I have a great idea for a novel: a ya book about slavery but with people with disabilities. A dystopian world exactly like ours but suddenly slavery is happening again and this time, towards people with disabilities. Why? Cause they also experience discrimination nowadays, of course.
If this sounds like a bad idea that removes historical context and has great potential to minimize Black experiences while also not going really in depth into disabled people’s experiences, you can understand why Internment was not a great book. It’s baffling to me that other reviews aren’t talking about how problematic this idea is.
So, in a near future, all Muslim Americans are rounded up into internment camps. This is meant to mirror a combination of the Asian camps during WW2, the migrant detentions now and the Holocaust. Our heroine is Layla, a 17 year old desi, who is sent to one and leads a struggle against it.
I was really excited for this book because I had hoped that it would be a unique look at oppression and radicalism. I thought it would take the time to develop a realistic scenario where this could happen as well as thoroughly explain how this experience personally impacts Muslims.
But oh, this isn’t this book. I think Ahmed thought that’s what she was doing but this book is a mess.
The biggest problem of this book is the world building. In order for this book to work, Ahmed should have created something original, something that makes sense. *** Fascism *** doesn’t answer all problems. How have these Muslim Camps happened in America? Well, Nazis (yes, not joking, Nazis) have apparently gained political control. Why? No one knows. What’s the opposition? Seems to be limited to a few underground organizations. How did they do it politically? Who knows?
As a Politics student, this frustrated me. Democratic backsliding can happen, of course, but usually, fully fledged democracies (especially with a history like the US) don’t suddenly become totalitarian. So what happened? What led to this? Ahmed doesn’t say.
This information is especially missing because the characters simultaneously follow these new laws but also often oppose them publicly. It seems like Layla finds allies everywhere, including in the guards of the camp. So what do people actually think? Is this an oppressive regime or do the people support it?
Not creating a unique story also means that Ahmed is forced to rely heavily on other events. For example, she takes a lot of inspiration from the Holocaust (Muslim book burnings, giving people numbers in their forearms, banning Muslims from certain fields, etc.). This was especially frustrating because it felt like it was cheapening similar experiences. It was simultaneously not specific to Muslims but also an inaccurate echo of the Holocaust. As Layla complains about the food in her camp, I couldn’t stop thinking about my grandparents starving in a concentration camp and still, knowing that they’re the lucky ones, simply because they lived.
Worse, Layla herself keeps making the comparisons to other parts of history. Throughout the book, she compares herself to Jews, to Asian Americans, to Germans who opposed Nazis. It’s a huge cringe because in this way, Ahmed doesn’t fully address those issues. Instead, she makes them a backdrop, a prop for Layla to use.
If Ahmed had done her world building right, she wouldn’t have needed to rely so much on historical events and had been able to have her characters use accurate comparisons. For example, what if the camp had decided that halal slaughter was inhumane (i'm totally not taking inspiration from Denmark, what)? How would this impact her (meat eating) characters? What if the camp banned hijabs (coughs, France)?
This is a framework that allows us to have a genuine conversation on Layla's patriotism. How can you love a state that actively tries to destroy your lifestyle? What does Americanism mean when some are excluded? Where is any form of dialogue about this?
This is not the end of the problems with this book. The characterization was also a mess.
Layla is meant to be our amazing hero, the one we root for. But Ahmed couldn’t decide whether to raise the stakes or not. On the one hand, Layla witnesses violence that makes her pause. On the other hand, it seems like everyone is supportive of her, like the entire camp is secretly on her side. There are a lot of classic cliches here, like Layla is so special and unique and brave.
But really, my problem was with David. Oh, David. David could have been Christian, Druze, Buddhist or really, any other faith. But no. Ahmed intentionally decides to make him Jewish. And not just any Jew, as she will continue to repeat, David is a child of Yemenite refugees and Holocaust survivors. This is great for Ahmed cause he’s both “brown” and a living relic of the Holocaust.
What Ahmed proceeds to do with David’s character is make many snide remarks about how he, as a Jew is obligated to be the first to stand up to oppression. This is unfair and far too commonly seen. Jews don’t owe the world moral superiority. Not to mentions that if these were actual Nazis, David would not be doing so well.
There’s also a little bit of a tendency to highlight David’s Yemenite ancestry while casting David’s father, the Ashkenazi, as a villain, as self centered. If this book was written by a Jew, I might have been less sensitive to this but as it stands, it seems to me like the classic American leftist “white bad, brown good”. This isn’t quite how we see ourselves. Jews, all Jews, are one people and hey, it’s commonly accepted that Ashkenazis are the traumatized ones like pfft, we win Jewish oppression olympics (especially if we consider USSR Jews Ashkenazi).
David’s characterization, to me, ties in with the biggest problem in this book. Ahmed came to educate us. Now, this isn’t a bad thing but the way she goes about it just doesn’t work. There’s a moment where a male Muslim character says that a woman who wears the hijab is oppressed. Besides how weird it is for a Muslim to say this, this sentence seems to be build precisely in order for Ahmed to write a monologue about strong hijabis. It is afterwards, unsurprising that this is the character who betrays them. This is one example of the many times Ahmed is trying to scream at us “THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO TAKE FROM THIS BOOK”.
There is more to say but I also very much have to study. I wish this book was better as I really did spend a lot of time looking forward to it.
What i'm taking with me
- nope, no, nope, it’s a bit rare if the house and the senate have the same party but that’s not a dictatorship, it's just a unified house. pls, don’t just spew random ideas in lieu of an explanation. you're making Politics majors cry.
- have i outgrown ya?? like, is that the problem here?
- not that relevant but i know so many people who are partly Ashkenazi and partly Mizrahi and guess what, many of them are very much white passing. The Middle East is ethnically diverse and doesn’t play by the American racial laws.
- I hope I'm not overstepping here but I would have also liked to see more of a conversation on inner Muslim issues. I spend way too much time on douchebag Muslim guy tiktok where it is painfully clear that there are some tensions, like the perception that women aren't doing enough for their modesty or the tension between liberal ideas and religion.
-How can it possibly be that they were allowed to study Quran in that camp???
----------------------------------
Welcome to Samira Ahmed’s world, where Arabs and Ashkenazi Jews are white but Yemenite Jews are brown.
Don't worry, if you forget, she will remind you, again and again. The Jewish character has brown skin, look at his brown skin, he is brown. A Jew who is brown.
This is the tip of the iceberg of what’s wrong with this book. Review to come!