Sean Foster
CHID 390
Justifying War: Orientalism Discourse in Media and Politics
After the tragedy and chaos of September 11th, 2001 there was an expectation for the United States to respond with aggression. In his address to the nation, President George W. Bush stated “The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts…We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” It became apparent that the perpetrators were affiliates of the radical Muslim group Al-Qaida, and with Al-Qaida as the espoused target the War on Terror in the Middle East began. War was presented as the only course of action. The attacks on the World Trade Center elicited fear in the US public and a post-9/11 state of emergency regarding homeland security made war … It started in Afghanistan and eventually transitioned into Iraq. I will discuss how an Orientalist discourse used by politicians and the media framed and justified the War on Terror . Through this discourse an inferior “other” was created and that alienated dehumanized the East and its people in the US public consciousness, internationally and within the United States.
Confusion seemed to ensue for the American public over who and what we were fighting in the War on Terror. The only face I remember seeing was Osama bin Laden’s. I remember being 9 years old and picturing our enigmatic enemy as a Middle Eastern man with brown skin, a big black beard and a Turban. This broad category was presented as an image of fear. This stereotype was perpetuated by the media with repeated images on television and in newspapers with men of this description committing violent acts. These were the dominant depictions of Muslim men. Men and women i...
... middle of paper ...
...10 years or so the US needs to pick up some crappy country and throw it against the wall just to show the world we mean business.” The US wanted to show its power with brutal attacks on unspecified locations and spread democracy by implementing a government that reflected our own self-interest. To mask the immoral aspects of our self-interest there was the use political diction and carefully construed media outlets to reflect what the US wanted to project to the public.
The media that reported on the war followed military units who made sure that they only saw what the military and government wanted them to see. All news reports had to be approved by the Pentagon. These reports reflected what the United States wanted to see onto the public. Media was used a sort of propaganda that helped shape and perpetuated an ideas of Orientalism or an “us” vs “them” ideology.
As stronger nations exercise their control over weaker ones, the United States try to prove their authority, power and control over weaker nations seeing them as unable to handle their own issues thereby, imposing their ideology on them. And if any of these weaker nations try to resist, then the wrath of the United States will come upon them. In overthrow the author Stephen Kinzer tells how Americans used different means to overthrow foreign government. He explains that the campaign & ideology of anti- communism made Americans believe that it was their right and historical obligation to lead forces of good against those of iniquity. They also overthrew foreign government, when economic interest coincided with their ideological ones (kinzer.215). These factors were the reasons behind America’s intervention in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile to control and protect multinational companies as well as the campaign against communism with little or no knowledge about these countries.
Jeffrey David Simon, The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience with Terrorism, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001), 188-89.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the speech.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
Every time a terrorist attack happens the media jumps all over it, and puts their own twist on what had happened. “Thus, the media has a strong potential to influence how the public thinks about social problems like terrorism, especially because most people only experience terrorism through mass-media accounts...This research also finds that media portrayals of terrorism increase anxiety among the viewing public.” (Chermak, 2006) The media is one of the leading causes of stereotypes, and what influences our beliefs today. When you think of a terrorist, you may think of either a middle aged muslim male or a middle aged white male with some sort of mental or social disorder. This isn 't always the case. A terrorist can be of any race, age, and social class. Due to the media 's influence, we all believe in the same stereotypes and imagine the same description of what a terrorist may look like. This is one of the main reasons behind racial profiling.
When a giant explosion ripped through Alfred P. Murrah federal building April 19,1995, killing 168 and wounding hundreds, the United States of America jumped to a conclusion we would all learn to regret. The initial response to the devastation was all focused of middle-eastern terrorists. “The West is under attack,”(Posner 89), reported the USA Today. Every news and television station had the latest expert on the middle east telling the nation that we were victims of jihad, holy war. It only took a few quick days to realize that we were wrong and the problem, the terrorist, was strictly domestic. But it was too late. The damage had been done. Because America jumped to conclusions then, America was later blind to see the impending attack of 9/11. The responsibility, however, is not to be placed on the America people. The public couldn’t stand to hear any talk of terrorism, so in turn the White House irresponsibly took a similar attitude. They concentrated on high public opinion and issues that were relevant to Americans everyday. The government didn’t want to deal with another public blunder like the one in Oklahoma City. A former FBI analyst recalls, “when I went to headquarters (Washington, D.C.) later that year no one was interested in hearing anything about Arab money connections unless it had something to do with funding domestic groups. We stumbled so badly on pinpointing the Middle East right off the bat on the Murrah bombing. No one wanted to get caught like that again,”(Posner 90). The result saw changes in the counter terrorism efforts; under funding, under manning, poor cooperation between agencies, half-hearted and incompetent agency official appointees and the list goes on. All of these decisions, made at the hands of the faint-hearted, opened the doors wide open, and practically begged for a terrorist attack. So who’s fault is it? The public’s for being
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
The United States used propaganda to support the allied forces and World War II. When the United States first joined the war in 1941, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, most of the propaganda was aimed toward taking revenge on the Japan. As the war continued their propaganda transferred from getting revenge to righteousness. When the United States realized that this war was going to take more time and money than they expected, th...
Historical Significance: The September 11th, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, orchestrated by Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, were the events that launched the U.S. War on Terrorism. Al-Qaeda’s attack on the United States was carried out by members of radicalized Islamic groups, whose objective was to spread jihad against the secular influence of the West. This tragic event provided the historical b...
We desire for the entire world to be like us, so we take over. Our exceptional acts, rules, and ideologies that have occurred in Guantanamo set the stage for what was to come in Iraq and now future rise of complex disaster. Culture and diplomacy are led by past and current actions due to September 11th, “Hence modern imperialism has need myths to legitimize itself. A policy which responds to the interests of the few but needs to support of the many must necessarily invoke on people’s sense of mission and fear” (Chomsky, 211). If the United States goes abroad we want to make everyone feel like we need to be there. We want everyone to support our mission of freedom. Simply freedom is our motivation even though many are unware of the illegal story going on behind the
Racism comes in many forms ad can be expressed in many different societies in various ways. 1 The dictionary defines racism as the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. This definition of racism makes it clear that it is a perceived point of view that implies prejudice towards people or a person based solely on their race. Racism has been an issue in many societies for many years and still is an issue in modern society. 2 Recently in the U.S. many cases of racism towards African Americans have been shown in the media. However racism is not just a U.S. culture based issue but also a cross-cultural issue
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
The use of media has always been very tactical and representative of a statement or purpose. The issue of race has always been a topic of immaculate exploration through different forms of media. Mediated topics such as race, gender, and class have always been topics represented in the media as a form of oppression. The widely use of media surrounds the globe extensively as the public is bombarded with media daily. There are many different types of media that circulates the public making it widely available to anyone. Media can hold an immense amount of power as it can distort the manner in which people understand the world. In our society the media creates the dominant ideology that is to be followed for centuries in the classifications of race, gender, and class. Media can be a powerful tool to use to display a message which, is how “…the media also resorts to sensationalism whereby it invents new forms of menace” (Welch, Price and Yankey 36). Media makers and contributors take advantage of the high power that it possesses and begin to display messages of ideologies that represent only one dominant race or gender. It became to be known as the “dominant ideology of white supremacy” for many and all (Hazell and Clarke 6).
…My idea in Orientalism is to use humanistic critique to open up the fields of struggle, to introduce a longer sequence of thought and analysis to replace the short bursts of polemical, thought-stopping fury that so imprison us in labels and antagonistic debate whose goal is a belligerent collective identity rather than understanding and intellectual exchange…