Suppose this were a real newspaper article from a national newspaper press. For someone from Canada or the US, this may be a very shocking headline to see; residents of these countries do not come across these issues often or even at all. However, for Marji—the protagonist in the book Persepolis whose childhood took place during the Persian Gulf War—this may have been a typical newspaper article to come across. Regardless of whether or not these kinds of headlines may seem redundant to her, I think we can all agree that hearing about the mass execution of 300 people is far from what we would say is normal.

If we think of the word “normal” as an adjective to describe something we see or encounter on a regular basis, then for Marji death and destruction was indeed normal. Throughout Persepolis, Marji encounters innumerable moments of violence, trauma, and devastation; although these experiences occurr repetitively, these horrific encounters do not constitute for what should be normal for Marji or a person of any age for that matter. In Hilary Chute’s article “The Texture of Retracing in Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis”, Satrapi states that violence had become “so normal, so banal” because of its daily role in her childhood (99).

“[…] everybody think it’s normal. But it’s not normal” (Chute, 99).

In this quote about what she says other people think about violence in the Middle East, Satrapi uses the word “normal” twice: once to describe how “everybody” views it and a second time to negate the validity of that view. Because of her childhood experiences, she knows that even though war and violence was normal in the sense of its pervasiveness in her world, it was no less unacceptable and devastating. Therefore, Satrapi most likely notes that people already know how pervasive war and violence are to people in the Middle East but most people have not experienced war and violence first-hand like Satrapi has. Therefore, we can infer that she connotes the meaning of “normal” to be “acceptable” because only people who have not undergone trauma can possibly see it as acceptable. Understanding the double-connotation of the word “normal” may be a critical first step in further grasping the paradox of Marji’s childhood. The normalities of her childhood—death, devastation, violence, war, execution—were all things Marji saw and encountered on a regular basis. Contrarily—death, devastation, violence, war, execution—were anything but normal as “acceptable”.

Chute, Hilary. “The Texture of Retracing in Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis.” WSQ: Women’s        Studies Quarterly, Volume 36, Numbers 1 & 2 (2008): 92-110. Print.

With the graphic narrative “Persepolis”, the famous author Marjane Satrapi gives an interesting approach to the way she tells her childhood story and an even more interesting and personal perspective on the First Persian Gulf War. By the creative utilization of comic squares and drawings, Satrapi allows for the reader to enter a different dimension into which normal text could not transcend. In this different dimension, the reader sees the First Persian Gulf War from not only a first-person point of view but also a second-person point of view. Satrapi gives Marji’s point of view—the character that experiences the childhood—and, by including narrations throughout the entirety of the book, she gives a point of view of her childhood in retrospect. In this way, the reader has two sources of information throughout the narrative, giving the story an all-the-more immersive and revealing experience. When I read this piece of graphic literature, I found it eyeopening in a way that history books could never attempt to accomplish. Instead of giving a solely factual history of the First Persian Gulf War, Satrapi gives a valuable and emotional first-hand account of the war. By doing so, she affectively inspired a sense of awareness and gratefulness in me for how fortunate I am to live in a relatively more peaceful area of the world and a sense of empathy for the people, like Satrapi, who were not so fortunate and have to undesirably encounter war on a daily basis. Likewise, I think it is important to understand that these kinds of people who do not approve of religion and war-concentrated government, like Marji’s family, exist in countries that are submerged in bloodshed. Oftentimes we presume that just because a country’s leader behaves in a certain way, the entire country he presides over has the same set of morals and behavioural values. For example, as an American, I hear countless slurs arising from the hate for Afghan people that is perceived by many Americans in accordance with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even after it is obvious that only a small group of Muslim extremists, al-Qaeda, was responsible, most Americans have put the blame on the entire country of Afghanistan and even Muslims as a whole. For this reason, I believe Marjane Satrapi’s “Persepolis” is essential not only to better understand what Iranian individuals endured during the First Persian Gulf War, but to better understand a subculture that exists separate from the prominent political figure of a country and his or her decisions made on its behalf.

In my political science, sociology, and arts studies courses, we often address the questions “what is a global citizen?” and “how can we become global citizens?” However, we do not entertain as much as we should the idea that we are already global citizens having been born into this ever-growing, globalized society. If we are immediately born into this ‘Global Citizenship’, it is no longer an issue of how we as individuals can prepare ourselves for living in the global realm, but more of an issue of how we can use our skills and talents in order to aid in the betterment of the world. In other words, a citizen of the United States of America would not live their life focusing on the requirements for being an American citizen or even a better American citizen for that matter; that would be pointless and redundant. Instead, they would most likely focus on what they can contribute to their nation’s people as a sort of thanksgiving. As John F. Kennedy stated in his inaugural address, “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Perhaps, since we are global citizens, we should always be thinking about what we can do for our world and not what our world can do for us.

As an international, first-year student attending The University of British Columbia, I have already met individuals from Shanghai to Toronto and everywhere in between. It is evident that our world is interconnected and interdependent and only becoming more and more so as time goes on. With modern technology, it is easier than ever to travel to and make connections with people and places from all corners of the globe. This greatly facilitates and augments the impact someone can have on someone else, even if they are seas apart. However, it still may be difficult to consider changing the world for the better as the slightest bit possible for one person to do. But, if we collectively believe we can make a difference, then we will not have one or two individuals but more than seven billion individuals who are convinced they can make a difference together which dramatically increases our potential for changing the world for the better.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!