There seems to be several ways in which the film, Plato’s Academy, employs irony. The Wodak and Boukala article provides a basis for this irony, and proposes that there exists a sense of unity as a result of the elite status as a nation-member of a supranational organization such as the EEC (which began in the late 1950s until formation of EU). This feeling of supranational elitism seems to apply to the four friends who react against the “other” of Albanians. The men specifically reference this by indicating that Albanians should only perform manual labor or very low-skill-based jobs. This is ironic given that the neighbors’ own occupations require no demonstrated skills whatsoever. They sit in front of their shops and destroy the intercultural monument which is being put up, presumably by the government? Does this indicate a larger belief by the film’s director that the Greek population is content with their current economic situation and seeks neither to improve it nor integrate with “other” populations?
The Alogoskoufis article states an interesting fact about the sense of economic nationalism which developed out of the EEC’s post-WWII regional policy. This policy provided support for peripheral European nations to focus on their infrastructure, creating a means by which they could increase their living standards to that of the central European nations. As Greece joined the European Union in 1981, it would have given them more time to take advantage of such a regional policy (if it were still in effect by ’81). Oppositely, Albania has yet to become a member of the EU and therefore cannot benefit from the supranational economic unity. This divergence presented as an implication of the readings provides a basis for even more irony within the film. Specifically, the most financially successful character is the Chinese businessman who buys property on their block. The character who hails from the most distant country, far beyond Greece or Albania, one not within the EU, is the most financially secure. An interesting facet of this is the tie to Communism and its contrast to capitalism. There is a very intentional reference to communism in the name of the main character’s supposed brother, Marenglen. A composition of Marx, Engles and Lenin, it is a clear link between his character and Communism – but to what effect? In terms of plot, he is in opposition with the main character Stavros as he represents all that Stavros does not want to be, even though his character is calmer, more accepting of other cultures, and seemingly more ‘put together’. The fact of his being Albanian is enough for Stavro’s to feel affronted by his presence. How does his communism connection relate to that of the Chinese man and role in the film other than that Albania is a formerly communist nation?
In “Plato’s Academy,” I was initially amused by the scene where one of Stravos’s friend scrolls through his phone, showing a list of Albanians that had taken Greek names. However, after doing further research, I was very much intrigued in how Albanians that immigrated into Greece not only changed their names and religions, but also, unlike the vast majority of immigration patterns where ethnic groups create communities, also known as “ethnic infrastructure” within their host country, did not form Albanian communities that exist within Greece. The film suggests that this is largely due to the negative stereotype that exists around Albanians as them being labeled “criminals” such as when Stavros and his friends comment about it being dangerous to let an Albanian boy in a shop alone, yet I am confused as to why Albanians, instead of say Georgians (which have formed distinct communities within Greece), are alone in these stereotypes. Moreover, I would like to explore why these “imagined communities” of Albanians, as labeled by the Greeks, never persisted into becoming physical communities.
In Wodak and Boukala, they discuss the topic of how rhetoric, specifically topos, affect one’s perception of who belongs to a group and who does not. I believe that this adds an additional dimension to Anderson’s “Imagined Community” as it not only suggests that internal forces have a role in defining these communities, but also external forces, such as labels, give a construction of group identity. For the Albanians in Greece, it would appear as if they don’t have an internal community, despite the shared language, and perhaps this is because they don’t have the strong sense of shared morals that were artificially imposed by the Albanian state prior to 1989. However, I think it is interesting to note that the external forces, such as being labeled as outsiders by the Greeks, doesn’t cause them to form a community either, suggesting that perhaps negative external rhetorical can’t cause a community to come together enough to embrace their shared culture but it can prevent the formation of a community. This would be affirmed by the film as it seems to suggest that communities are all artificially imposed, and easily able to tear down with a negative enough stereotype.
Then, I believe that there exists a push and pull relationship between the rhetoric used to classify who are Greeks and who are not in the film. In using topos that describes Albanians as essentially less than human, Greek individuals, such as Stravos’s friends, are further united and affirmed in their Greek pride. However, this rhetoric pushes the Albanians away, not only from Greek society but also into further isolation away from their Albanian society. While this isolation for Rehmzi/Nikos was not depicted by the movie as he finds a small community of Albanians to watch football with, it nevertheless remains true that Nikos and Stravos are separated (despite even believing they have the same mother) by this nationalist rhetoric. In the grand scheme of European immigration, I am not sure whether one can say that it is easier for an immigrant to live within an ethnic infrastructure that allows for the criticism of hostile nationalist rhetoric or whether it is easier to live isolated from an ethnic identity all together.
As I try to analyze “Hostage” through the understanding of the negative stereotype of Albanians in Greece during the 1990s, I am confused as to how race in this film intersects in the discussion of who is seen as the lowest members of society. In class, we discussed how Albanians during this period were becoming less and less stereotyped as new immigrants entered Greece. This analysis is furthered by the study done by Lazaridi and Koumandaraki in which they find that racial profiling is a large reason why immigrants of a different background, particularly from Africa, can’t find work or housing. Yet, in this film, at times I felt like race was treated as an afterthought as one of the only moments where we are confronted with the stereotypes associating Africans is when the racist Greek hostage makes some snide, stereotypical comments to the African man. Moreover, the African man is perhaps the most calm, the most positive, and the most kind out of everyone on the bus, which confuses me, as what does this suggest about how Africans deal with the confrontation of racism in their everyday life? Is Giannaris suggesting that Africans have a better way of dealing with the racism or are more tolerant to racism than the Albanians? Additionally, I felt like the way that the viewer saw Albanians, particularly through the tragic character of Elion, created an instant sympathy for all the suffering that he had gone through, both in Greece but also in Albania. What then, was the point of including another character of a different race and not tell their story and how should a viewer judge which narratives he/she should listen to and which they can ignore?
“Plato’s Academy” by Filippos Titos and the articles by Alogoskoufis and Wodak & Boukala discuss several intriguing aspects, raise critical questions, and address significant consequences of the rise of nationalism in Europe.
I especially enjoyed the contrast between nationalism and globalization, which is observed when comparing “The European Union economy, brexit, and the resurgence of economic nationalism” and “Plato’s Academy”. Alogoskoufis focuses on the economic aspect of the rise of nationalism in Europe and paints a dark picture of the future of the European economy. The article argues that globalization has been fundamental to the economic growth Europe has experienced since World War II, due to reasons such as the free movement of labor reducing unemployment and free trade allowing countries to utilize comparative advantage. However, nationalism could jeopardize this growth as countries isolate themselves and fortify their borders. Thus, the article is centered around the question: “How can the resurgence of nationalism be stopped?”. However, as the article attempts to formulate an answer, I believe that it has failed to identify a few other vital questions that add to the discussion: How do we even define nationalism? How do we define a person who has the “right” to be a nationalist? Why do people seemingly value nationalism over economic growth?
I believe that “Plato’s Academy” illustrates the irony of the economic cost of nationalism that Alogoskoufis is addressing, along with shedding a light on these questions. The four Greek friends in the film are depicted as lazy, arrogant, and entitled, whilst complaining about the influx of hard-working Chinese and Albanian immigrants. The group’s consolation for living seemingly unfulfilling lives is exactly the notion that they are at least not at the bottom of the social hierarchy in Greece. However, when the national identity of Stavros, the main character of “Plato’s Academy”, is questioned by his mother speaking Albanian and revealing his Albanian heritage, Stavros insists that he is still Greek to the skepticism of his friends.
“European identities and the revival of nationalism in the European union” ties the aspects addressed effectively. It discusses the fluid construction of European identities across the continent, which is precisely what Stavros is experiencing, as he moves from believing he is fully Greek to becoming Greek-Albanian and rebuking this change. As a result, a few specific questions remain: Is Stavros allowed to be a Greek nationalist? Is Stavros even Greek? To which nation does Stavros belong?
The rise of nationalism in Europe has put into question the idea of identity, and this question was dealt with in great detail throughout the film and both readings (especially the Wodak and Boukala reading). The idea of the collective identity that Wodak and Boukala present in their article in what most resonated with me through watching “Plato’s Academy.”
Stavros’ life is already falling apart in the movie, with his mother aging and his wife divorcing him, but all seems to collapse when his mother connects with the Albanian worker and begins speaking Albanian to him. She even declares this man her son she left back in Albania as a young woman, thus making Stavros Albanian, and not the Greek he thought of himself to be. His three friends thus begin questioning his true identity, despite Stavros attempting to cover his mother’s identity by blaming it on the stroke.
This aspect of “Plato’s Academy” fits with the idea of the collective identity and rhetoric of exclusion that Wodak and Boukala speak on in their article. To them, collective identities are socially constructed and are imposed onto society subconsciously. The reaction of Stavros’ friends prove that there is a set social perception of Albanians in Greece that Stavros’ friends fall into, treating him differently the moment they find out his Albanian identity. In the exact words of Wodak and Boukala, Stavros’ friends create “‘imagined communities’ and simultaneously exclude the ‘Others,’ who/which do not seem to fit certain arbitrary criteria and are thus perceived as not belonging to the ‘same community’” (89). Although Wodak and Boukala use this as a way to speak of a collective European identity, with the rise of nationalism the idea of collective identity and the “Other” can be spoken of within each country. The same can be said for the rhetoric of exclusion, were the is a need of the We to defend against the Other. As an Albanian, Stavros is the Other that suddenly becomes a threat to his friends. The language of the “Other” and this rhetoric of exclusion in “Plato’s Academy” and in real life is a contradicting concept in that it is so socially constructed that there is no feeling of otherness until it is brought into conversation, and the We’s of the world feel the need to puff up their chests and create the exclusion of the Other.
In terms of the EU, the Alogoskoufis reading seems to indicate that the EU should practice redistributive policies. Unfortunately, this is not something the EU had much capacity to perform. The EU’s budget is composed of contributions from member states and import duties mainly. The author argues for a rather neoliberal free-trade system, which would only reduce those import duties. Essentially, I don’t see how the EU could conceivably practice redistribution to help those left behind by globalization to any significant extent. Can you imagine the EU member states agreeing to an EU income tax or some such across-the-EU tax? Even if they agreed to it by some miracle, the uproar over that tax would be immense. Every eurosceptic (I hate that term, europhobes really) would then bludgeon the EU and blame stagnating economies on EU taxes. The author is right to point out that globalization is leaving many behind, which is feeding anti-EU, populist sentiment, but I am not sure his policy prescriptions are particularly attainable. The EU is too weak to pass the policies it needs to survive, but too strong to circumvent blame for economic and social challenges. This discussion of the left behind sectors of society reminds of La Haine and the recent Yellow Vests Protests in Paris. That was a protest over a mere gas tax. Clearly taxes are capable of inciting pretty intense violence in Europe and should be approached warily by the EU.
Another qualm I have with this article is its insistence on not punishing the british electorate, but also on ensuring no more countries pursue their own versions of Brexit. These are in some ways incompatible views. Sure, the aim shouldn’t be to punish the British electorate, but in order to prevent another Brexit-like event, those voters certainly aren’t going to be rewarded. The way to discourage another Brexit-like event is to demonstrate how challenging and costly it is to leave. There is simply no other way to actively discourage another similar event without the UK getting hurt in the process. I’m not saying the UK should face consequences for leaving. If anything I think the opposite, but the author’s position on this is simply untenable.
I also found the Alogoskoufis article problematic in some ways. I agree with the points you’ve made, except the last paragraph on punishing the British electorate. I’d also like to add that Alogoskoufis et. al.’s solution is extremely short-sighted because a redistribution policy on a supranational scale implies that the benefits of globalism will be further diffused among EU nations. A country like Germany has huge global exporters in automative, industrial, and pharmaceutical sectors. Most other EU nations don’t. Does it make sense for BMW/Volkswagen/etc. profits to be redistributed to, for instance, Greek citizens? I think that’s absurd. Doing so would cause riots quickly end the EU. If an EU nation wants to implement socialist policies, they will prioritize their own citizens.
Wodak et. al. argues that identity is defined through “sameness and distinctiveness,” “Us” and “Them.” He explores some of the traditional racialised cultural concerns, but focuses more so on economic nationalism. Plato’s Academy explores the latter. This is made clear to the audience with how the film-maker incorporates the Albanian-Greek discriminating dog. The dog can seemingly tell the two nationalities apart, whereas the Greek characters aren’t able to tell Albanians apart from themselves very easily based on looks alone. Albanians also change their names and religion to fit in. Since an Albanian looks the same and talks the same, Greeks rely on other metrics to construct their identity and establish their distinctiveness, metrics such as socio-economic status.
As an aside, the discrimination against Albanians is an edge case in the context of European migrant discrimination. I’ve always had the impression that race, color, and overall appearance are one of the big factors in causing xenophobia and discrimination. The Greek-Albanian case proves that this isn’t a necessary condition for discrimination. This makes me wonder, what are the necessary conditions that cause xenophobia towards some group?
Going back to the socio-economic construction of identity, I believe Alogoskoufis et. al. provides insight on how it may have come about. He argues that migration results in higher employment and GDP output, but that it depresses the wages and employment prospects of unskilled workers in the host countries. It’s clear that the Greek characters in the film are unskilled workers with nothing to do with their lives. In short, they’re a bunch of losers. I have no idea how they even survive when they have almost no customers. They’re surrounded by migrant workers. They probably hear anti-immigrant rhetoric from media and their social circles. They see that their lives suck. They put two-and-two together and develop hatred towards the migrants that have “caused” their lives to suck.
In Plato’s Academy, Wodak and Boukala’s concept of collective identities, which bring groups of people together largely by separating them from “Others” comes to life. The “We” versus “Them” mentality that Wodak and Boukala discuss manifests itself in both Stavros’s interactions with Marenglen and Stavros’s interactions with his friends.
When Stavros kicks Marenglen out of his house after growing tired of his interactions with his mother, he assures Marenglen he is nothing like him. He says, “I am not Alabanian, but even if I were Albanian, I am nothing like you.” Here, Stavros attempts to separate himself from Marenglen with the rationale that because he is not a new immigrant, but rather his family came to Greece far back in the past, he shares nothing in common with him. In Stavros’s mind, he is far superior to Marenglen, who has just recently traveled to Greece from Albania. Because Stavros’s family immigrated so long ago, he feels that he as become a part of the “We” of Greeks, while he has deemed Marenglen as a permanent “Them,” despite the connections between the two.
After the football game, when Stavros’s friends see Stavros singing “You will never become a Greek, Albanian,” they tell him it is ironic for him to sing the chant, given the newfound connection he has to Albania. This moment is an exact representation of the separation between “We” and “Them,” given that we witness Stavros’s friends literally move him from the “We” category to the “Them” category. This scene highlights the arbitrariness of the “We” versus “Them” mentality, as Stavros’s friends previously never thought of Stavros as anything but Greek, and never questioned his membership to the “We” group. Nothing about Stavros seemed unworthy in any way until finding out his mother speaks Albanian.
These interactions ultimately represent the mindset of most Europeans who are part of the EU, who “attribute the problems they face to globalization, free trade, migration, and European integration,” as Alogoskoufis explains in his piece. Throughout Plato’s Academy, we see a legion of examples of the Greeks creating this “metaphorical scenario” of supposed danger caused by multiculturalism, which Wodak and Boukala discuss. This metaphorical scenario is ultimately dangerous, as with enough repetition, it becomes reality for these EU citizens, and immigrants ultimately turn into nothing but a threat. Because Stavros’s friends created this “metaphorical scenario” about Albanian immigrants in their head, when they found out Stavros had a connection to Albania, he ultimately became different, and somewhat dangerous, despite that they have known him for his entire life.
This week’s readings focus on European national identity and in class we are looking specifically at the case study of Greece. One interesting aspect of the reading marks the percentages in each European country that identify themselves as European. While a country like Luxembourg boasted 88% of people who identify as Europeans, Greece managed a mere 44%. There is clearly a discrepancy between how citizens of Luxembourg view themselves in a European context and how citizens of Greece do so. More interestingly, is the nature of the survey. The question about European identity was asked in the context of a survey of European Union citizens. The main question I will start to pose is, would Greece’s answer have been different if it was strictly a survey of Baltic countries—with Greece as the only full EU member?
Greece’s answer might be different in this new hypothetical context. A second reading this week focuses on racial minorities in Greece and class discussion focused on Albania and Greece’s relation to its Northern neighbor. Greece clearly views themselves as superior to Albania. Throughout a long and complicated history, Greece has shown the superiority complex persistent in Greece towards Albania. Examples like the 2006 soccer match and riots that followed exemplify deeply engrained feeling of hostility and superiority in Greece towards Albania. Deep rooted tensions between the two nations is seen throughout many cultural, socioeconomic, and societal walks of life. This element of Greek identity and the superiority complex with Albania and the rest of the Balkans comes back to the earlier question of European identity. Would Greeks be more “European” if they knew the other people in the European identity survey being asked were Macedonians and Albanians? While one cannot say for sure, it is certainly possible in the new survey the Balkan superiority context would push Greeks to identify more with their European counterparts and less with their non-EU Balkan neighbors
The possible changing survey results based on context provides a second major question. Are Greeks only Europeans when it is convenient for them to be and not Europeans when it is inconvenient for them to be? More broadly one can further ask, “Are Europeans only Europeans when it is convenient for them to be Europeans?”
In the context of European country-based nationalism and the larger trend towards European identity these questions resonate strongly. Perhaps it is not an issue for some regions and nations if people only are European when it is convenient, but others face harsher outcomes. The British Exit from the European Union followed by the Brexit negotiations summarize this point specifically. Britain hoped to achieve a deal with the EU that allowed the British government to be “European” when convenient—financial—and non-European when inconvenient—immigration. While the deal has not yet been resolved and controversy remains, the EU for the most part deemed Britain’s requests egregious and bound together to insist that Britain could not just be European when convenient. Many EU countries probably wish similarly that they could, in a perfect world, be Europeans when convenient and non-Europeans when inconvenient. The impossibility of this outcome is clear because no two countries and even no two European citizens have the same time when it is convenient to be European.
No organization, government, or identity is perfect. Every organization has flaws and imperfections, but it is important the EU maintains—like it has with the Brexit negotiations—that EU citizens and countries cannot just be European when it is convenient. Sure, this outcome might be in some ways better than people never considering themselves European, but the dangers of this liquid identity are clear. French President Emmanuel Macron penned a piece this week emphasizing the need for even further European integration. Macron illustrated how Europeans must stick together through thick and thin and cannot only be unified when convenient. The convenience of identity is a really interesting topic in the European perspective and will likely be a driving factor in determining European integration going forward.
Not a blog entry. We talked about Giannis Antetokounmpo in class and I saw a news article published today where Giannis describes his conflict of identity.
Antetokounmpo grew up in Greek culture learning the language, going to school and eventually starting to play basketball at age 7. But when he was home with his family, he learned and lived the Nigerian way.
“I grew up in a Nigerian home,” Antetokounmpo said. “Obviously, I was born in Greece and went to school in Greece. But at the end of the day when I go home, there is no Greek culture. It’s straight-up Nigerian culture. It’s about discipline, it’s about respecting your elders, having morals.”
“There are a lot of people that I see and I tell them that I am African. I am not just ‘The Greek Freak,’ ” Antetokounmpo said.
“It doesn’t matter what people may believe because of my nickname. There were a lot of times when I was in Greece where people said, ‘You’re not Greek. You’re Nigerian because you’re black.’ But then there have been a lot of times where it’s been the opposite, where people say, ‘You’re not African. You’re Greek. You’re ‘The Greek Freak.’ ’ But I don’t really care about that. Deep down, I know who I am and where I am from. That’s all that matters to me.”
In Hostage, the bus driver plays a subtle but important role. Unlike the other hostages, he was not really a focal point of the film. Because of this, I saw him as somewhat of an outsider. Elion was the Albanian, and the other hostages were Greek, and these racial tensions were evident throughout the ways in which they interacted. But the bus driver was mostly silent, almost like a fly on the wall. At one point in the film he was offered food and scoffed at, further adding to his relative invisibility relative to the others. What was most interesting to me was the hectic ending of the film, where we see police grabbing the hostages and Elion’s mother, mourning, fighting, etc. But in the midst of all the commotion, the bus driver just walks away, and no one stops him. I viewed the role of the bus driver as someone who enabled the hostage crisis to happen, regardless of if he had a choice or not. He represents the rest of the world outside of the Greeks and Albanians, the ones who do not provoke conflict but also do not want to get involved to solve it. In any form of conflict, the most prominent figures are the most vocal ones. But the ones who enable this to happen are the quiet ones, the ones who disappear when no one is watching. This is a rather cynical interpretation because regardless of whether it is a matter of apathy or acceptance of how things are, there is not much optimism for progress in the future. I wonder what the bus driver was thinking about as he left. He was far from home and didn’t seem to have any transportation. Perhaps he just thought that anywhere was better than there, maybe he did not trust the Albanians, or maybe he just didn’t care about anything anymore.
Ruth Wodak’s paper on European identities focused heavily on the idea of identities being based on an “Us” versus “Them” ideology that requires an “other” to define the qualities which make you part of the identity. This goes back to Anderson’s ideas of imagined communities, because as Wodak describes in this paper, national and supranational identities require some inclusion and exclusion, although these are drawn from arbitrary constructs for example “European values”. This approach of defining an identity by creating distinctions between “Us” and “Them” also heavily influences the policies and ideology surrounding immigration today and contributes to the rise of nationalism that is seen across Europe. This also relates to the article by Gabriela Lazaridis, where race is seen as an arbitrary distinction not based on any physical, genetic, or biological factors that can be measured scientifically. However, when talking about nationalism and the growth of xenophobia and racism it is important to consider that the “Others” who are often blamed for economic or cultural issues are mostly distinguished by differences in race. In Pluto’s academy it is shown that these distinctions are arbitrary and often imaginary. When Stavros and his friends suddenly discover that he is Albanian, it creates a divide between them because of the imagined distinctions they believe exist between Greeks and Albanians. The irony in the scene when Stavros chants the soccer song “You will never be Greeks, Albanians” is tremendous because his entire life he believes he is Greek and he is accepted as a Greek, despite his Albanian upbringing. Relating this back to the articles, the dangers of nationalism are created because of the necessity of creating an “Us” versus the “Other” mentality in order to unify the population. This often creates fear and blame on imagined differences between different races and ethnicities. You can see this very clearly in the movie “Hostages” were a lot of the animosity towards Elion, before he hijacks the bus, is because he is Albanian. The only reason he is tortured and is viewed as less than a man is because of the imagined cultural differences, and racism against him. Even on the bus, the man going through withdrawals tells the racist joke, and assumes superiority just for being Greek while he is a druggie with no friends or family supporting him, and Elion was working hard and liked in his town before he was so mistreated. All these ideologies and actions come from fictional divisions created among people. Not only are the communities imagined as stated by Anderson, the divides found in much of Europe today are imagined as well.
I completely agree with everything you brought up. I think the discourse of the “other” and its place in creating the distinction between the in-group of Greeks and the out-group of immigrants and foreigners play a huge role in the rise of nationalistic sentiments in Greece and in Europe at large. To extend on that idea, I was surprised by this week’s readings and film’s focus on not just the “us” versus the “other,” but rather on the different types of “others” as well. Lazaridis and Koumandaraki discussed the discourse on black minorities versus on Albanians, and how black minorities are constructed as “exotic,” rather than “ruthless” and “barbaric” in the way that Albanians are characterized as. We see this reflected in Hostage, when the Greek man on the bus told Elion, “that black guy over there, he knows how to dress, he’s got music in him…rhythm. He’s a fucking cool dude”; meanwhile, he described Albanians as “starving in their own country and wanting to throw their weight around in Greece.” The situation regarding Greece’s relationship with migrants reflected here reinforces the question that Lazaridis and Koumandaraki pose about the validity of race as a category — often, when we speak of discrimination, racial discrimination is the first factor that comes to mind, as differences in physical appearance have often been used as an outlet to channel both cultural differentiation and social inegalitarian. So what is it about being Albanian that, to Greece, makes this “other” much more threatening? Is it religion — the fact that Albanians are largely Muslim? Is it merely numbers? Were there more Albanians in Greece at the time than African migrants, and their sheer number is what threatens the majority? Is it history, as both are part of the Ottoman Empire? With these questions regarding Greece’s situation in mind, it is interesting to think back on the relationship between Europe and immigrants at large. As we see here with the Greeks and the Albanians, discrimination and the separation of immigrants into different categories of “others” do not always boil down to race. Yet, at the same time, the issue of race is a complex one. We saw last week in La Haine that, for a split second during the encounter with the police, Vinz was able to use his physical appearance and his race to get out of a situation, while Hubert and Said could not do the same. Furthermore, Hubert was a lot more careful about his words and actions; being black—being so distinguishable racially—he was clearly more aware of the consequences that he would face when he runs into trouble with the law compared to Vinz or even Said. The comparison with Said is definitely worth noting, especially in regards to the question I posed earlier about religion and differences in values. If religion is more threatening than race, as it could be the case for the Greeks’ attitude against the Albanians, then it would make sense that Said it would be just as careful as or more careful about the way in which he carries himself compared to Hubert. So, we are back on the question of race as a category to distinguish different types of “others.” I’m curious about this situation when it comes to other countries beyond the two we have seen displayed in these movies. Is a similar tension between that of the Greeks and the Albanians seen anywhere else? If not, then perhaps the shared history between Greece and Albania as part of the Ottoman Empire could be used as an explanation for why Albanians were deemed as so much worse than other groups of “others” in Greece. But if similar dynamics exist between other countries and their immigration groups, then how can we explain this differences between the way in which race function in the situation of Greece and Albania in Hostage compared to the situation of the three characters seen in La Haine?
I am very interested in what exactly was done to Elion by the Greek officials. There were a few flashback scenes of his past, but to me they seemed rather downplayed by everything else that was going on. The movie did not focus on what happened to him, but what happened to others because of it. It focuses on the hostage situation that occurs on the bus, hence the name of the movie, but I think the title refers to more than just that situation. I think the title of the movie also refers to how immigrants feel as though in a different nation, in this case Albanians in Greece, they are completely at the will and mercy of the nationals. They are locked into a hostage scenario until they leave.
I read up on what actually happened in 1999 and found one difference in the storyline that really stood out to me. In the film, Elion is shot through the windshield of the bus and then shot again in the head at very close range. In reality, the shot through the windshield killed him. Why did the director include the execution style killing of Elion? Is it to show that even though he tried to flip his own hostage situation he calls life, he is still at the mercy of others? Even his own national government? Is the execution style shooting in the film supposed to represent the director’s view of how Flamur Pisili, the real guy, was killed? That though he did not harm the people on the bus and would have most likely surrendered once the bus was surrounded, he was still killed. Does the director think this was unjustified? I personally do. There are much better ways to handle this kind of scenario, but instead we like to shoot first and ask questions later. When the civilian was shot ‘on accident’ and then that was blamed on the hostage taker, was this done so the military had a ‘reason’ for killing Elion and the real guy? I do not know, either way the situation is messed up and the film does a really nice job of taking a real life situation and framing it to fit how the director viewed it.
I was pretty surprised to find out from the reading that many Greeks don’t feel they’re racist, especially given what we talked about in class on Tuesday as well as the stories from the reading. Additionally, the fact that according to the reading there are no anti-discrimination makes me think that bigotry on behalf of Greeks is somewhat of a taboo topic. In Hostage Giannaris fleshes out this Greek bigotry, and it can be argued that the narrative of the film suggests that Greek bigotry is responsible for the hijacking, not Elion’s “innate” Albanian barbarism/criminality which one might expect the film to suggest as a motive being that it is a Greek film.
The narrative follows Elion, an Albanian immigrant, which I found to be an interesting choice by Giannaris. Doing this provides the viewer with a look into an underrepresented point of view (these kinds of films, in my experience, are rarely from the point of view of the person(s) carrying out the crime. But again, that could just be my American bias showing, as I’m used to seeing films depicting events with terrorists that barely if at all look at things from the terrorist’s perspective) which, by allowing the viewer to see the whole story through Elion’s POV, challenges the stereotype of the untrustworthy, barbaric, backwards Albanian that Greek viewers may have. This choice of narrative enables the view to gain sympathy for Elion, muddying the water about the expectations one would typically have for someone hijacking a bus at gun point. The film doesn’t portray Elion as some evil, barbaric person. We find out the Elion is using the hijacking to help him start a new life and regain his honor as a result of what the Greeks and Greek bigotry have done to him, a motive that is relatively admirable independent of the method he is using. Given what we know about how Greeks view Albanians, one might expect Elion to be hijacking the bus because he wants to terrorize Greek citizens out of pure hatred and evil. However, this is not at all the case. We see in multiple scenes that he’s empathetic towards the plight of the passengers, letting multiple of them off the bus when the plead with him. His relationships with the hostages as well as the sense of community on the bus towards the end of the film help the viewer to sympathize with Elion – for example, when one passenger is given the opportunity to get off the bus, she decides to stay, saying, “it’s either all of us get off or none of us get off”. The fact that one of Elion’s hostages decides to stay in solidarity with him speaks a lot about the admirableness of his motives, which is turn generates negative sentiments about the Greek state.
This is in contrast to how Greek police are depicted – brutal, violent and untrustworthy. Via the graphic, personal and upsetting scenes of flashbacks to getting tortured and abused by police, Giannaris highlights the severity of the bigoted treatment Elion received at the hands of Greeks. Elion’s conversation with the junky on the bus about how he was treated, during which he shows him his wounds creates a sense of victimhood on Elion’s part, which in a way justifies his actions. With the exception of Elion butting with his rifle the head of the passenger who gets too close to him as well as the Albanian policeman (who by extension represents the Greek police as they were working together) who shoots him and the hostage, the film shows Greeks as perpetrators of violence. It is important to highlight how in the end the only person who kills an innocent civilian is the Albanian police (and by extension Greek police who were working with them), whereas Elion does not kill anyone. The heart wrenching scene in which Elion’s nameless mother screams hysterically after witnessing the death of her son after being told Elion wouldn’t be killed makes the viewer sympathize with her, an Albanian, and angry towards the Greek police.
By using a narrative that makes it possible for the viewer to sympathize with Elion in combination with portraying the Greek state in a negative light, Gianarris thrusts the taboo issue of Greek bigotry into the spotlight, challenging the stereotypes Greeks have of Albanians as well as their idea of how tolerant they are as a country.
The storyline of the film “Hostage” clearly is related to the relationship between Albanians and Greeks. After doing some more research on the topic, I learned of the long standing cultural differences between the two groups. According to what I have learned, “Albanian” is still considered somewhat of a dirty word in Greece, after a large wave of migrants game to Greece while the Albanian communist government was falling. Supposedly, there was a large rise in crime in Greece that came immediately after this large influx of immigrants.
While Elion, an Albanian immigrant, takes a bus hostage with a gun and grenade, in order for safe passage back to Albania, and a large sum of cash. To me, what is interesting, is even in the thick of watching a terrorist, we gain sympathy for him, as we learn his story. Elon claims to have been wrongfully imprisoned by corrupt police officers who disliked him for his background. Throughout the film we sympathize with a terrorist and wish for him to make it home, despite the fact that he is holding death in the face of 7 scared hostages. Moreover, while some may argue that this film aims to break the barriers between Greeks and Albanians, it somewhat affirms the stereotypes of crime/albanians by making an Albanian a terrorist.
Elion claims the main reason for this is honor. According to him, he was wrongfully imprisoned and he just wants to expose the corrupt cops that ruined his life. What interests me about “honor” is that it is something that Elion did come into the country with. Many immigrants come with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a small sum of money to begin a new life. Honor is an intangible that people often migrate with, as they are proud of who they are. When being criminalized and wrongfully imprisioned, this strips the honor away from anybody. I think the reason he is so hung up on his honor is because like “Bread and Chocolate” he too is not a successful immigrant story. He did not drive home in a fancy car, wearing fancy clothes, but instead he is returning home with a gun pointed towards innocent young lives, and all he really can try to bring back is his honor.
There seems to be several ways in which the film, Plato’s Academy, employs irony. The Wodak and Boukala article provides a basis for this irony, and proposes that there exists a sense of unity as a result of the elite status as a nation-member of a supranational organization such as the EEC (which began in the late 1950s until formation of EU). This feeling of supranational elitism seems to apply to the four friends who react against the “other” of Albanians. The men specifically reference this by indicating that Albanians should only perform manual labor or very low-skill-based jobs. This is ironic given that the neighbors’ own occupations require no demonstrated skills whatsoever. They sit in front of their shops and destroy the intercultural monument which is being put up, presumably by the government? Does this indicate a larger belief by the film’s director that the Greek population is content with their current economic situation and seeks neither to improve it nor integrate with “other” populations?
The Alogoskoufis article states an interesting fact about the sense of economic nationalism which developed out of the EEC’s post-WWII regional policy. This policy provided support for peripheral European nations to focus on their infrastructure, creating a means by which they could increase their living standards to that of the central European nations. As Greece joined the European Union in 1981, it would have given them more time to take advantage of such a regional policy (if it were still in effect by ’81). Oppositely, Albania has yet to become a member of the EU and therefore cannot benefit from the supranational economic unity. This divergence presented as an implication of the readings provides a basis for even more irony within the film. Specifically, the most financially successful character is the Chinese businessman who buys property on their block. The character who hails from the most distant country, far beyond Greece or Albania, one not within the EU, is the most financially secure. An interesting facet of this is the tie to Communism and its contrast to capitalism. There is a very intentional reference to communism in the name of the main character’s supposed brother, Marenglen. A composition of Marx, Engles and Lenin, it is a clear link between his character and Communism – but to what effect? In terms of plot, he is in opposition with the main character Stavros as he represents all that Stavros does not want to be, even though his character is calmer, more accepting of other cultures, and seemingly more ‘put together’. The fact of his being Albanian is enough for Stavro’s to feel affronted by his presence. How does his communism connection relate to that of the Chinese man and role in the film other than that Albania is a formerly communist nation?
In “Plato’s Academy,” I was initially amused by the scene where one of Stravos’s friend scrolls through his phone, showing a list of Albanians that had taken Greek names. However, after doing further research, I was very much intrigued in how Albanians that immigrated into Greece not only changed their names and religions, but also, unlike the vast majority of immigration patterns where ethnic groups create communities, also known as “ethnic infrastructure” within their host country, did not form Albanian communities that exist within Greece. The film suggests that this is largely due to the negative stereotype that exists around Albanians as them being labeled “criminals” such as when Stavros and his friends comment about it being dangerous to let an Albanian boy in a shop alone, yet I am confused as to why Albanians, instead of say Georgians (which have formed distinct communities within Greece), are alone in these stereotypes. Moreover, I would like to explore why these “imagined communities” of Albanians, as labeled by the Greeks, never persisted into becoming physical communities.
In Wodak and Boukala, they discuss the topic of how rhetoric, specifically topos, affect one’s perception of who belongs to a group and who does not. I believe that this adds an additional dimension to Anderson’s “Imagined Community” as it not only suggests that internal forces have a role in defining these communities, but also external forces, such as labels, give a construction of group identity. For the Albanians in Greece, it would appear as if they don’t have an internal community, despite the shared language, and perhaps this is because they don’t have the strong sense of shared morals that were artificially imposed by the Albanian state prior to 1989. However, I think it is interesting to note that the external forces, such as being labeled as outsiders by the Greeks, doesn’t cause them to form a community either, suggesting that perhaps negative external rhetorical can’t cause a community to come together enough to embrace their shared culture but it can prevent the formation of a community. This would be affirmed by the film as it seems to suggest that communities are all artificially imposed, and easily able to tear down with a negative enough stereotype.
Then, I believe that there exists a push and pull relationship between the rhetoric used to classify who are Greeks and who are not in the film. In using topos that describes Albanians as essentially less than human, Greek individuals, such as Stravos’s friends, are further united and affirmed in their Greek pride. However, this rhetoric pushes the Albanians away, not only from Greek society but also into further isolation away from their Albanian society. While this isolation for Rehmzi/Nikos was not depicted by the movie as he finds a small community of Albanians to watch football with, it nevertheless remains true that Nikos and Stravos are separated (despite even believing they have the same mother) by this nationalist rhetoric. In the grand scheme of European immigration, I am not sure whether one can say that it is easier for an immigrant to live within an ethnic infrastructure that allows for the criticism of hostile nationalist rhetoric or whether it is easier to live isolated from an ethnic identity all together.
As I try to analyze “Hostage” through the understanding of the negative stereotype of Albanians in Greece during the 1990s, I am confused as to how race in this film intersects in the discussion of who is seen as the lowest members of society. In class, we discussed how Albanians during this period were becoming less and less stereotyped as new immigrants entered Greece. This analysis is furthered by the study done by Lazaridi and Koumandaraki in which they find that racial profiling is a large reason why immigrants of a different background, particularly from Africa, can’t find work or housing. Yet, in this film, at times I felt like race was treated as an afterthought as one of the only moments where we are confronted with the stereotypes associating Africans is when the racist Greek hostage makes some snide, stereotypical comments to the African man. Moreover, the African man is perhaps the most calm, the most positive, and the most kind out of everyone on the bus, which confuses me, as what does this suggest about how Africans deal with the confrontation of racism in their everyday life? Is Giannaris suggesting that Africans have a better way of dealing with the racism or are more tolerant to racism than the Albanians? Additionally, I felt like the way that the viewer saw Albanians, particularly through the tragic character of Elion, created an instant sympathy for all the suffering that he had gone through, both in Greece but also in Albania. What then, was the point of including another character of a different race and not tell their story and how should a viewer judge which narratives he/she should listen to and which they can ignore?
“Plato’s Academy” by Filippos Titos and the articles by Alogoskoufis and Wodak & Boukala discuss several intriguing aspects, raise critical questions, and address significant consequences of the rise of nationalism in Europe.
I especially enjoyed the contrast between nationalism and globalization, which is observed when comparing “The European Union economy, brexit, and the resurgence of economic nationalism” and “Plato’s Academy”. Alogoskoufis focuses on the economic aspect of the rise of nationalism in Europe and paints a dark picture of the future of the European economy. The article argues that globalization has been fundamental to the economic growth Europe has experienced since World War II, due to reasons such as the free movement of labor reducing unemployment and free trade allowing countries to utilize comparative advantage. However, nationalism could jeopardize this growth as countries isolate themselves and fortify their borders. Thus, the article is centered around the question: “How can the resurgence of nationalism be stopped?”. However, as the article attempts to formulate an answer, I believe that it has failed to identify a few other vital questions that add to the discussion: How do we even define nationalism? How do we define a person who has the “right” to be a nationalist? Why do people seemingly value nationalism over economic growth?
I believe that “Plato’s Academy” illustrates the irony of the economic cost of nationalism that Alogoskoufis is addressing, along with shedding a light on these questions. The four Greek friends in the film are depicted as lazy, arrogant, and entitled, whilst complaining about the influx of hard-working Chinese and Albanian immigrants. The group’s consolation for living seemingly unfulfilling lives is exactly the notion that they are at least not at the bottom of the social hierarchy in Greece. However, when the national identity of Stavros, the main character of “Plato’s Academy”, is questioned by his mother speaking Albanian and revealing his Albanian heritage, Stavros insists that he is still Greek to the skepticism of his friends.
“European identities and the revival of nationalism in the European union” ties the aspects addressed effectively. It discusses the fluid construction of European identities across the continent, which is precisely what Stavros is experiencing, as he moves from believing he is fully Greek to becoming Greek-Albanian and rebuking this change. As a result, a few specific questions remain: Is Stavros allowed to be a Greek nationalist? Is Stavros even Greek? To which nation does Stavros belong?
The rise of nationalism in Europe has put into question the idea of identity, and this question was dealt with in great detail throughout the film and both readings (especially the Wodak and Boukala reading). The idea of the collective identity that Wodak and Boukala present in their article in what most resonated with me through watching “Plato’s Academy.”
Stavros’ life is already falling apart in the movie, with his mother aging and his wife divorcing him, but all seems to collapse when his mother connects with the Albanian worker and begins speaking Albanian to him. She even declares this man her son she left back in Albania as a young woman, thus making Stavros Albanian, and not the Greek he thought of himself to be. His three friends thus begin questioning his true identity, despite Stavros attempting to cover his mother’s identity by blaming it on the stroke.
This aspect of “Plato’s Academy” fits with the idea of the collective identity and rhetoric of exclusion that Wodak and Boukala speak on in their article. To them, collective identities are socially constructed and are imposed onto society subconsciously. The reaction of Stavros’ friends prove that there is a set social perception of Albanians in Greece that Stavros’ friends fall into, treating him differently the moment they find out his Albanian identity. In the exact words of Wodak and Boukala, Stavros’ friends create “‘imagined communities’ and simultaneously exclude the ‘Others,’ who/which do not seem to fit certain arbitrary criteria and are thus perceived as not belonging to the ‘same community’” (89). Although Wodak and Boukala use this as a way to speak of a collective European identity, with the rise of nationalism the idea of collective identity and the “Other” can be spoken of within each country. The same can be said for the rhetoric of exclusion, were the is a need of the We to defend against the Other. As an Albanian, Stavros is the Other that suddenly becomes a threat to his friends. The language of the “Other” and this rhetoric of exclusion in “Plato’s Academy” and in real life is a contradicting concept in that it is so socially constructed that there is no feeling of otherness until it is brought into conversation, and the We’s of the world feel the need to puff up their chests and create the exclusion of the Other.
In terms of the EU, the Alogoskoufis reading seems to indicate that the EU should practice redistributive policies. Unfortunately, this is not something the EU had much capacity to perform. The EU’s budget is composed of contributions from member states and import duties mainly. The author argues for a rather neoliberal free-trade system, which would only reduce those import duties. Essentially, I don’t see how the EU could conceivably practice redistribution to help those left behind by globalization to any significant extent. Can you imagine the EU member states agreeing to an EU income tax or some such across-the-EU tax? Even if they agreed to it by some miracle, the uproar over that tax would be immense. Every eurosceptic (I hate that term, europhobes really) would then bludgeon the EU and blame stagnating economies on EU taxes. The author is right to point out that globalization is leaving many behind, which is feeding anti-EU, populist sentiment, but I am not sure his policy prescriptions are particularly attainable. The EU is too weak to pass the policies it needs to survive, but too strong to circumvent blame for economic and social challenges. This discussion of the left behind sectors of society reminds of La Haine and the recent Yellow Vests Protests in Paris. That was a protest over a mere gas tax. Clearly taxes are capable of inciting pretty intense violence in Europe and should be approached warily by the EU.
Another qualm I have with this article is its insistence on not punishing the british electorate, but also on ensuring no more countries pursue their own versions of Brexit. These are in some ways incompatible views. Sure, the aim shouldn’t be to punish the British electorate, but in order to prevent another Brexit-like event, those voters certainly aren’t going to be rewarded. The way to discourage another Brexit-like event is to demonstrate how challenging and costly it is to leave. There is simply no other way to actively discourage another similar event without the UK getting hurt in the process. I’m not saying the UK should face consequences for leaving. If anything I think the opposite, but the author’s position on this is simply untenable.
I also found the Alogoskoufis article problematic in some ways. I agree with the points you’ve made, except the last paragraph on punishing the British electorate. I’d also like to add that Alogoskoufis et. al.’s solution is extremely short-sighted because a redistribution policy on a supranational scale implies that the benefits of globalism will be further diffused among EU nations. A country like Germany has huge global exporters in automative, industrial, and pharmaceutical sectors. Most other EU nations don’t. Does it make sense for BMW/Volkswagen/etc. profits to be redistributed to, for instance, Greek citizens? I think that’s absurd. Doing so would cause riots quickly end the EU. If an EU nation wants to implement socialist policies, they will prioritize their own citizens.
Wodak et. al. argues that identity is defined through “sameness and distinctiveness,” “Us” and “Them.” He explores some of the traditional racialised cultural concerns, but focuses more so on economic nationalism. Plato’s Academy explores the latter. This is made clear to the audience with how the film-maker incorporates the Albanian-Greek discriminating dog. The dog can seemingly tell the two nationalities apart, whereas the Greek characters aren’t able to tell Albanians apart from themselves very easily based on looks alone. Albanians also change their names and religion to fit in. Since an Albanian looks the same and talks the same, Greeks rely on other metrics to construct their identity and establish their distinctiveness, metrics such as socio-economic status.
As an aside, the discrimination against Albanians is an edge case in the context of European migrant discrimination. I’ve always had the impression that race, color, and overall appearance are one of the big factors in causing xenophobia and discrimination. The Greek-Albanian case proves that this isn’t a necessary condition for discrimination. This makes me wonder, what are the necessary conditions that cause xenophobia towards some group?
Going back to the socio-economic construction of identity, I believe Alogoskoufis et. al. provides insight on how it may have come about. He argues that migration results in higher employment and GDP output, but that it depresses the wages and employment prospects of unskilled workers in the host countries. It’s clear that the Greek characters in the film are unskilled workers with nothing to do with their lives. In short, they’re a bunch of losers. I have no idea how they even survive when they have almost no customers. They’re surrounded by migrant workers. They probably hear anti-immigrant rhetoric from media and their social circles. They see that their lives suck. They put two-and-two together and develop hatred towards the migrants that have “caused” their lives to suck.
In Plato’s Academy, Wodak and Boukala’s concept of collective identities, which bring groups of people together largely by separating them from “Others” comes to life. The “We” versus “Them” mentality that Wodak and Boukala discuss manifests itself in both Stavros’s interactions with Marenglen and Stavros’s interactions with his friends.
When Stavros kicks Marenglen out of his house after growing tired of his interactions with his mother, he assures Marenglen he is nothing like him. He says, “I am not Alabanian, but even if I were Albanian, I am nothing like you.” Here, Stavros attempts to separate himself from Marenglen with the rationale that because he is not a new immigrant, but rather his family came to Greece far back in the past, he shares nothing in common with him. In Stavros’s mind, he is far superior to Marenglen, who has just recently traveled to Greece from Albania. Because Stavros’s family immigrated so long ago, he feels that he as become a part of the “We” of Greeks, while he has deemed Marenglen as a permanent “Them,” despite the connections between the two.
After the football game, when Stavros’s friends see Stavros singing “You will never become a Greek, Albanian,” they tell him it is ironic for him to sing the chant, given the newfound connection he has to Albania. This moment is an exact representation of the separation between “We” and “Them,” given that we witness Stavros’s friends literally move him from the “We” category to the “Them” category. This scene highlights the arbitrariness of the “We” versus “Them” mentality, as Stavros’s friends previously never thought of Stavros as anything but Greek, and never questioned his membership to the “We” group. Nothing about Stavros seemed unworthy in any way until finding out his mother speaks Albanian.
These interactions ultimately represent the mindset of most Europeans who are part of the EU, who “attribute the problems they face to globalization, free trade, migration, and European integration,” as Alogoskoufis explains in his piece. Throughout Plato’s Academy, we see a legion of examples of the Greeks creating this “metaphorical scenario” of supposed danger caused by multiculturalism, which Wodak and Boukala discuss. This metaphorical scenario is ultimately dangerous, as with enough repetition, it becomes reality for these EU citizens, and immigrants ultimately turn into nothing but a threat. Because Stavros’s friends created this “metaphorical scenario” about Albanian immigrants in their head, when they found out Stavros had a connection to Albania, he ultimately became different, and somewhat dangerous, despite that they have known him for his entire life.
This week’s readings focus on European national identity and in class we are looking specifically at the case study of Greece. One interesting aspect of the reading marks the percentages in each European country that identify themselves as European. While a country like Luxembourg boasted 88% of people who identify as Europeans, Greece managed a mere 44%. There is clearly a discrepancy between how citizens of Luxembourg view themselves in a European context and how citizens of Greece do so. More interestingly, is the nature of the survey. The question about European identity was asked in the context of a survey of European Union citizens. The main question I will start to pose is, would Greece’s answer have been different if it was strictly a survey of Baltic countries—with Greece as the only full EU member?
Greece’s answer might be different in this new hypothetical context. A second reading this week focuses on racial minorities in Greece and class discussion focused on Albania and Greece’s relation to its Northern neighbor. Greece clearly views themselves as superior to Albania. Throughout a long and complicated history, Greece has shown the superiority complex persistent in Greece towards Albania. Examples like the 2006 soccer match and riots that followed exemplify deeply engrained feeling of hostility and superiority in Greece towards Albania. Deep rooted tensions between the two nations is seen throughout many cultural, socioeconomic, and societal walks of life. This element of Greek identity and the superiority complex with Albania and the rest of the Balkans comes back to the earlier question of European identity. Would Greeks be more “European” if they knew the other people in the European identity survey being asked were Macedonians and Albanians? While one cannot say for sure, it is certainly possible in the new survey the Balkan superiority context would push Greeks to identify more with their European counterparts and less with their non-EU Balkan neighbors
The possible changing survey results based on context provides a second major question. Are Greeks only Europeans when it is convenient for them to be and not Europeans when it is inconvenient for them to be? More broadly one can further ask, “Are Europeans only Europeans when it is convenient for them to be Europeans?”
In the context of European country-based nationalism and the larger trend towards European identity these questions resonate strongly. Perhaps it is not an issue for some regions and nations if people only are European when it is convenient, but others face harsher outcomes. The British Exit from the European Union followed by the Brexit negotiations summarize this point specifically. Britain hoped to achieve a deal with the EU that allowed the British government to be “European” when convenient—financial—and non-European when inconvenient—immigration. While the deal has not yet been resolved and controversy remains, the EU for the most part deemed Britain’s requests egregious and bound together to insist that Britain could not just be European when convenient. Many EU countries probably wish similarly that they could, in a perfect world, be Europeans when convenient and non-Europeans when inconvenient. The impossibility of this outcome is clear because no two countries and even no two European citizens have the same time when it is convenient to be European.
No organization, government, or identity is perfect. Every organization has flaws and imperfections, but it is important the EU maintains—like it has with the Brexit negotiations—that EU citizens and countries cannot just be European when it is convenient. Sure, this outcome might be in some ways better than people never considering themselves European, but the dangers of this liquid identity are clear. French President Emmanuel Macron penned a piece this week emphasizing the need for even further European integration. Macron illustrated how Europeans must stick together through thick and thin and cannot only be unified when convenient. The convenience of identity is a really interesting topic in the European perspective and will likely be a driving factor in determining European integration going forward.
Not a blog entry. We talked about Giannis Antetokounmpo in class and I saw a news article published today where Giannis describes his conflict of identity.
Antetokounmpo grew up in Greek culture learning the language, going to school and eventually starting to play basketball at age 7. But when he was home with his family, he learned and lived the Nigerian way.
“I grew up in a Nigerian home,” Antetokounmpo said. “Obviously, I was born in Greece and went to school in Greece. But at the end of the day when I go home, there is no Greek culture. It’s straight-up Nigerian culture. It’s about discipline, it’s about respecting your elders, having morals.”
“There are a lot of people that I see and I tell them that I am African. I am not just ‘The Greek Freak,’ ” Antetokounmpo said.
“It doesn’t matter what people may believe because of my nickname. There were a lot of times when I was in Greece where people said, ‘You’re not Greek. You’re Nigerian because you’re black.’ But then there have been a lot of times where it’s been the opposite, where people say, ‘You’re not African. You’re Greek. You’re ‘The Greek Freak.’ ’ But I don’t really care about that. Deep down, I know who I am and where I am from. That’s all that matters to me.”
https://theundefeated.com/features/bucks-giannis-antetokounmpo-greek-freak-wants-to-go-back-to-his-nigerian-roots/
In Hostage, the bus driver plays a subtle but important role. Unlike the other hostages, he was not really a focal point of the film. Because of this, I saw him as somewhat of an outsider. Elion was the Albanian, and the other hostages were Greek, and these racial tensions were evident throughout the ways in which they interacted. But the bus driver was mostly silent, almost like a fly on the wall. At one point in the film he was offered food and scoffed at, further adding to his relative invisibility relative to the others. What was most interesting to me was the hectic ending of the film, where we see police grabbing the hostages and Elion’s mother, mourning, fighting, etc. But in the midst of all the commotion, the bus driver just walks away, and no one stops him. I viewed the role of the bus driver as someone who enabled the hostage crisis to happen, regardless of if he had a choice or not. He represents the rest of the world outside of the Greeks and Albanians, the ones who do not provoke conflict but also do not want to get involved to solve it. In any form of conflict, the most prominent figures are the most vocal ones. But the ones who enable this to happen are the quiet ones, the ones who disappear when no one is watching. This is a rather cynical interpretation because regardless of whether it is a matter of apathy or acceptance of how things are, there is not much optimism for progress in the future. I wonder what the bus driver was thinking about as he left. He was far from home and didn’t seem to have any transportation. Perhaps he just thought that anywhere was better than there, maybe he did not trust the Albanians, or maybe he just didn’t care about anything anymore.
Ruth Wodak’s paper on European identities focused heavily on the idea of identities being based on an “Us” versus “Them” ideology that requires an “other” to define the qualities which make you part of the identity. This goes back to Anderson’s ideas of imagined communities, because as Wodak describes in this paper, national and supranational identities require some inclusion and exclusion, although these are drawn from arbitrary constructs for example “European values”. This approach of defining an identity by creating distinctions between “Us” and “Them” also heavily influences the policies and ideology surrounding immigration today and contributes to the rise of nationalism that is seen across Europe. This also relates to the article by Gabriela Lazaridis, where race is seen as an arbitrary distinction not based on any physical, genetic, or biological factors that can be measured scientifically. However, when talking about nationalism and the growth of xenophobia and racism it is important to consider that the “Others” who are often blamed for economic or cultural issues are mostly distinguished by differences in race. In Pluto’s academy it is shown that these distinctions are arbitrary and often imaginary. When Stavros and his friends suddenly discover that he is Albanian, it creates a divide between them because of the imagined distinctions they believe exist between Greeks and Albanians. The irony in the scene when Stavros chants the soccer song “You will never be Greeks, Albanians” is tremendous because his entire life he believes he is Greek and he is accepted as a Greek, despite his Albanian upbringing. Relating this back to the articles, the dangers of nationalism are created because of the necessity of creating an “Us” versus the “Other” mentality in order to unify the population. This often creates fear and blame on imagined differences between different races and ethnicities. You can see this very clearly in the movie “Hostages” were a lot of the animosity towards Elion, before he hijacks the bus, is because he is Albanian. The only reason he is tortured and is viewed as less than a man is because of the imagined cultural differences, and racism against him. Even on the bus, the man going through withdrawals tells the racist joke, and assumes superiority just for being Greek while he is a druggie with no friends or family supporting him, and Elion was working hard and liked in his town before he was so mistreated. All these ideologies and actions come from fictional divisions created among people. Not only are the communities imagined as stated by Anderson, the divides found in much of Europe today are imagined as well.
I completely agree with everything you brought up. I think the discourse of the “other” and its place in creating the distinction between the in-group of Greeks and the out-group of immigrants and foreigners play a huge role in the rise of nationalistic sentiments in Greece and in Europe at large. To extend on that idea, I was surprised by this week’s readings and film’s focus on not just the “us” versus the “other,” but rather on the different types of “others” as well. Lazaridis and Koumandaraki discussed the discourse on black minorities versus on Albanians, and how black minorities are constructed as “exotic,” rather than “ruthless” and “barbaric” in the way that Albanians are characterized as. We see this reflected in Hostage, when the Greek man on the bus told Elion, “that black guy over there, he knows how to dress, he’s got music in him…rhythm. He’s a fucking cool dude”; meanwhile, he described Albanians as “starving in their own country and wanting to throw their weight around in Greece.” The situation regarding Greece’s relationship with migrants reflected here reinforces the question that Lazaridis and Koumandaraki pose about the validity of race as a category — often, when we speak of discrimination, racial discrimination is the first factor that comes to mind, as differences in physical appearance have often been used as an outlet to channel both cultural differentiation and social inegalitarian. So what is it about being Albanian that, to Greece, makes this “other” much more threatening? Is it religion — the fact that Albanians are largely Muslim? Is it merely numbers? Were there more Albanians in Greece at the time than African migrants, and their sheer number is what threatens the majority? Is it history, as both are part of the Ottoman Empire? With these questions regarding Greece’s situation in mind, it is interesting to think back on the relationship between Europe and immigrants at large. As we see here with the Greeks and the Albanians, discrimination and the separation of immigrants into different categories of “others” do not always boil down to race. Yet, at the same time, the issue of race is a complex one. We saw last week in La Haine that, for a split second during the encounter with the police, Vinz was able to use his physical appearance and his race to get out of a situation, while Hubert and Said could not do the same. Furthermore, Hubert was a lot more careful about his words and actions; being black—being so distinguishable racially—he was clearly more aware of the consequences that he would face when he runs into trouble with the law compared to Vinz or even Said. The comparison with Said is definitely worth noting, especially in regards to the question I posed earlier about religion and differences in values. If religion is more threatening than race, as it could be the case for the Greeks’ attitude against the Albanians, then it would make sense that Said it would be just as careful as or more careful about the way in which he carries himself compared to Hubert. So, we are back on the question of race as a category to distinguish different types of “others.” I’m curious about this situation when it comes to other countries beyond the two we have seen displayed in these movies. Is a similar tension between that of the Greeks and the Albanians seen anywhere else? If not, then perhaps the shared history between Greece and Albania as part of the Ottoman Empire could be used as an explanation for why Albanians were deemed as so much worse than other groups of “others” in Greece. But if similar dynamics exist between other countries and their immigration groups, then how can we explain this differences between the way in which race function in the situation of Greece and Albania in Hostage compared to the situation of the three characters seen in La Haine?
I am very interested in what exactly was done to Elion by the Greek officials. There were a few flashback scenes of his past, but to me they seemed rather downplayed by everything else that was going on. The movie did not focus on what happened to him, but what happened to others because of it. It focuses on the hostage situation that occurs on the bus, hence the name of the movie, but I think the title refers to more than just that situation. I think the title of the movie also refers to how immigrants feel as though in a different nation, in this case Albanians in Greece, they are completely at the will and mercy of the nationals. They are locked into a hostage scenario until they leave.
I read up on what actually happened in 1999 and found one difference in the storyline that really stood out to me. In the film, Elion is shot through the windshield of the bus and then shot again in the head at very close range. In reality, the shot through the windshield killed him. Why did the director include the execution style killing of Elion? Is it to show that even though he tried to flip his own hostage situation he calls life, he is still at the mercy of others? Even his own national government? Is the execution style shooting in the film supposed to represent the director’s view of how Flamur Pisili, the real guy, was killed? That though he did not harm the people on the bus and would have most likely surrendered once the bus was surrounded, he was still killed. Does the director think this was unjustified? I personally do. There are much better ways to handle this kind of scenario, but instead we like to shoot first and ask questions later. When the civilian was shot ‘on accident’ and then that was blamed on the hostage taker, was this done so the military had a ‘reason’ for killing Elion and the real guy? I do not know, either way the situation is messed up and the film does a really nice job of taking a real life situation and framing it to fit how the director viewed it.
I was pretty surprised to find out from the reading that many Greeks don’t feel they’re racist, especially given what we talked about in class on Tuesday as well as the stories from the reading. Additionally, the fact that according to the reading there are no anti-discrimination makes me think that bigotry on behalf of Greeks is somewhat of a taboo topic. In Hostage Giannaris fleshes out this Greek bigotry, and it can be argued that the narrative of the film suggests that Greek bigotry is responsible for the hijacking, not Elion’s “innate” Albanian barbarism/criminality which one might expect the film to suggest as a motive being that it is a Greek film.
The narrative follows Elion, an Albanian immigrant, which I found to be an interesting choice by Giannaris. Doing this provides the viewer with a look into an underrepresented point of view (these kinds of films, in my experience, are rarely from the point of view of the person(s) carrying out the crime. But again, that could just be my American bias showing, as I’m used to seeing films depicting events with terrorists that barely if at all look at things from the terrorist’s perspective) which, by allowing the viewer to see the whole story through Elion’s POV, challenges the stereotype of the untrustworthy, barbaric, backwards Albanian that Greek viewers may have. This choice of narrative enables the view to gain sympathy for Elion, muddying the water about the expectations one would typically have for someone hijacking a bus at gun point. The film doesn’t portray Elion as some evil, barbaric person. We find out the Elion is using the hijacking to help him start a new life and regain his honor as a result of what the Greeks and Greek bigotry have done to him, a motive that is relatively admirable independent of the method he is using. Given what we know about how Greeks view Albanians, one might expect Elion to be hijacking the bus because he wants to terrorize Greek citizens out of pure hatred and evil. However, this is not at all the case. We see in multiple scenes that he’s empathetic towards the plight of the passengers, letting multiple of them off the bus when the plead with him. His relationships with the hostages as well as the sense of community on the bus towards the end of the film help the viewer to sympathize with Elion – for example, when one passenger is given the opportunity to get off the bus, she decides to stay, saying, “it’s either all of us get off or none of us get off”. The fact that one of Elion’s hostages decides to stay in solidarity with him speaks a lot about the admirableness of his motives, which is turn generates negative sentiments about the Greek state.
This is in contrast to how Greek police are depicted – brutal, violent and untrustworthy. Via the graphic, personal and upsetting scenes of flashbacks to getting tortured and abused by police, Giannaris highlights the severity of the bigoted treatment Elion received at the hands of Greeks. Elion’s conversation with the junky on the bus about how he was treated, during which he shows him his wounds creates a sense of victimhood on Elion’s part, which in a way justifies his actions. With the exception of Elion butting with his rifle the head of the passenger who gets too close to him as well as the Albanian policeman (who by extension represents the Greek police as they were working together) who shoots him and the hostage, the film shows Greeks as perpetrators of violence. It is important to highlight how in the end the only person who kills an innocent civilian is the Albanian police (and by extension Greek police who were working with them), whereas Elion does not kill anyone. The heart wrenching scene in which Elion’s nameless mother screams hysterically after witnessing the death of her son after being told Elion wouldn’t be killed makes the viewer sympathize with her, an Albanian, and angry towards the Greek police.
By using a narrative that makes it possible for the viewer to sympathize with Elion in combination with portraying the Greek state in a negative light, Gianarris thrusts the taboo issue of Greek bigotry into the spotlight, challenging the stereotypes Greeks have of Albanians as well as their idea of how tolerant they are as a country.
The storyline of the film “Hostage” clearly is related to the relationship between Albanians and Greeks. After doing some more research on the topic, I learned of the long standing cultural differences between the two groups. According to what I have learned, “Albanian” is still considered somewhat of a dirty word in Greece, after a large wave of migrants game to Greece while the Albanian communist government was falling. Supposedly, there was a large rise in crime in Greece that came immediately after this large influx of immigrants.
While Elion, an Albanian immigrant, takes a bus hostage with a gun and grenade, in order for safe passage back to Albania, and a large sum of cash. To me, what is interesting, is even in the thick of watching a terrorist, we gain sympathy for him, as we learn his story. Elon claims to have been wrongfully imprisoned by corrupt police officers who disliked him for his background. Throughout the film we sympathize with a terrorist and wish for him to make it home, despite the fact that he is holding death in the face of 7 scared hostages. Moreover, while some may argue that this film aims to break the barriers between Greeks and Albanians, it somewhat affirms the stereotypes of crime/albanians by making an Albanian a terrorist.
Elion claims the main reason for this is honor. According to him, he was wrongfully imprisoned and he just wants to expose the corrupt cops that ruined his life. What interests me about “honor” is that it is something that Elion did come into the country with. Many immigrants come with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a small sum of money to begin a new life. Honor is an intangible that people often migrate with, as they are proud of who they are. When being criminalized and wrongfully imprisioned, this strips the honor away from anybody. I think the reason he is so hung up on his honor is because like “Bread and Chocolate” he too is not a successful immigrant story. He did not drive home in a fancy car, wearing fancy clothes, but instead he is returning home with a gun pointed towards innocent young lives, and all he really can try to bring back is his honor.