The theme that I chose to work with is terrorism. After reading the entire novel Home Fire by Kamala Shamsie, I've personally gained a deeper understanding of what might happen in the minds of those who are slowly indoctrinated into joining terrorist organizations. Overall, I believe that the novel by Shamsie is trying to broaden our perspective on how we, as a society, perceive terrorism. As much as we, as a society, like to believe that those who join terrorists organizations are horrible people in general who essentially, as the saying goes, "want to watch the world burn," there, like many things in life, is no cut and dry way to categorize these people. Home Fire demonstrates this ambiguity through one of the protagonists Parvaiz. At first, we see, through Isma's already biased eyes, Parvaiz as the betrayer to the family for joining a terrorist organization, knowing how badly it would hurt his family through what happened to their own father. It is through Isma's perspective that we see just how angry her sister is, and partially how an outsider might see this situation. It isn't until we reach Parvaiz's perspective that we begin to see how Parvaiz was able to come to the decision and action of becoming a terrorist. We got an inside perspective to how Parvaiz was slowly manipulated into believing that this group of terrorists were essentially fighting for a good cause. Farooq used Parvaiz's limited knowledge and desire to know who is father was, as a way to get Parvaiz into the organization. Parvaiz was so in search of a father figure that he went all in to the one person who offered to be that for him, and did everything without much question, as a child would do with their father. By the time Parvaiz was a member of the terrorist organization, he realized the mistake that he made, and desperately wanted a way out. In the end though, he was killed by the same terrorist organization that claimed he could leave at any time. Despite being indoctrinated into the terrorist organization, and being barely an adult at 19, the world still saw Parvaiz as a full blown terrorist who wanted to destroy their British society. They didn't think of him or consider how this young adult became a terrorist.
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Parvaiz and Terrorism
My understanding of terrorism in the novel is that, in then end, it is just a constant cycle of violence that seems to have no purpose other than breeding more violence and destruction. After everything, Parvaiz being indoctrinated into terrorism, Parvaiz's death at the hands of terrorists, Aneeka's profound grief for her twin, the terrorism still continued their path of destruction, chaos, and death. In the end, Aneeka and Eamonn became victims of terrorism themselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Monique! I really enjoyed your thoughts on the different perspectives to take on terrorism throughout the novel. I think the idea that young people can be manipulated and deceived into joining terrorist groups was a key point Shamsie wanted to get across. What you said about the cyclical nature of terrorism was also particularly interesting - do you think that's why seasons (which also come in cycles) keep showing up in the text?
ReplyDeleteThis connection to the seasons is excellent!
DeleteHey Monique! I completely agree that terrorism is a consistent cycle of violence that has no purpose other than to harm lives and cause more violence. Adil became a Jihadi and died in conflict. His son, Parvaiz, followed in his footsteps to fight for a cause that eventually got him killed. These deaths also harmed the lives of people connected to those who had fallen. Aneeka never got over the grief of her brother's death and Eamonn was killed trying to fulfill Aneeka's wishes.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Monique! It is equally important, though, to see this as a failure of British society. The same society that pushes for Muslims to abandon their own religion and suppress their identity is somehow shocked when Muslims decide to join with terrorists like Farooq, who show genuine care for them.
ReplyDeleteHi Monique, I completely agree that they are also victims of terrorism. Parvaiz was manipulated into joining the group based on complete lies and yet he was treated as a terrorist. I think this also goes into the fact that almost no one ever cares about your circumstance, but only the result of the situation you are in.
ReplyDeleteHey Monique! WOW this was an awesome analysis of what I think Shamsie was trying to get at. Before reading this book, unfortunately, I also had not considered how a lot of terrorists were likely good people manipulated into this situation. Reading this definitely gave me a lot more empathy, and I am so glad Shamsie decided to tell this story the way she did.
ReplyDeleteHi Monique! You always offer such amazing perspectives in all of your posts! I really admire how much you emphasize breaking the habit of black and white thinking. Parvaiz (and all of the characters) are so much more complex than the media portrays them to be. It's interesting to see how Parvaiz transitions into this child-like state when he's around Farooq even though he's always lived courageously without his father's example.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting perspective on the goal of the author around terrorism. I think you're right. Shamsie is consistently showing the reader multiple perspectives of every aspect of the novel; to leave out terrorism and paint it as something as simple as good versus bad would go against the format that she has established.
ReplyDeleteHey Monique! Your perspectives are super interesting on this topic. The dimensionality of terrorism and Parvaiz are so true. I think people see terrorism as one specific thing, however it is much deeper than we know. It is not just all terrible people, but mainly just lost and confused souls. I also think you gave really good insight on the cycle of terrorism that is seemingly never ending.
ReplyDelete