Christopher Silver, Recording History: Jews, Muslims, and Music across Twentieth-Century North Africa (New Texts Out Now)

Christopher Silver, Recording History: Jews, Muslims, and Music across Twentieth-Century North Africa (New Texts Out Now)

Christopher Silver, Recording History: Jews, Muslims, and Music across Twentieth-Century North Africa (New Texts Out Now)

By : Christopher Silver

Christopher Silver, Recording History: Jews, Muslims, and Music across Twentieth-Century North Africa (Stanford University Press, 2022).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book? 

Christopher Silver (CS): This project to fashion a musical history of modern North Africa long called out to mewell before the idea of going to graduate school ever crossed my mind. Its genesis can be traced to a record store in Casablanca which I had the good fortune of visiting in 2009. Enveloped by the physical media lining its shelvesin this case, vinyland educated by the store’s proprietor, I began to learn how to listen for the region’s past through its music. In this way, “new” historical actors rose to the fore as nation-builders and anticolonial agitators, women took center stage as taste-makers and agents of change, and Jews, alongside their multitalented Muslim collaborators, played a considerable role in producing the soundtrack of their era­­, one which was often nationalist and one which drew together large Jewish-Muslim audiences past a point commonly presumed.

That the region’s history sounded remarkably different when embedded between a record’s grooves than the one found in more normative accounts (often reliant exclusively on the colonial paper trail) intrigued me. And while vinyl and its apparent accessibility enthralled me, I found myself gravitating toward something seemingly more elusive: the brittle, fragile, and yet resilient shellac record. This medium pulls you in at seventy-eight rotations per minute, holds you there for three minutes of music per side, and fills the air with the very early-twentieth-century voices that so many of us are desirous of hearing. Pulled in and held there, inspired by an entangled, transnational history that deserved to be amplified, I embarked on a journey to re-narrate North Africa from the birth of the recording industry there at the turn of the twentieth century through the eclipse of the shellac record in the midst of decolonization. Thus an idea transformed into Recording History.

I take this idea a step further by arguing that music remembers much of what history has forgotten.

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address? 

CS: Recording History is guided by the premise that music and history are mutually constitutive. In fact, I take this idea a step further by arguing that music remembers much of what history has forgotten. Given this, the book, situated at the interstices of MENA and Jewish history, addresses the unfortunate reality that too often “music” is missing from the indices of monographs in both fields. Thankfully, change is afoot. The growing recognition that popular music, radio, and sound matter a great deal when trying to understand the modern period in the Middle East is indebted to the recent work of Ziad Fahmy, Andrea Stanton, and many others, as well as to the foundational scholarship of Ali Jihad Racy, Virginia Danielson, and Walter Armbrust. And that we might be on the cusp of a more sustained historiographical shift toward the aural is evidenced by the fact that in quick succession in 2022, Recording History was published alongside Andrew Simon’s Media of the Masses: Cassette Culture in Modern Egypt and Hanan Hammad’s Layla Murad, The Jewish-Muslim Star of Egypt (all three out with Stanford). And this is just the beginning. 

Whereas much of the scholarly output related to North African music comes to a focus on the classical Andalusian traditions, Recording History centers the popular, which was, well, extremely popular. That popularity is teased out through all manner of archival documents, literature, and memoirs, but also through the identification of “hits,” whose sales figures I was also fortunate to happen upon. Alongside that shuffling of the playlist, the book listens for the Jewish-Muslim relationship through Arab music rather than strictly reading it through French sources. In doing so, I demonstrate that Jewish belonging and embeddedness in a Muslim milieu and Jewish-Muslim intimacy and enmeshment persisted well after the onset of colonialism and far beyond other canonical periods or events used to mark a rupture between the two groups. That musicians and music were constantly crossing physical borders (as well as those of genre) necessitated a “horizontal” approach to North Africato borrow a term and idea from Julia Clancy-Smithwhich gives privilege to east-west movement while also looking beyond the boundaries of the nation state. Finally, the critical importance of class in understanding Jewish history in North Africa, the Jewish-Muslim relationship in the region, and music itself keeps tempo throughout the text. 

Of course, Recording History is a polyphony of voices and issues which are woven throughout each and every chapter. Topics like sonic nation-building, women and the sound of modernity, musical censorship and anticolonial song, the silencing of voices during World War II, the postwar nationalist soundtrack, and the living memory of music carry the book and a number of historiographical conversations forward.

J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

CS: Recording History builds on my scholarship over the years, whether in coming to a focus on the trade in anticolonial records in interwar North Africa or in spotlighting the stunning postwar career of the Moroccan Jewish star Samy Elmaghribi. The book also compliments the other formats I have worked in and with for some time, including the online archive Gharamophone.com. I launched that particular project in 2017 in order to repatriate the hundreds of Moroccan, Algerian, and Tunisian shellac records I had gathered in the course of the last decade to the soundscape. Now, with the aid of Gharamophone, readers of Recording History can quite literally listen along to the music which animates the book.

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

CS: This book is as much for academic audiences as it is for a broader public. Given that my main subject is music, I wrote the book at a certain register, one which I believed would satisfy all. In other words, I wanted the prose to sing and so I refrainedas best I couldfrom employing the most technical language. I think I found the right note, but the crowd will let me know. To be sure, Recording History is deeply grounded in both innovative and more traditional archival material but it is also a monograph that is written at full volume.

No matter who the reader is, my aim is to make clear that music, hardly ephemeral or somehow unrecoverable, was of consequence and remains so. In terms of impact, I hope audiences will walk away from Recording History with the sense that history sounds dramatically different when we listen for it. It is also my wish that readers will marvel, much as I did and continue to do, at the survival of early-twentieth-century sound recordings despite all odds. Either way, all of us should feel a profound sense of gratitude to the many stewards who held on to their records with the hope that the music and history contained therein might be heard once again. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

CS: Right now, I am working on a couple of projects. The first might be considered my sophomore album. I have begun following the paths of North African Jewish musicians out of the Maghrib in the second half of the twentieth century. Here, I am asking questions of the persistence of Arab Jewish identity, as well thinking seriously about music and migration, in cities like Jaffa, Marseilles, New York, and Montreal, in an age of extremes. The other project takes a beat from musicjust for a momentto explore the world of North African boxing in the first half of the twentieth century. Needless to say, I am beyond excited to move forward with all of this and much more.

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter Six, “Curtain Call,” pp. 176-179)

Beyond Samyphone, Samy Elmaghribi and his family remained intimately tied to Morocco in other ways. At their request, Cohen regularly sent goods like olive oil, tea, flour, wormwood, and almonds to his sister Messody and his brother-in-law in France. In addition, Elmaghribi continued to subscribe to the paper La Vigie marocaine. As he explained to Cohen, “we are very thirsty for news from our dear country, which we are sincerely pining for.” Reading the daily Moroccan press also allowed him to keep up with many of the new developments back home. It was Elmaghribi, for example, who informed Cohen of a new dahir which had increased salaries in Morocco by 5 percent, including his. In addition and whenever possible, the musician also provided financial support to various family members and friends in Casablanca, Rabat, and Salé. 

As best he could and at a distance, Elmaghribi sought to satisfy the musical needs of his compatriots. After Cohen informed Elmaghribi that the Andalusian standard “Shams al-ʿashiyya” (The evening sun) was “very in demand” among Moroccans, the musician quickly recorded it for his Samyphone label. The 45 rpm record was in many ways a departure for the artist as it was the first to feature and foreground his children. In fact, the disc itself was credited to his son Dédé Elmaghribi (Amram Amzallag) and “his sisters.” Their famous patriarch provided accompaniment on the ʿud. Eager to learn about its reception in Morocco, Elmaghribi dashed off a letter to Cohen. “Provide me with the details of the sale of Chems el âchi through today and if you think this record is a hit, especially among Muslims.” Cohen responded on January 19, 1960. “You asked if it was a hit, without a doubt, for that matter, you will see the [accounting] statements and understand that it is a hit among all Muslims and Jews.”

“Qissat Agadir” 

Late on February 29, 1960, the Moroccan port city of Agadir was struck by a powerful earthquake. More than fifteen thousand were killed. Among those victims were an estimated 1,500 Jews, representing not only 10 percent of all fatalities but some two-thirds of the total Jewish community there as well. Thousands more were injured. Refugees sought shelter in the area but also much farther north. Hundreds of the remaining Jewish survivors fled to Casablanca in order to benefit from the communal infrastructure in the cultural capital still very much in place. 

On March 3, 1960, Cohen attempted to convey the enormity of the situation to Elmaghribi. “This tragedy,” he wrote, “has touched all of Morocco and business has ground to a standstill.” But Elmaghribi already knew full well many of the devastating details. Not only did he receive La Vigie marocaine but, unlike Cohen, he also had access to French television. “All we talk about is this catastrophe,” Elmaghribi informed Cohen, “which is causing us great sorrow.” In fact, by the time he had received Cohen’s letter, he had already channeled that grief into a song. He had also recorded it, sent it to the pressing plant in Paris, and designed its cover art, which featured a “a beautiful view of Agadir before the catastrophe.” On March 5, 1960, Casablanca record dealers, including Samyphone, had already ordered a thousand copies of “Qissat Agadir” (The story of Agadir) for their stores. The record was now bound for Radio Maroc in Rabat and Radio Africa in Tangier as well. 

“Qissat Agadir” was not the only song composed or recorded by Moroccan Jews to commemorate the tragic events of February 1960. Against the backdrop of what Cohen described as a scene of fasting, fundraising, and “the cries of women and children” in Casablanca, Rabbi David Bouzaglo, the great paytan and pillar of Moroccan Jewry, had also written something to mark the tragedy and soothe Jewish mourners. That version may very well have been performed by Bouzaglo on Radio Maroc, as the rabbi remained a regular performer on the Jewish program La Voix des Communautés until his departure for Israel in 1965. In Israel, a number of qasaʾid (s., qasida; sung poems) on the Moroccan tragedy appeared as well. There, a second “Qissat Agadir,” written by a certain Jacob Dahan and recorded by Sliman Elmaghribi (no relation, né Ben Hamo) was released on the Jaffa-based R. Zaky label. But few could compete with Elmaghribi and his reach among both Jews and Muslims. 

In the weeks after the earthquake, Elmaghribi’s slow-moving lament became something of an anthem for Moroccans not just in the diaspora but in Morocco as well. His record, on which he intoned “in the middle of the night one Tuesday, O chance, the ground thundered and Agadir collapsed” (laylat talata fi wast a-layl, ya sada, traʿadat l-ard w-bilad Agadir nakhlat), was broadcast regularly on Radio Maroc. Meanwhile, other musicians began to perform Elmaghribi’s “Qissat Agadir” on Moroccan radio as well. As a consequence, the Samyphone record sold quite well. For a time it buoyed the label. “May God bless you and may the Lord protect you and guide you” (Tabarkallah ʿalayk al-rabbi huwa yanzik w-yahdik), Émile wrote, switching from French to Moroccan Arabic. 

Despite his physical absence from the country for more than six months, Elmaghribi’s voice was now once again a powerful presence in Morocco. He was present in other ways as well. His face, for example, graced the popular “Qissat Agadir” record, which of course was sold both on his own label and from his very visible Samyphone store in the heart of Casablanca. For Elmaghribi, the record was more than just a commercial venture. He proposed, for instance, that one-third of the profits be designated for aid relief in Agadir itself. On May 10, 1960, he tasked Cohen with contacting their local representative in Casablanca to inquire about where the money might be best directed. “Send him my greetings,” Elmaghribi wrote, “inform him of my desire to do my duty like any citizen of this country.” 

New Texts Out Now: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein, guest eds. "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis." Special Issue of Conflict, Security & Development

Conflict, Security and Development, Volume 15, No. 5 (December 2015) Special issue: "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis," Guest Editors: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein.

Jadaliyya (J): What made you compile this volume?

Mandy Turner (MT): Both the peace process and the two-state solution are dead. Despite more than twenty years of negotiations, Israel’s occupation, colonization and repression continue–and the political and geographical fragmentation of the Palestinian people is proceeding apace.

This is not news, nor is it surprising to any keen observer of the situation. But what is surprising–and thus requires explanation – is the resilience of the Oslo framework and paradigm: both objectively and subjectively. It operates objectively as a straitjacket by trapping Palestinians in economic and security arrangements that are designed to ensure stabilization and will not to lead to sovereignty or a just and sustainable solution. And it operates subjectively as a straitjacket by shutting out discussion of alternative ways of understanding the situation and ways out of the impasse. The persistence of this framework that is focused on conflict management and stabilization, is good for Israel but bad for Palestinians.

The Oslo peace paradigm–of a track-one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution–is therefore in crisis. And yet it is entirely possible that the current situation could continue for a while longer–particularly given the endorsement and support it enjoys from the major Western donors and the “international community,” as well as the fact that there has been no attempt to develop an alternative. The immediate short-term future is therefore bleak.

Guided by these observations, this special issue sought to undertake two tasks. The first task was to analyze the perceptions underpinning the Oslo framework and paradigm as well as some of the transformations instituted by its implementation: why is it so resilient, what has it created? The second task, which follows on from the first, was then to ask: how can we reframe our understanding of what is happening, what are some potential alternatives, and who is arguing and mobilizing for them?

These questions and themes grew out of a number of conversations with early-career scholars – some based at the Kenyon Institute in East Jerusalem, and some based in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere. These conversations led to two interlinked panels at the International Studies Association annual convention in Toronto, Canada, in March 2014. To have two panels accepted on “conflict transformation and resistance in Palestine” at such a conventional international relations conference with (at the time unknown) early-career scholars is no mean feat. The large and engaged audience we received at these panels – with some very established names coming along (one of whom contributed to this special issue) – convinced us that this new stream of scholars and scholarship should have an outlet.  

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures do the articles address?

MT: The first half of the special issue analyzes how certain problematic assumptions shaped the Oslo framework, and how the Oslo framework in turn shaped the political, economic and territorial landscape.

Virginia Tilley’s article focuses on the paradigm of conflict resolution upon which the Oslo Accords were based, and calls for a re-evaluation of what she argues are the two interlinked central principles underpinning its worldview: internationally accepted notions of Israeli sovereignty; and the internationally accepted idea that the “conflict” is essentially one between two peoples–the “Palestinian people” and the “Jewish people”. Through her critical interrogation of these two “common sense” principles, Tilley proposes that the “conflict” be reinterpreted as an example of settler colonialism, and, as a result of this, recommends an alternative conflict resolution model based on a paradigm shift away from an ethno-nationalist division of the polity towards a civic model of the nation.

Tariq Dana unpacks another central plank of the Oslo paradigm–that of promoting economic relations between Israel and the OPT. He analyses this through the prism of “economic peace” (particularly the recent revival of theories of “capitalist peace”), whose underlying assumptions are predicated on the perceived superiority of economic approaches over political approaches to resolving conflict. Dana argues that there is a symbiosis between Israeli strategies of “economic peace” and recent Palestinian “statebuilding strategies” (referred to as Fayyadism), and that both operate as a form of pacification and control because economic cooperation leaves the colonial relationship unchallenged.

The political landscape in the OPT has been transformed by the Oslo paradigm, particularly by the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Alaa Tartir therefore analyses the basis, agenda and trajectory of the PA, particularly its post-2007 state building strategy. By focusing on the issue of local legitimacy and accountability, and based on fieldwork in two sites in the occupied West Bank (Balata and Jenin refugee camps), Tartir concludes that the main impact of the creation of the PA on ordinary people’s lives has been the strengthening of authoritarian control and the hijacking of any meaningful visions of Palestinian liberation.

The origin of the administrative division between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the focus of Tareq Baconi’s article. He charts how Hamas’s initial opposition to the Oslo Accords and the PA was transformed over time, leading to its participation (and success) in the 2006 legislative elections. Baconi argues that it was the perceived demise of the peace process following the collapse of the Camp David discussions that facilitated this change. But this set Hamas on a collision course with Israel and the international community, which ultimately led to the conflict between Hamas and Fateh, and the administrative division, which continues to exist.

The special issue thereafter focuses, in the second section, on alternatives and resistance to Oslo’s transformations.

Cherine Hussein’s article charts the re-emergence of the single-state idea in opposition to the processes of separation unleashed ideologically and practically that were codified in the Oslo Accords. Analysing it as both a movement of resistance and as a political alternative to Oslo, while recognizing that it is currently largely a movement of intellectuals (particularly of diaspora Palestinians and Israelis), Hussein takes seriously its claim to be a more just and liberating alternative to the two-state solution.

My article highlights the work of a small but dedicated group of anti-Zionist Jewish-Israeli activists involved in two groups: Zochrot and Boycott from Within. Both groups emerged in the post-Second Intifada period, which was marked by deep disillusionment with the Oslo paradigm. This article unpacks the alternative – albeit marginalized – analysis, solution and route to peace proposed by these groups through the application of three concepts: hegemony, counter-hegemony and praxis. The solution, argue the activists, lies in Israel-Palestine going through a process of de-Zionization and decolonization, and the process of achieving this lies in actions in solidarity with Palestinians.

This type of solidarity action is the focus of the final article by Suzanne Morrison, who analyses the “We Divest” campaign, which is the largest divestment campaign in the US and forms part of the wider Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Through attention to their activities and language, Morrison shows how “We Divest”, with its networked, decentralized, grassroots and horizontal structure, represents a new way of challenging Israel’s occupation and the suppression of Palestinian rights.

The two parts of the special issue are symbiotic: the critique and alternative perspectives analyzed in part two are responses to the issues and problems identified in part one.

J: How does this volume connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

MT: My work focuses on the political economy of donor intervention (which falls under the rubric of “peacebuilding”) in the OPT, particularly a critique of the Oslo peace paradigm and framework. This is a product of my broader conceptual and historical interest in the sociology of intervention as a method of capitalist expansion and imperial control (as explored in “The Politics of International Intervention: the Tyranny of Peace”, co-edited with Florian Kuhn, Routledge, 2016), and how post-conflict peacebuilding and development agendas are part of this (as explored in “Whose Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding”, co-edited with Michael Pugh and Neil Cooper (PalgraveMacmillan, 2008).  

My first book on Palestine (co-edited with Omar Shweiki), Decolonizing Palestinian Political Economy: De-development and Beyond (PalgraveMacmillan, 2014), was a collection of essays by experts in their field, of the political-economic experience of different sections of the Palestinian community. The book, however, aimed to reunite these individual experiences into one historical political-economy narrative of a people experiencing a common theme of dispossession, disenfranchisement and disarticulation. It was guided by the desire to critically assess the utility of the concept of de-development to different sectors and issues–and had a foreword by Sara Roy, the scholar who coined the term, and who was involved in the workshop from which the book emerged.

This co-edited special issue (with Cherine Hussein, who, at the time of the issue construction, was the deputy director of the Kenyon Institute) was therefore the next logical step in my research on Palestine, although my article on Jewish-Israeli anti-Zionists did constitute a slight departure from my usual focus.

J: Who do you hope will read this volume, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

MT: I would imagine the main audience will be those whose research and political interests lie in Palestine Studies. It is difficult, given the structure of academic publishing – which has become ever more corporate and money grabbing – for research outputs such as this to be accessed by the general public. Only those with access to academic libraries are sure to be able to read it – and this is a travesty, in my opinion. To counteract this commodification of knowledge, we should all provide free access to our outputs through online open source websites such as academia.edu, etc. If academic research is going to have an impact beyond merely providing more material for teaching and background reading for yet more research (which is inaccessible to the general public) then this is essential. Websites such as Jadaliyya are therefore incredibly important.

Having said all that, I am under no illusions about the potential for ANY research on Israel-Palestine to contribute to changing the dynamics of the situation. However, as a collection of excellent analyses conducted by mostly early-career scholars in the field of Palestine studies, I am hopeful that their interesting and new perspectives will be read and digested. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MT: I am currently working on an edited volume provisionally entitled From the River to the Sea: Disintegration, Reintegration and Domination in Israel and Palestine. This book is the culmination of a two-year research project funded by the British Academy, which analyzed the impacts of the past twenty years of the Oslo peace framework and paradigm as processes of disintegration, reintegration and domination – and how they have created a new socio-economic and political landscape, which requires new agendas and frameworks. I am also working on a new research project with Tariq Dana at Birzeit University on capital and class in the occupied West Bank.

Excerpt from the Editor’s Note 

[Note: This issue was published in Dec. 2015]

Initially perceived to have inaugurated a new era of hope in the search for peace and justice in Palestine-Israel, the Oslo peace paradigm of a track one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution is in crisis today, if not completely at an end.

While the major Western donors and the ‘international community’ continue to publicly endorse the Oslo peace paradigm, Israeli and Palestinian political elites have both stepped away from it. The Israeli government has adopted what appears to be an outright rejection of the internationally-accepted end-goal of negotiations, i.e. the emergence of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. In March 2015, in the final days of his re-election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Jewish settlement of Har Homa in Palestinian East Jerusalem, which is regarded as illegal under international law. Reminding its inhabitants that it was him and his Likud government that had established the settlement in 1997 as part of the Israeli state’s vision of a unified indivisible Jerusalem, he promised to expand the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem if re-elected. And in an interview with Israeli news site, NRG, Netanyahu vowed that the prospects of a Palestinian state were non-existent as long as he remained in office. Holding on to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), he argued, was necessary to ensure Israel’s security in the context of regional instability and Islamic extremism. It is widely acknowledged that Netanyahu’s emphasis on Israel’s security—against both external and internal enemies—gave him a surprise win in an election he was widely expected to lose.

Despite attempts to backtrack under recognition that the US and European states are critical of this turn in official Israeli state policy, Netanyahu’s promise to bury the two-state solution in favour of a policy of further annexation has become the Israeli government’s official intent, and has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading ministers and key advisers.

[…]

The Palestinian Authority (PA) based in the West Bank also appears to have rejected a key principle of the Oslo peace paradigm—that of bilateral negotiations under the supervision of the US. Despite a herculean effort by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to bring the two parties to the negotiating table, in response to the lack of movement towards final status issues and continued settlement expansion (amongst other issues), the Palestinian political elite have withdrawn from negotiations and resumed attempts to ‘internationalise the struggle’ by seeking membership of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), and signing international treaties such as the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court. This change of direction is part of a rethink in the PA and PLO’s strategy rooted in wider discussions and debates. The publication of a document by the Palestine Strategy Study Group (PSSG) in August 2008, the production of which involved many members of the Palestinian political elite (and whose recommendations were studiously discussed at the highest levels of the PA and PLO), showed widespread discontent with the bilateral negotiations framework and suggested ways in which Palestinians could ‘regain the initiative’.

[…]

And yet despite these changes in official Palestinian and Israeli political strategies that signal a deepening of the crisis, donors and the ‘international community’ are reluctant to accept the failure of the Oslo peace paradigm. This political myopia has meant the persistence of a framework that is increasingly divorced from the possibility of a just and sustainable peace. It is also acting as an ideological straitjacket by shutting out alternative interpretations. This special issue seeks a way out of this political and intellectual dead end. In pursuit of this, our various contributions undertake what we regard to be two key tasks: first, to critically analyse the perceptions underpinning the Oslo paradigm and the transformations instituted by its implementation; and second, to assess some alternative ways of understanding the situation rooted in new strategies of resistance that have emerged in the context of these transformations in the post-Oslo landscape.

[…]

Taken as a whole, the articles in this special issue aim to ignite conversations on the conflict that are not based within abstracted debates that centre upon the peace process itself—but that begin from within the realities and geographies of both the continually transforming land of Palestine-Israel and the voices, struggles, worldviews and imaginings of the future of the people who presently inhabit it. For it is by highlighting these transformations, and from within these points of beginning, that we believe more hopeful pathways for alternative ways forward can be collectively imagined, articulated, debated and built.