Reading the journals and letters of Rachel Corrie was--hands down--one of the most profound reading experiences of my life. American-born Rachel was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003, at the age of 23 years old, trying to defend Palestinians' homes. Read more about the details here.
When I first heard that Rachel had been killed, I am sad to admit now, I assumed she must have been reckless. I don't know why. Maybe it was some defense mechanism for my own psyche. After all, I feel like I've never done enough. There is part of me that feels like I should be putting my body on the line, and every day that I don't, that I convince myself that writing is "enough," is one more day that I haven't really used my life. The fact that Rachel used her life--used it right up actually--threatened my only excuse...it's not sane to put yourself in harm's way like that. It does no good.
It may not have stopped the destruction of Palestinian homes or the loss of innocent lives, but Rachel's death did matter, and it still does. Even more important, she was absolutely not reckless, or at least not "crazy" by any means. She was incredibly, deeply thoughtful, and also a fiercely gifted writer. I learned this from her own words, which have been brought together in a volume by her family, and published under the title Let Me Stand Alone: The Journals of Rachel Corrie. I'll let her brilliance speak for itself:
Thinking it over, I realized that the most powerful actions I can take toward societal improvement will have to start very close to home, arising not from the need to leave a mark on history, but from empathy and sincere understanding of the places in my life where neglect exists.I can't cool boiling waters in Russia. I can't be Picasso. I can't be Jesus. I can't save the planet single-handedly. I can wash dishes.
Live for a long time in the place you were born and strange things will happen to you. You forget what it's like to discover. In order to survive, you seek out ways to discover things in miniature. Instead of becoming worldly you become intimate. You see every tragic refraction of the place and it sees the same in you.
She also loved making lists, something I used to do religiously in my journals when I was younger. Hers, of course, were far more interesting than "the five cutest boys in the sixth grade":
Five people to hang out with in eternity: 1. Rainier M. Rilke 2. Jesus 3. E. E. Cummings 4. Gertrude Stein 5. Zelda Fitzgerald... 6. Charlie Chaplin
As we face another deadly flare up of violence in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, I am reminded of Rachel's spirit. Not because she was on the so-called Palestinian side. I think there is no good side in this horrific and ongoing conflict. Everything has been so muddled, so militarized, so dehumanized, that it's hard to even take a stand. But Rachel took a stand against death, against suffering, against unconscious or disconnected living. She took a stand against fear. That's something all of us can learn from, no matter what our political views.
We are all born and someday we'll all die. Most likely to some degree alone. Our aloneness in this world is, maybe not anymore, a thing to mourn. Maybe it has to do with freedom.What if our aloneness isn't a tragedy? Tragic passing of love affairs and causes and communities and peer groups. What if our aloneness is what allows us to speak the truth without being afraid? What if our aloneness is what allows us to adventure--to experience the world as a dynamic presence--as a changeable, interactive thing?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Not Oprah's Book Club: Let Me Stand Alone.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11275
your first reaction was right.
this mother jones article on her is rather revealing.
"The Death of Rachel Corrie
News: Martyr, idiot, dedicated, deluded. Why did this American college student crushed by an Israeli bulldozer put her life on the line? And did it matter? "
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/09/ma_497_01.html
she was a person that allowed herself to be used by palestinian activist groups/terrorist sympathizers as a western pawn, a convenient pet fool for some photo ops for their propaganda machine. you should see her burning american flags, its not hard to find on the web. the propaganda machine was well at work with her death, using a series of photos from different events to setup a misleading idea of the situation of her death. it was propaganda 101.
all she did was become part of pallywood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys
I don't like the way the Motherjones article almost depicts her as clueless and insignificant.
I think that this interpretation assumes that she did not really understand the Palestinian cause or the gavity of the risk she was taking in doing what she did. Clearly, from her writing that Courtney used in her post and from her emails that were on a site Courtney linked to, she was aware of what she was doing. I think that Roni's comment below might be an interesting one to think about (I haven't done a lot of reading on this case, so I don't know where I would personally stand) but to say that she was just a pawn seems kind of simplistic.
aliha, if you're a youtube aficionado, check out The Video Israel Does Not Want you to See (sorry, I don't know how to do the link).
And allow your mind to open up to another side of the issue. It is very painful, for sure.
Frankly, your post is morally repugnant.
I read the Mother Jones article and it is not as negative about Corrie as you make it sound. I felt that overall the author admires her though they perhaps feel that her method was not the best and that there are a few questionable attributes or actions of the activist group she was involved in.
Thanks for the link aihyah. I've actually read that one, as well as almost everything else out there on Rachel (I'm writing a profile of her for my new book), and I urge you to take a look at more sources before drawing you conclusion. Here are some more links to check out:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/22/my_name_is_rachel_corrie_a
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/22/rachel_corries_parents_react_to_new
http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2008/03/07/whos_afraid_of_rachel_corrie/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/18/seeking_answers_from_israel/
I also encourage you to think about the implications of deciding that a young woman was manipulated in this way when she actually had really mature ideas about social change and nonviolent resistance. I seems like there is certain sexism in assuming that she was manipulated.
And finally, I ask that you focus on what I focused on--Rachel's own words. That is the most pure source we have to understand who she was at her core.
I was aware of the Rachel Corrie situation immediately after her murder.
At the time, the excuse / spin was that the incident was an accident / unintentional and the bulldozer driver could not see her standing in front of the local doctor's house, which she was trying to protect from demolition. That the driver could not see Rachel was a blatant lie.
In an enormously ironic twist, a friend that monitors the online activity of hate groups directed me at the time to Matt Hale's Church of God the Creator white supremacist religious group, largely located in or near Peoria, IL, which published clear pictures of her prior to being crushed and photos of her murder in progress and post-mortem on site. She was wearing a bright red jacket. She was clearly visible to the driver, you could see her trying to talk the driver into stopping and eye contact was possible and was made. The way she was crushed to death was brutal and clearly intentional.
To my knowledge, no one was arrested or tried for doing this. You can bandy about all the discussion about how she was foolish or martyred herself (it is always easier to criticize than to find solutions; let us avoid the blame the victim, someone killed her of his own free will). I think this is a clear case of murder of a non-violent protester. She was tiny, I probably could have picked her up and moved her out of the way of the bulldozer by myself. So why didn't anyone do that?
OK so let's say I want a nice big steak and PETA protesters are blocking my way to a restaurant that serves up a nice, juicy chunk o' beef. So I can't drive up and park, and I'm frustrated. Am I permitted to simple ram my car into their picket line and kill someone? Do we expect all laws to be "off" outside of our borders? (Oh well, she went there so she gets whatever happens.) We are less surprised when the PRC does something like this, yet Israel is supposedly a democratic government more akin to our own and we're supposed to think they would not just let some guy slaughter a kid in a real nasty way and get away with it. As far as I know, he did. I wonder if he figured that would be the outcome before he decided to run her down.
Why is it when we do it or when our allies do it, it's not called "Terrorism". You know, the T-word, the favorite buzzword of the past eight years. Somehow, Terrorism is a magical one-way street that is done to us not by us. Gosh, that's very convenient.
Every time I see something on Rachel Corrie it makes we wonder how common it is for Palestinians to be run over by Israeli bulldozers. As in was this a really unique occurrence, or does it only get attention because she was white, blond and American?
I admit I haven't really been curious enough to pursue that question. Something about the Rachel Corrie story rubs me the wrong way; sacrifice or entitlement? Does putting an American face on the conflict help anyone? I'm sure Corrie's writings are an interesting piece of the puzzle, but when it comes to blogs and journals I'm not convinced people's own words are the most accurate perspective on their actions.
Under many other circumstances, blatantly and openly murdering an American citizen could be construed as an act of war.
The Israeli military is funded by our government. They have a massive amount of helicopters, missiles, assault rifles. The other side has... in comparison by volume... um... um... they have rocks, mostly.
Why don't you mention the quack gov'ts that fund "the other side?" That "side" is a Hamas, a terrorist gov't that, when having killed Israelis and Americans, gets little to no reaction from your side.
And, it's a bit naive to say that they have "rocks." That's really the end of the list? Talk about convenience! What about the rockets that DESTROY the homes of Israeli civilians? Are these Jewish civilians not brown enough to merit the "humanitarian crisis" that you feel plagues the Gazans?
It's too hard to take sides. Both sides are culpable. Both have murdered. But, when you write that this is a well-funded gov't up against Arabs with ROCKS, then YOU are grossly misrepresenting the threat and HATE coming from Syria and Iran. These nations attack Israel via Gaza. The next time you criticize the American-backed Israeli gov't, remember the even sadder alternative. Would you rather Iran and Saudi Arabia calling the shots? You'll mind until women can't drive a cars again.
Although I agree that Rachel Corrie was a thoughtful woman, her college culture makes me pause in regards to the wisdom and purpose of her actions. It is a culture that does not encourage long-term forethought and highly values symbolic action.
While her death was a tragedy that brought a lot of attention from American youth to the region, I can't help but wonder what kind of impact she would have made had she made the decision to move away from the bulldozer.
thank you roni, for pointing out one of the biggest problems I have with exactly the attitude expressed in the front of the post-that putting your life on the line, being directly involved in violent situations is the most imporant way to help, the only way that matters. On the one hand, yes, sharing the risk is the only real way to know it. on the other-I don't know. I feel that a big part of real change is slogging through the practicalities. slogging through meetings that feel like you're talking to a wall, slogging to get out the message that nobody cares about. Worrying, as most of the people do, how to live by your beliefs, how to make them compatible with survival. Because to truly have the luxury of not worrying about survival is an amazing amount of priviledge. Both kinds of activism are important. but I feel like everyone can do more alive than dead. and that dying for your principles is a heck of a lot easier than living with them.
just because she was college educated does not necessarily make her thoughtful. many have become rather deranged in their thoughts and passions even after education, it doesn't have much to do with anything. some of the worst from the 9/11 folks to the unabomber were college educated and probably more "thoughtful" than people would like to believe but in a rather warped way. she was easily manipulated by p(ism) which condones terrorist actions. when you are dealing with this level of hate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y
(hamas leader confesses, women and children are their shields. )
there is no point to actions like trying to stop a bulldozer. if she and her group of fellows tried to put pressure on palestinian militants to stop attacks so that any negotiations for better conditions would come from a position of honest concern for human suffering then her actions would have some meaning. throwing yourself under a bulldozer while the people you are fighting for are suicide bombing and rocketing israeli civilians is well..just foolish.
there is no point in trying to save a family and their home?
geez the depth of your sympathy and empathy is immense
Excuse me, I was unclear. I was trying to say that Rachel was an obviously thoughtful woman, but she was an active participant in the culture of her school that values symbolic action and (in my experience) tends to react immediately in service to that value.
I agree that one's level of education doesn't necessarily make one a thoughtful person, but I sincerely doubt she was deranged or as manipulated as you suggest.
"I think there is no good side in this horrific and ongoing conflict. Everything has been so muddled, so militarized, so dehumanized, that it's hard to even take a stand."
Beautifully and succinctly said.
"After all, I feel like I've never done enough. There is part of me that feels like I should be putting my body on the line, and every day that I don't, that I convince myself that writing is "enough," is one more day that I haven't really used my life. The fact that Rachel used her life--used it right up actually--threatened my only excuse...it's not sane to put yourself in harm's way like that. It does no good."
Did the quotey HTML work? Yikes, I'm rusty at this...
Anyway, I hope I'm wrong on this one, but it seems to me (based primarily on this passage) that suicide (even for political reasons) is being glamorized somewhat here. The truth is, nothing will ever be "enough"--even in this case, when a young woman did sacrifice her own body, I think the argument can be convincingly made that she could have accomplished more had she lived longer. I don't think that there's any logical reason for a person to feel like they are obligated to put themselves in danger for a cause they believe in.
Of course, I certainly respect Corrie's dedication to her beliefs, but not to the extent that I think I (or anyone else) should feel guilty for "not putting my body on the line."
What am I trying to say here, in the most clunky and unclear way possible? Basically, this--Courtney, you may see that another day has passed "that haven't really used life," but I beg to differ. Your actions matter. Your posts reach a lot of people and I'm certain they are the catalysts for plenty of debates.
As Corrie said, "I can't cool boiling waters in Russia. I can't be Picasso. I can't be Jesus. I can't save the planet single-handedly. I can wash dishes." See? This is you (and me and everybody else) washing dishes. I suppose some people could just dismiss this whole blog as just so much extra text floating on the internet, but it creates discussion and stimulates thought. I think that's pretty effing important, even if it doesn't include putting oneself in dangerous situations.
Courtney - thank you for posting this. Rachel went to my college, although several years after me. I also agree there is no good "side" to this conflict, but she is still quite inspiring to me.
Eek... What I meant to say was:
What am I trying to say here, in the most clunky and unclear way possible? Basically, this--Courtney, you may see that another day has passed "that (you) haven't really used (your) life," but I beg to differ. Your actions matter. Your posts reach a lot of people and I'm certain they are the catalysts for plenty of debates.
Something about the brackets got screwed up. Sorry.
Thanks, I see this when I'm in my most wise mind, and I wasn't trying to glamorize this kind of death, but I did want to be honest about my own internal struggle. While the most insightful part of me realized that my "mission" has to do with my words, another part fights against that knowing. I think a lot of people have that internal uncertainty and I just wanted to be real about it.
I admit to not knowing about Rachel Corrie until this posting (and have now started reading/watching stuff) but I think I can say that writing IS and HAS BEEN historically pretty dangerous stuff. Words are powerful, thoughts can not be contained and freedom begins with expression. Courtney is right to point out that the best way to see what might have been going through someone's mind is to read their own WORDS. So yes, her actions that could be called political suicide will be judged by the likes of us, but her WORDS are what lives on. Let no one stop writing because we fear it is not enough.
see the ALA's list of banned/challenged books: http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/frequentlychallengedbooks.cfm
or Google "murdered journalists" and browse the 1,970,000 hits.
Writing is indeed a dangerous endeavor.
Actually, there IS a "right" side in the Israel Palestine conflict - the Palestinian side.
After all, 1 million Palestinians were driven from their country at gunpoint by Zionist terrorists in 1948, in the wake of the illegal Zionist coup de etat against the legitimate government of the United Nations Mandate of Palestine.
Over 20,000 Palestinians were foully murdered by the Zionist terrorists during that ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinians lost their homes, their farms, their Mosques and Churches, their schools, and 80% of the country - the Zionists stole the rest in June 1967, during their unprovoked sneak attack on their neighbors Egypt, Syria and Jordan.
So that pretty much means that the Palestinians are 100% right in this case.
And the Israelis are 100% wrong.
And there will be no peace as long as the colonialist Apartheid Zionist regime in Israel, the modern day White Rhodesia of the Middle East, remains in power in Occupied Palestine.
I have no intention of getting into the Israel/Palestine debate with you. However, I do want to say that your post was completely inappropriate for this thread. We are speaking of one person, one book, one experience. Your hyperboles and willfully blind comments are irrelevant and offensive.
Well put. I was thinking something similar, but couldn't find the words.
Just for the record, most ISRAELI historians (even the pro Zionist ones) substantially agree with the above account of the bloody genocidal Birth Of Israel.
Just thought you might want to know that.
I disagree with Gregory's use the "100%". "The Palestinians" are not "100% right" as some Palestinian individuals certainly do wrong things, and "the Israelis" are not "100% wrong" as a lot of Israelis are not racist war-mongers but peace-activists and human rights activists who are also (though, less of course) oppressed by the racist state. I disagree with the absolutism that puts "Palestinians" as if that was a hegemonic block against "Israelis" as if they were not different too. That kind of thinking prevents understanding and peace. The struggle is not Israelis against Palestinians but progressive humans against an oppressive regime. By law, if we look at the conflict as if it was between State-entities, then you would be right: the occupation state is legally wrong. But that approach is too simplistic. States do not represent humans. This is a struggle of humans on both sides fighting an oppressive state.
Otherwise, your historical descriptions are facts. So if "Thatgirl" is offended by them we need an explanation. How are historical facts offending? I'd say that it's offending and harmful to deny history.
Thanks for saying it! It's something you can't talk about even on "liberal" sites. You'll be called "anti-semitic" you see. But it's OK to call Bush a murderer and criticize American foreign policy. Sorry, those are the "liberal" rules.
Hyperboles?
Hey, I'm sorry for introducing a couple of historical facts to this discussion!
Facts are stubborn things, though...you can try and ignore them, but they will come back.
Even if those facts "offend" you.
As for me, I'm offended by colonial armies firing artillery shells at UN relief workers, blowing up schools - oh yeah, and murdering promising young authors like Rachel Corrie!
That's what offends me!
Again, sorry for bringing up some "inappropriate" truths!
I'm way "convinced" of your "validity" by your use of "scare quotes".
"colonialist Apartheid," "White Rhodesia"
The above are hyperboles. Literary devices, using stronger words than necessary to convey a point. Somewhere in your diatribe there are facts, and painful ones at that, but that does not mean everything you said is "100% right" (hyperbole!).
The story is far more complicated than you seem to think.
Roni and kb gave me some good food for thought with this.
And aside from this, those lines she wrote on aloneness gave me pause, because I hadn't thought of it that way at all. A brilliant reframing!
It seems easy (if you think about land ownership and history like a video game or something having nothing to do with actual people) to say well, the Palestinians were there first and were chased out, therefore the newer residents, the Israelis, are in the wrong.
The trouble is that there aren't may places in the world that weren't previously controlled by a different ethnic/religious/whatever group at some point in the past. Granted, the 1940s are certainly more recent and fresh in our minds than, say, the genocide of the Native American tribes, but how many Feministing posters live in the USA? How many of you are Native Americans? Do you expect to move out of your house and give the land back to the decedents of the people who USED to own/live on it? Australia and New Zealand also spring to mind as places where the majority of the current population would have no claim on any land at all if it were to be divided up based on historical residency and ownership.
I hope it's been clear that I'm not taking sides here, I just think that the issue of "they were here first" has been way, way oversimplified.
Ayla, I think everyone agrees that what happened in North America and New Zealand was VERY wrong, so why would you want to repeat deplorable actions now??
When people are supposed to know better?
I live in North America, and it lies on my conscience.
Anyway, great post, she sounds like a very brave individual, who risked (and lost) her life when its infinitely easier to do nothing.
Rowan,
I do NOT want to repeat the deplorable actions now. I am Native American and Irish/English, so I've always had very complicated feelings on this type of thing. I in no way meant to imply that it was OK because it had happened before, I just think it's an incredibly complex situation that some people want to reduce to something black and white, and I felt that what I had to say at least gave some context.
But how many Feministing-readers and -contributors are denying that American was settled by Europeans and that atrocities were committed against the indigenous people? And how many would condone it the process was happening right now?
It's quite easy, but utterly bizarre, to accept atrocities happening right now for yours and my taxes just because we live in a land that was also founded on atrocities that happened in the past. If we acknowledge and condemn them, shouldn't that lead to the exact opposite conclusion about the ones happening right now, ie. to condemn them and try to stop them? Shouldn't the lesson from history be "never again" rather than "oh, it's happened before so it must be okay that it happens now"?
That would, by the way, mean "taking sides". Taking the side for human rights and peace. How easy it is to sit here and "refuse to take sides" while occupation and atrocities are happening. How incredibly privileged. It means though, to refuse to take sides in favor of a lot of the values that are normally part of Feministing's concept: against dominance, racism, violence, oppression and for human rights and equality. Feministing is usually not afraid to "take sides". It is not a Nihilist site.
Human rights do generally not have exceptions.
Thank you so much for posting this Courtney. I wrote about her in the 12th grade for a world issues class and I never thought that I'd hear about her again, or really understand what she did. I remember being struck back then in much the same way you were, and unable to understand why she would die in that manner for this cause. Now that I'm the same age she was when she died, it was really touching to know she lives on in some way, and to read your thoughtful interpretation of her actions.
I think it's hard for us to understand an individual from our world who goes to a war stricken one and sacrifices her life in a seemingly meaningless way. We think all the time that it's noble to save people in those situations, but not to be one, and not to die for them or with them. We have this idea that it is presumptuous to die for a cause not native to our land. I'm reminded though of American pilots who went to England during the war to fly on that side even when they didn't have to, and I think that works well as an framing device for this discussion. Those men had their reasons for volunteering for a nation that was not their own and dying on their behalf, and because it was an official war, which we now in retrospect agree with, and noble, we honor their memory, call them brave, say they were right and saved lives. We say the same thing about other nationals who helped out in the world wars when their own nations weren't involved, whether it was on French soil, which was actually invaded, or English, which was only bombed. We don't say that about people who joined the German side in similar situations, in either war. Rachel went to a country in a war which is hotly disputed across the world, which many people refuse to even have an opinion on, and sacrificed her life in a symbolic move for a war she didn't have to take part in, in an act that wasn't even on a conventional battlefield. Because the war itself is fuzzy, the nobility or honesty of her actions are called into question. It's telling how we interpret her actions against that of the pilots, but will only be truly told once history has made it's judgements on this situation. I think then and only then will people truly decide what light she is in- and frankly, it will all be dependent on the winner.
But if this were a movie, and she did it for the love of a man fighting a war he couldn't win, Hollywood would make her the noble, loving hero- if it were for a man, rather then herself.