Rebecca Beaudry
HIS 3105
Does the Clash Resonate?
April 30, 2009
There is a clash of civilizations between the East and the West. This is influenced heavily by history and perceived impressions of people. To understand this clash of civilizations, one must first understand the history behind it.
The Greeks often referred to anybody who was different, who did not speak Greek, as barbarians. As people who were less than them by virtue of belonging to a different culture. The Greeks formed preconceived notions of these people which influenced their writings on the subject and the writings of later people. All of these preconceived notions and clichés built upon one another as time passed. This was certainly not helped by the Moors in Spain nor by the Crusades in Palestine which helped form even more notions of what the East and the West was like. (Lockman 8-10, Said 56-7)
These ideas still exist today and are obvious in popular culture. From Disney films to big Hollywood blockbusters orientalism is incredibly apparent. Take films such as True Lies. The terrorists are incompetent Muslim men from Palestine willing to set off nuclear bombs to make their point while their female accomplice is abused by the terrorists one minute and attempted to seduce the main male character and hero of the movie the next. The terrorist theme is very prominent throughout Western films. Other themes include the seductive Arab woman, the lecherous Arab man obsessed with Western women, and of course portraying Arabs as less intelligent.
One film which took on these stereotypes was American East, about a group of Palestinians living in Los Angeles. However through taking on and diffusing these stereotypes, it also showed a multitude of stereotypes about Americans and Jews. One stereotype about Jews was that the Jewish man’s family was essentially run like a corporation rather than as a family. In the film, most white Americans are portrayed as so single mindedly suspicious of Arabs that throughout the film, many of the Palestinian main characters are accosted by at least one American in one way or the other be it through suspicion of being a terrorist or something else.
The film Aladdin is by far one of the most insidious in its portrayal of Arabs. The film attempts to take the old story and turn it into musical animated film. Yet throughout it, women are portrayed in clothing taken more from clichés and stereotypes of what women wear in the Middle East than anything else. The main protagonist of the film possesses features so stylized that he looks more like a camel than a man. The guards, who are bumbling, somewhat incompetent and sadistic, if their actions toward Aladdin are taken into account, also posses the most ethnically Arab features. Meanwhile Aladdin and Princess Jasmine posses the most western features.
This clash of civilizations is also apparent in the way the United States media speaks about the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Everything is covered from the side of the Israelis. Even though the Israelis are so obviously favored by the U.S., the true situation should be presented. However, generally the Media presents the conflict from the side of the Israelis and goes so far as to dehumanize the Palestinians by use of a very selective vocabulary. Nor is the term occupation generally mentioned in these news reports, given people an even shakier version of what is truly occurring.
Even in Israel, this is obvious. In the documentary about the mothers of two girls who died in a terrorist bombing perpetrated by one of the girls it is surprisingly apparent. The girls were Ayat, the Palestinian suicide bomber and Rachel her unwitting victim. Ayat’s mother is willing to compromise and answer questions, however Rachel’s is not. Rachel’s mother become so obsessed with trying to understand how Ayat could have killed Rachel that she is unwilling to listen to any opinion other than her own. She refuses to acknowledge that what Israel has doen to the Palestinians might have brought Ayat to the point where she felt she had no choice but to do something like that. She also refuses to acknowledge that anybody but herself might have a legitimate opinion.
These worrying views are no doubt influenced by the Imperialism of the past several centuries. Most of the places colonized are generally no long subsidiaries of European power or of the U.S., however the prejudices produced by imperialism still remain. This shows in many ways such as books and films still heavily influenced by this.
The clash dies resonate. It is influenced by historical bias and clichés propagated by people whom it has influenced. It has become apparent throughout this course that there is a clash of civilizations. Sometimes this clash is violent, however many times it is not. Rather the clash can be seen in how the West is portrayed by the East and how the East is portrayed by the West. It is apparent in news reports and in the words people use.
Works Cited
Lockman, Zachary. Contending Visions of the Middle East. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. United States: Random House, 1979.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Entry 12
The Minister of the Interior from Terrorism and B.B.Q. is fascinating in what he does and does not choose to do. Throughout the film, he is essentially the only person calling for a peaceful resolution of the hostage situation so as to avoid the loss of life. Other government officials continually attempt to railroad the man into decisive offensive action rather than giving the "terrorists" a chance to surrender. In the end, the Minister of the Interior chooses to allow the so-called terrorists to leave. When it became apparent that the "terrorists" were gone from the building, he seems to be the only one to realize that they were likely among the hostages which had just been released. Rather than stop the former hostages, he watches them walk away. it would have been quite easy for him to send soldiers after the hostages to catch them before they were too far away, yet he did not. It was postulated that this was because he did not want to loose face, however my belief is that he chose to allow them to leave because of personal reasons. Whether it was as a subtle form of revenge against his colleagues or perhaps because of sympathy, these reasons are unclear.
Entry 11
The first part of Terrorism and B.B.Q as the name was translated was hilarious. Through an entirely understandable series of events, a man becomes a terrorist holding a government building hostage. The bureaucracy of the government building is reminiscent of the worst nightmares of the DMV combined with the IRS. There seemed to be nothing remotely resembling logic to the running of the building. To get permission for his children to change schools, the main character spent a week or so trying to find out first who he had to see, then waiting for that man to return from his trip, and finally waiting for the man to return from the bathroom. The ridiculousness of the situation knows no bounds. Unfortunately, the main character eventually looses his temper and guards are called to remove him from the building. In an attempt to plead his case, the main character ends up in something of a spinning wrestling match with the guards resulting in him holding one of the guard's guns. Even more unusually, the guards were so terrified that they ran rather than trying to diffuse the situation.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Entry 10
There is a clash of civilizations and there is certainly an "other." Yet this is part of any people. The "other" is necessary for any civilization. There is always something strange or something undefinable, where it be people from another culture or from their own. Part of the problem is the refusal to listen or to try to understand other people and cultures. Because to do so would be to admit that they are not as different as most would want to believe. That said, there is a historical basis for this fear in that people traveled to other countries and areas and wrote about these places. These writings contained preconceived notions and prejudices which were passed on to later writers. This still shapes the way we think about other places.
Entry 9
The conspiracy film on George W. Bush was incredibly frightening because it showed how easily the people of this country were fooled. However, what sticks out in my mind was the entire segment on weapons of mass destruction. I remember this when it was actually happening and how scared everybody was of these weapons of mass destruction. But what is a weapon of mass destruction defined as? Doubtless, numerous people have different definitions, which means that one must further inquire into whose definition is the correct one? What is the definition of "mass destruction?" Is it the ability to destroy or the ability to kill? However, even more frightening was to watch the film and realize how easy it was to silence dissenters by calling them unpatriotic. Is it truly unpatriotic to question what the United States government is doing? Of course not. The Bill of Rights exists for a reason. However, it seems that at the time, the right to use the first amendment was all but suspended in favor of adoration of George W. Bush. I was in high school at this point in time and I remember clearly how until 2003, 2004, it was impossible to question what was happening without starting an argument with classmates and friends.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
News Comparisons
Rebecca Beaudry
HIS 3106
Comparing News
April 9, 2009
A United States Container Ship was attacked by Somali pirates. The pirates were repelled by the crew, but not before they managed to take the captain of the ship hostage. The story as reported by Al Jazeera and the Washington Post are vastly different, though both cover the same event.
The Al Jazeera article, “U.S. crew repel pirates off Somalia” focuses on the crew of the ship which had been attacked and the captain of the ship who had been taken hostage. In the Al Jazeera article, only one crew member, the third mate, is mentioned by name in relation to what he had said to the Associated Press about the crew’s attempts to negotiate with the pirates. They also had a quote from Hillary Clinton.
Unlike the Washington Post article, the Al Jazeera article mentions that part of the ship’s cargo is food aid from the United Nations. This food is meant for Somalia and Uganda. The Washington Post article spoke more about the owners of the shipping company and what they intended to do.
The Al Jazeera article also speaks briefly about the United States Navy warship, the Bainbridge, which came to the aid of the crew and later pursued the pirates. It did not speak about the hostage situation beyond that the pirates had escaped with the captain in one of the lifeboats.
At the end of the Al Jazeera article, the rise in piracy, particularly off the coast of Somalia is briefly spoken about. It does not go into detail, rather, it mentions several incidents by name of the ship and country of origins of the ship or the pirates or location of the piracy and various demands for ransom by pirates.
The Washington Post article, titled “FBI Hostage Negotiators Helping Navy With Ship Captain’s Rescue” takes a much different approach. The article focuses on what the United States military is doing in relation to the pirates. Likewise, it focuses on the additional guards added to the crew of the ship to ensure it arrived in Somalia safely.
It is not until halfway through the article that it mentions that the unarmed crew managed to wrest control of the ship from the pirates. The Washington Post article, does not, however, mention that the crew was unarmed as the Al Jazeera article did.
However, it does speak of the hostage situation in detail. It is described so vividly that it can be clearly pictured by readers. However, the description of the situation is such that it raises alarm for the captain of the ship in ways that the Al Jazeera article did not.
Like the Al Jazeera article, the Washington Post article had a quote from Hillary Clinton. However, the Washtington Post’s quote was on how the hostage situation was being closely monitored. The Al Jazeera quote was about how Clinton wanted countries to work together to end “the scourge of piracy.” These quotes give readers completely different feelings. While the Washington Post quote gives one the feeling that the incident is of so little concern that it is merely being monitored, the Al Jazeera quote gives the reader the feeling that piracy is a global problem. The Washington Post begins the article by describing the continuing hostage situation which is the focus of the article for the first two pages. It describes an almost movie like chase right out of Hollywood where the Navy chased down and cornered the pirates in the lifeboat they’d stolen. Even the quote from Capt. Joseph Murphy reflects this. He describes something out of an old western where the pirates have “nowhere to run; there’s nowhere to hide.”
The United States has a history of glorifying piracy even as it vilifies it. This is reflected by how the Washington Post described the pirates. They were referred to as “shrewd businessmen” or “daring opportunists” making piracy seem almost acceptable. Even with the mitigating effect of the word “opportunists,” the word daring makes them seem much more worth emulating. The piracy is even decribed as “spectacular,” although this seems to be more in relation to how they pulled off their acts of piracy than anything else.
Yet still the descriptions make it clear that though piracy is a bad thing, it is also something to be emulated. It makes it clear that the author is, if only subconsciously, comparing these pirates to the pirates American culture has turned into heroes. The article sends mixed messages in that it uses words which makes piracy sound good and heroic, yet essentially says that piracy is bad.
Unlike the Washington Post, Al Jazeera does not make piracy sound heroic. However, neither does it vilify piracy. Rather, it makes it clear that piracy is wrong and criminal without going overboard in either direction. It makes it sound like a virulent global problem. Yet it is still presented almost as a force of nature.
The Washington Post ends their article in the same manner Al Jazeera did, by talking about the recent upsurge in piracy on a global scale. However, the Washington Post makes it seem as if piracy is merely an increasing problem off the coast of Somalia, rather than world wide. Ti describes numerous incidents off the coast of Somalia while making it clear that the United States Navy does not have enough ships to patrol the waters while making it seem almost as if it is the fault of the leader of Somalia that there is so much piracy.
The Somali president is described as a “moderate Islamist.” This description alone is problematic. Considering how little information they gave about the man, it is inappropriate to mention that as if it would explain everything about his political views and the like.
The Al Jazeera article serves only to inform people about an incident of piracy while the Washinton Post article both vilifies and praises piracy. What the articles chose to cover and how they chose to do so adds to these opposing views.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/04/20094823514902293.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040901304.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
HIS 3106
Comparing News
April 9, 2009
A United States Container Ship was attacked by Somali pirates. The pirates were repelled by the crew, but not before they managed to take the captain of the ship hostage. The story as reported by Al Jazeera and the Washington Post are vastly different, though both cover the same event.
The Al Jazeera article, “U.S. crew repel pirates off Somalia” focuses on the crew of the ship which had been attacked and the captain of the ship who had been taken hostage. In the Al Jazeera article, only one crew member, the third mate, is mentioned by name in relation to what he had said to the Associated Press about the crew’s attempts to negotiate with the pirates. They also had a quote from Hillary Clinton.
Unlike the Washington Post article, the Al Jazeera article mentions that part of the ship’s cargo is food aid from the United Nations. This food is meant for Somalia and Uganda. The Washington Post article spoke more about the owners of the shipping company and what they intended to do.
The Al Jazeera article also speaks briefly about the United States Navy warship, the Bainbridge, which came to the aid of the crew and later pursued the pirates. It did not speak about the hostage situation beyond that the pirates had escaped with the captain in one of the lifeboats.
At the end of the Al Jazeera article, the rise in piracy, particularly off the coast of Somalia is briefly spoken about. It does not go into detail, rather, it mentions several incidents by name of the ship and country of origins of the ship or the pirates or location of the piracy and various demands for ransom by pirates.
The Washington Post article, titled “FBI Hostage Negotiators Helping Navy With Ship Captain’s Rescue” takes a much different approach. The article focuses on what the United States military is doing in relation to the pirates. Likewise, it focuses on the additional guards added to the crew of the ship to ensure it arrived in Somalia safely.
It is not until halfway through the article that it mentions that the unarmed crew managed to wrest control of the ship from the pirates. The Washington Post article, does not, however, mention that the crew was unarmed as the Al Jazeera article did.
However, it does speak of the hostage situation in detail. It is described so vividly that it can be clearly pictured by readers. However, the description of the situation is such that it raises alarm for the captain of the ship in ways that the Al Jazeera article did not.
Like the Al Jazeera article, the Washington Post article had a quote from Hillary Clinton. However, the Washtington Post’s quote was on how the hostage situation was being closely monitored. The Al Jazeera quote was about how Clinton wanted countries to work together to end “the scourge of piracy.” These quotes give readers completely different feelings. While the Washington Post quote gives one the feeling that the incident is of so little concern that it is merely being monitored, the Al Jazeera quote gives the reader the feeling that piracy is a global problem. The Washington Post begins the article by describing the continuing hostage situation which is the focus of the article for the first two pages. It describes an almost movie like chase right out of Hollywood where the Navy chased down and cornered the pirates in the lifeboat they’d stolen. Even the quote from Capt. Joseph Murphy reflects this. He describes something out of an old western where the pirates have “nowhere to run; there’s nowhere to hide.”
The United States has a history of glorifying piracy even as it vilifies it. This is reflected by how the Washington Post described the pirates. They were referred to as “shrewd businessmen” or “daring opportunists” making piracy seem almost acceptable. Even with the mitigating effect of the word “opportunists,” the word daring makes them seem much more worth emulating. The piracy is even decribed as “spectacular,” although this seems to be more in relation to how they pulled off their acts of piracy than anything else.
Yet still the descriptions make it clear that though piracy is a bad thing, it is also something to be emulated. It makes it clear that the author is, if only subconsciously, comparing these pirates to the pirates American culture has turned into heroes. The article sends mixed messages in that it uses words which makes piracy sound good and heroic, yet essentially says that piracy is bad.
Unlike the Washington Post, Al Jazeera does not make piracy sound heroic. However, neither does it vilify piracy. Rather, it makes it clear that piracy is wrong and criminal without going overboard in either direction. It makes it sound like a virulent global problem. Yet it is still presented almost as a force of nature.
The Washington Post ends their article in the same manner Al Jazeera did, by talking about the recent upsurge in piracy on a global scale. However, the Washington Post makes it seem as if piracy is merely an increasing problem off the coast of Somalia, rather than world wide. Ti describes numerous incidents off the coast of Somalia while making it clear that the United States Navy does not have enough ships to patrol the waters while making it seem almost as if it is the fault of the leader of Somalia that there is so much piracy.
The Somali president is described as a “moderate Islamist.” This description alone is problematic. Considering how little information they gave about the man, it is inappropriate to mention that as if it would explain everything about his political views and the like.
The Al Jazeera article serves only to inform people about an incident of piracy while the Washinton Post article both vilifies and praises piracy. What the articles chose to cover and how they chose to do so adds to these opposing views.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/04/20094823514902293.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040901304.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Entry 8
Loose Change 9/11 was horrifying. Though it was a conspiracy film produced to question the facts of 9/11 according to the government and imply something suspicious had occurred, that they were able to find that much information was incredibly suspicious and raises questions. if the government was being completely truthful, would they have been able to gather this much information? Though they spoke only passingly of the Patriot Act, the film raises questions about it as well. The Patriot Act was one of the worst things to happen to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in quite a while, yet it was still passed because of how frightened voters, and as a result, the people they'd put into office were about terrorists. Was the system in place so bad that this backstep in civil liberties was necessary? People were scared because of the image presented by the media and the President. If you say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction enough, maybe they'll magically appear. If you imply that exercising your right to free speech by protesting is unpatriotic, people will believe that to be true. To even suggest that the US is good and everybody who stands against it evil is horrifying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)