Made homeless by war, Syrians sell furniture to survive

1 / 6
Fridges and other appliances of displaced Syrian families are stored in a tent to protect them from the elements in a field near a camp for displaced people at the village of Atme, in the northern Idlib province on June 13, 2019. (AFP)
2 / 6
Displaced Syrian men pack their belongings into a truck as they head to sell them on the outskirts of the Syrian town of Abyan, in the rebel-held western Aleppo province, on June 13, 2019. (AFP)
3 / 6
For years, Ali sold used furniture and home appliances for a living. But he never thought Syria's war would one day make him homeless and force him to sell his own. (AFP)
4 / 6
Displaced Syrian men ride with their belongings in a truck as they head to sell them on the outskirts of the Syrian town of Abyan, in the rebel-held western Aleppo province, on June 13, 2019. (AFP)
5 / 6
A displaced Syrian girl stands behind the belongings of her family in a field near a camp for displaced people at the village of Atme, in the northern Idlib province on June 13, 2019. (AFP)
6 / 6
A photo taken on June 13, 2019, shows a second-hand store where displaced Syrians (unseen) sell their belongings on the outskirts of the Syrian town of Abyan in the rebel-held western Aleppo province. (AFP)
Updated 25 June 2019
0

Made homeless by war, Syrians sell furniture to survive

  • The Idlib region is supposed to be protected by a buffer zone deal signed by Russia and rebel backer Turkey in September

ATME, SYRIA: For years, Abu Ali sold used furniture and home appliances for a living. But he never thought Syria’s war would one day make him homeless and force him to sell his own.
His family is one of dozens stranded in olive groves along the Turkish border, who say they have had to sell their basic possessions to ensure survival.
“I sold them to provide food, drink and clothes for my children,” said the father of five, who now houses his family in a tent.
An opposition bastion in Syria’s northwest has come under heavy regime and Russian bombardment since late April, despite a truce deal intended to protect the jihadist-run enclave’s three million inhabitants.
The spike in violence in and around Idlib province has killed hundreds of civilians, displaced 330,000 more, and sparked fears of one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the eight-year civil war.
Abu Ali, his wife and their children fled their home in southern Idlib in early May, hitting the road north to seek shelter in the relative safety of the olive groves close to the border.
“I used to have a shop to buy and sell used items,” such as fridges and furniture in the village of Maaret Hurma, he told AFP, sitting in the shade of a tree near the border town of Atme.

A few days after fleeing his home village, he hired two trucks for 50,000 Syrian pounds (over $110) to bring “eight fridges, bedroom furnishings, seven washing machines, and several gas stoves” up to the olive grove.
But under the summer sun in the makeshift camp, the merchandise soon plummeted in value.
“I was forced to get rid of it or sell it — even at a very low price,” the 35-year-old said, his chin stubble already greying under a head of thick dark brown hair.
For example, the going price for a fridge originally bought for 25,000 Syrian pounds (more than $55) can be as low as a fifth of that price.
In Atme, some families have stored their fridges and other appliances in a single tent to protect them from the elements.
Outside, a top-loader washing machine sits in the shade of a tree.
Awad Abu Abdu, 35, said he too was forced to part with all his household items for a pittance.
“It was very dear to me. It was all I had accumulated over a lifetime of hard work,” said the former construction worker, who fled the village of Tramla with his wife and six children.
“I sold all our home’s furniture for just 50,000 Syrian pounds,” he said, dressed in a faded grey t-shirt fraying around the collar.
After transport costs, he was left with only half that amount to feed his family, he said.
Abu Abdu accused buyers of “cheating us, exploiting the displaced,” but said he had no other choice.
“Everything’s so expensive... and there are no organizations looking out for us,” he said.

The Idlib region is supposed to be protected by a buffer zone deal signed by Russia and rebel backer Turkey in September.
But the accord was never properly implemented as jihadists refused to withdraw from the planned cordon.
Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, an alliance led by Syria’s former Al-Qaeda affiliate, took over administrative control of the region in January.
In the town of Atareb — about 30 kilometers from Atme, in Aleppo province — Abu Hussein received a new delivery at his shop of second-hand household appliances and furniture.
“Every day, more than ten cars arrive loaded up with items the displaced try to sell us,” said the 35-year-old.
“This means we have to pay relatively low prices, because the supply is so high” and it’s hard to then sell them all, he said.
Back in Atme, 50-year-old Waleeda Derwish said she hoped she would find someone to buy her fridge, washing machine and television, to help her provide for her eight children.
The widow transported the electrical items to “save them from bombing or looting” in Maaret Hurma, she said, a bright blue scarf wrapped around her wrinkled face.
Now the appliances represent the family’s only lifeline, she said.
“I’m forced to sell them. How else are we supposed to live?“


Why ‘Gone With the Wind’ eclipses both ‘Avengers’ and ‘Avatar’

Updated 22 July 2019
0

Why ‘Gone With the Wind’ eclipses both ‘Avengers’ and ‘Avatar’

  • The $402 million taken in by “Gone with the Wind” after its 1939 release places it in a paltry 285th position in raw dollar terms
  • That compares to $2.7902 billion for “Avengers: Endgame,” which this weekend just squeaked past the “Avatar” total of $2.7897

NEW YORK: Even as Disney confirmed Sunday that “Avengers: Endgame” had become the top-grossing movie ever, film historians noted that “Gone With the Wind” still has a strong case for being the most successful film of all time.
The $402 million taken in by “Gone with the Wind” after its 1939 release places it in a paltry 285th position in raw dollar terms. But that ignores the huge role of price inflation over time.
The epic historic romance, set during and after the US Civil War, sold the enormous 215 million tickets in the United States, far and away the record in that category, according to the Internet Movie Database. It’s box office was boosted by seven national releases between 1939 and 1974.
“Gone with the Wind” would have sold $1.958 billion worth of tickets today in the US market alone, based on what the National Association of Theatre Owners says was an average US ticket price in 2018 of $9.11.
Worldwide, and with inflation taken into account, the film would have taken in a stunning $3.44 billion, the Guinness Book of World Records has estimated.
That compares to $2.7902 billion for “Avengers: Endgame,” which this weekend just squeaked past the “Avatar” total of $2.7897.
Consider also that the US population in 1939 was a mere 130 million, roughly 200 million less than today.
For some, however, the success of the epic film — it runs three hours and 58 minutes — is troubling.
With a story line based on the novel by Margaret Mitchell, some historians see it as one of the most ambitious and successful examples of Southern revisionism.
Immediately after the Civil War (1861-1865), there was a broad push in the US South to cast the formerly slave-holding region in a softer light.
Those purveying the so-called “Lost Cause” ideology insisted that the Southern states had fought not to preserve slavery, but because the North was infringing on their political independence.
Yet in their declarations of secession from the Union, the Southern states were clear about their primary motive: the Northern states’ refusal to extradite escaped slaves and their “increasing hostility... to the institution of slavery,” as South Carolina’s declaration stated.
“Slavery is not even a critical issue in the movie,” said Kathryn Stockett, author of “The Help,” about black maids in the South in the early 1960s.
“You have these African-Americans that are working for these white families, and it’s as if it’s just their job... something they chose to do,” Stockett says in the documentary “Old South, New South.”
For Randy Sparks, a Tulane University history professor, “Gone With the Wind” exemplifies the way Southerners were able to impose their version of events.
“There aren’t many cases in history,” Sparks said, “where the losers write the history.”
It was thanks to “Gone With the Wind” that in 1940 Hattie McDaniel, who plays Scarlett O’Hara’s faithful slave “Mammy,” won the first Oscar awarded to a black actress.
But racial segregation was still deeply rooted in Hollywood, as in many parts of American society, and on Oscar night McDaniel had to sit at a small table in the rear of the famed Cocoanut Grove nightclub in the Ambassador Hotel, far from the film’s big stars, Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable.
Producer David O. Selznick had to intervene personally to secure her a room in the Ambassador, which refused to admit black customers until 1959.