whatever floated into the authors’ minds on random occasions. If they don’t like what they read, blog authors argue, the readers are free to move on, stuff it, etc. In other words, people should not be getting personal in their criticism and comments on blogs because blogs are the personal opinions of their authors.

I disagree with these blog authors’ assumptions. A blog is not a personal journal. I don’t remember ever letting other people read my personal journal (last maintained in my early twenties in a small black calendar-type book). A blog is a personal account in a public space and therefore is looking for an audience. In the very act of looking for someone to read your blog, you have already made yourself a target of your public’s opinion. To complain afterward that the blog is a personal journal is simply trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You can’t want others to read and then to respond with only praise. Like a spoilt movie star railing against the critics. After all, dear blog authors, if you’re so proud of the brutal honesty of your opinions, then why would you think that your readers don’t have equally brutally honest responses to your expressed opinions? Of course, every blog author has the right to delete or block obscenities, name-calling, spam, and other garbage. But readers’ responses to one’s observations are very valid, and should be welcomed. Even if you don’t agree with their opinion about your opinion.

And if you really do believe that your blog is a personal diary, then (dear expat ladies in particular) please don’t list it in public fora like www.expat-blog.com or http://expatwomen.com . And if you’re really interested in keeping your observations restricted to only positively friendly readers, do make your blog invitation-only, would you?