Week 13 Readings
Michael J. Lee’s article, “Us, them, and the war on terror: reassessing George W. Bush’s rhetorical legacy,” discussed the reframing and understanding of Bush’s discourse after 9/11. Typically, his presidential rhetoric has been critiqued as “melodramatic” and promoting dichotomy of “us versus them” or “good versus evil,” as seen in a number of his speeches after the attacks. In this article, Lee strives to present an argument that states Bush’s rhetoric did not exclusively focus on dualism; rather, a combination of dualism and universalism. One of Lee’s most compelling arguments that supported his thesis was the idea of universalism as a form of imperialism. Universalism is defined in the article as seeing out a needy group, and organizing their rescue by creating a “lawful democracy.” By this definition, the United States was promoting the idea that the world is One, and we all must support each other, following a universalistic construction. At the same time, this rhetoric classifies Arabs and Muslims as a needy Other and the United States as the savior, promoting the same dichotomy stated earlier. Another interesting point of the article was the concept of dissociation: a strategy that separates two otherwise connected concepts. Using this tactic, Bush manages to separate Arabs and Muslims from terrorism through starting to dissociate Islam from Arabs and acts of terrorism. Bush states, “‘These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith… The fact of terror is not the true faith of Islam… Islam is peace.’” (Lee, pg. 8) In this quote, Bush manages to remove religion from acts of terrorism, thus removing Arabs from acts of terrorism as well. Personally, I have always considered Bush’s rhetoric to follow the “us versus them” framework, so this article was very eye opening to me as it proved that he managed to use a number of different tactics to remove generalizations about the Other.
El-Nawawy and Powers’ article, “Al-Jazeera English: A Conciliatory Medium In a Conflict-Driven Environment?” argues that the news source, AJE, models of journalism offers an inclusive alternative to mainstream news media that continues to encourage stereotypical representations of the Other. The article argues this is done through journalist giving a voice to the voiceless which has allowed viewers to become less dogmatic in their ‘cognitive thought.’ A major argument of this article was the implementation of peace journalism, a form of news that tones down the focus on violent conflict. This would mean the need for empathetic journalists to create platform for all parties and voices that focused on the negative impact of violence from conflict. The hope of this kind of journalism is to not sanitize coverage, but to talk about violence in relation to its social, economic and political effects. Personally, I disagree with this kind of journalism. While agree there is certainly something wrong with news media today and the entertainment factor of conflict has gotten out of control, I think by downplaying the emotional effect of violence we lose a bit of humanity. It would be essentially taking the dramatic and emotional effect on peoples lives out of the story, and only focusing on the nitty gritty of conflict. Personally, I think this is unrealistic because if there are people telling an emotional story, you can’t just remove that emotion all together. Some stories just have entertainment aspects at face-value, and by removing that you are altering the story itself.
The article, “The World as the American Frontier: Racialized Presidential War Rhetoric” by Zoë Hess Carney & Mary E. Stuckey, discusses the similarities between presidential rhetoric from the Indian War and the present War on Terror. The article argues that while the Indian Wars go unmentioned in todays presidential rhetoric, the racial underpinnings from these wars are the foundation of our understanding of war rhetoric and the historical relationship between race and war. Carney outlines this articles through corresponding elements of racialization during the Indian Wars and the War on Terror: collapsing identities, permeating boarders and wielding technology. The first argument, collapsing identities, refers to the generalization of 500 nations, cultures and languages all into one single identity. American Indians were understood to be so different from white that they were rendered indistinguishable from each other, marking them all as one group of Indian. This racialization creates a single identity that ascribes specific characteristics and actions to the group including dangerous, murderous and savages. By the same premise, ‘terrorist’ has become a generalization for Muslim or Arab. Similar to the Indian, presidents imagine the enemy as a single identifiable subject who must be conquered, justifying the creation of hierarchies and authorizing violence. Permeating boarders refers to the lack of boundaries surrounding both wars. During the Indian Wars, there were no boundaries or no areas marked as safe zones. Once one tribe was conquered, colonizers would move onto the next with no regard for civilian lives or the implications of violence. Bush’s rhetoric classified all citizens of Iraq as terrorist simply based on their location and appearance; thus, where ever people are falling into this identity, immediately becomes a war zone. Shifting boundaries in both wars lead to the justification of taking innocent civilian lives because since the enemy is flood and dynamic, the troops must be too in order to protect our nation. The argument wielding technology refers to the classification of the enemies weapons. Presidents often classified Indian weapons as trickery and inhumane, and valorize the U.S.’ weapons as moral and humane. Their access to weapons furthered their characterization as savage aggressors, and framed the Americans as the protectors. In reality, the United States is frequently placed higher in the hierarchy based on our access to weapons and the governments ability to afford better technology. Overall, I found this article to be incredibly interesting and the connection between rhetoric surrounding the wars to be indisputable.
Kumar’s article, “Framing Islam: The Resurgence of Orientalim During the Bush II Era,” outlines the dominant framework that reinforce stereotypes surrounding Islam and Muslims after 9/11. This is done through the discussion of five discursive frames: 1) Islam is a monolithic religion 2) Islam is uniquely sexist religion 3) The Muslim mind is incapable of rationality and science 4) Islam is inherently violent 5) The West spreads democracy whereas Islam spawns terrorism. The article covers the history of colonization, and its use as justification for racism as an ideology. Orientalist used this justification to create a hierarchy, placing the “West” on the top and framing the “Orient” (particularly Muslims) as barbaric and in need of intervention. This article reiterates many arguments made in the other readings for the week including the collapsing of massive groups of people into one identity (monolithic religion), the Other as a barbaric and incapable group (relating to sexism), and the framing of a single group as inherently violent. I found the most interesting part of this article to be the framework of Islam as uniquely sexist, particularly the comparison to the United States.
The two most compelling articles for me were Lee’s article and El-Nawawy and Powers’ article. As Taylor said, Lee’s Article, “Us, them and the war on terror: Reassessing George W. Bush’s rhetorical legacy” analyzed Bush’s rhetoric post 9/11, seeking to reshape the dominant discourse. Lee discusses the dichotomy that quickly became prevalent of the Christian “Us” and Muslim and Arab “them”. This then translated to countries being “with us” or “against us”, when fighting the war on terror. The idea of universalism that Lee discusses is really relevant to our class discussions. Lee states that “universalist arguments are fundamentally associative and unify previously separate concepts.” This applies to Bush’s idea that the world is One, as Taylor says, but it also applies to the popular “Support the Troops” rhetoric that we’ve discussed in class, even the patriotic mentality falls into this definition of universalist argument. I thought this idea was really clarifying to other things we’ve been discussing in class, as well as integral to Lee’s argument.
Then, El-Nawawy and Powers’ article, “Al-Jazeera English: A Conciliatory MEdium In a Conflict-Driven Environment?” continued our discussion last week of whether or not media news outlets like Al-Jazeera are threatening the Western World. They bring up the important fact that news media has changed a lot in the past couple of years, being that social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter are international, as well as some parts of the internet, so people have access to a lot more news media than they used to. That being said, I don’t necessarily think that “peace journalism” is the correct answer, but maybe finding more of a balance in what media outlets are putting out would be nice. I think they should definitely continue to put out the most important stories, even if they are violent, but they should also be digging just as hard to find important hopeful or peaceful stories.
The idea of a universalist argument is really crucial for Lee’s article as it helps illustrate how Bush’s rhetoric perhaps doesn’t only create an “us versus them” discourse. I agree with your thoughts on “peace journalism” and think finding a proper balance between what we have now and this new form of journalism. It is important (I think) for the public to be exposed to emotion and violence in the media, otherwise, journalists would be hiding parts of the truth from the public.
I thought Lee’s reading was a really insightful look into the hidden connotations and implications of President Bush’s rhetoric. As Taylor notes, Bush first discusses the idea of dissociation and how President Bush used typical Cold War Us vs. them, good vs. evil rhetoric to draw the lines for war. However, Lee explains how the rhetoric was more imperialistic, calling on historic Manifest Destiny, White Man’s burden notions that came with American exceptionalism and an inferior view on Arabs and Muslim countries. Lee then argues a different type of dissociation Bush used that started by working to distinguish Arabs and Muslims and Islam from terrorists and transformed into distinguished terrorists from humans. He then used associative rhetoric to bring together Americans and Arabs and Muslims and force democratic ideals onto Middle Eastern societies, trying to further his own foreign and imperialistic agenda.
Carney and Stuckey’s article argue that War on Terror rhetoric mirrors past Indian Wars in terms of the US fighting a racialized threat and securing the safety of White people in their own country. They first argue that Presidential legitimacy and power arises from securing safety to American civilization, from protecting their people against an imminent threat. Then they discuss racialized war’s emphasis on framing the enemy as primitive and having a lack of technology, these ideas mirror the argument in Lee’s article that the US uses historic ‘Manifest Destiny’ and ‘City on a Hill’ rhetoric to present itself as a superior super power and savior of other civilizations.
Kumar’s article ties in nicely with Lee and Carney and Stuckey’s article to reiterate and emphasize the superiority of the West and it’s need to spread democracy and save other less civilized and free countries. Kumar discusses the rhetoric surrounding Muslims and Islam post 9/11 that frame the religion as sexist, unintelligible and violent, especially in contrast to the democratic liberty in the United States. It uses us vs. them comparison language in terms of West vs. East to prove its point.
Nawawy and Powers discuss Al-Jazeera’s power as a conciliatory media outlet that gives a voice to the voiceless and has the potential to bring “cultural and politically diverse audiences together and encourage dialogue, empathy, responsibility, and reconciliation” (2). The article emphasizes how modern warfare now involves a sort of “information war” due to the power the media has on winning international conflicts and garnering support. Al Jazeera challenges the dominant war journalism media approach that reinforces attitudes and opinions of their national audience. It’s mission instead is to give a voice to the voiceless and allows its channel to provide objectives and perspectives that challenge dominant discourse and focus on resolution.
Your comment on Lee’s article about forcing democratic ideals onto Middle Eastern societies is an important point that ties together a lot of ideas we have discussed in class. The notion that other cultures, religions, and countries need to be “saved” is a key component of Westernization. It is used as a justification for violence and imperialism in both the War on Terror and the Indian Wars that we read about as well. Your point that Bush tries to bring together Arabs and Muslims with Americans further justifies the war by framing America as heroes of Arabs and Muslims.
The readings for this week presented a discussion of the rhetoric that is used to discuss Islam and the War on Terror. I especially found the Kumar reading interesting because it addressed five frames that are often used to represent Muslims, Arabs, and the “Muslim World” post 9/11. I thought it was really helpful that Kumar pulled each frame apart to show how the frames are not accurate depictions of the “Muslim World.” The article started off by stating that a “preferred cultural framing of an issue acquires dominance through a process of repetition within a context where competing frames are silenced” (256). This sentence really resonated with me, and it made me think about all the ways we generalize Muslims and Arabs.
The Nawawy reading expanded on our discussions from last class about presenting an alternative to the dominant discourse. Al-Jazeera English does this by offering an inclusive alternative to mainstream media, as Taylor said. The article talked about how in times of war, mainstream media often tailor their coverage in ways that construct an ideologically aligned narrative that reinforced the attitudes and opinions of their target national or regional audiences. One thing that this reading prompted me to think about is the difficulty in these alternative voices being heard. These alternative sources exist, but people need to actively look for them if they want to hear these voices.
All of the readings reinforced that it is often hard to find alternate opinions and voices on topic like the war on terror and Muslims and Arabs. For this reason, people need to seek out other media, and be active participants in the rhetoric, and question the information that is presented.
After reading your post, I realize the importance of insuring that other voices are heard. In present day media, it is very clear whose voice we are hearing from certain news outlets. However, news sources greatly lack the voice from minority groups and others effected by prominent news stories. Your point that news is constructed to reinforce attitudes of their ideal audience reins very true because when it comes down to it, news stations are money making entities. That being said, perhaps a facet to a new form of journalism should be including unbiased voices from minority groups that are also effected by news stories.
The Carney and Stuckey article provided a unique argument about the relationship between presidential discourse and logic used to defend the Indian War and the War on Terror. This concept stood out to me because upon first thought I did not see the correlation, however, their article provided persuasive points about where overlap and repetition occurs between how these two wars were framed. By the end I was convinced that the past language and rationale used to explain the Indian Wars recurs in modern society in regards to the War on Terror. They describe how the frontier myth and underlying national identity implicit to this myth justified the Indian Wars in a similar way to how the War on Terror is framed to the American public. The figures of “Indians” and “terrorists” also function in much of the same way, as the terms generalize large, unassociated groups into single entities while simultaneously dehumanizing them and associating them with certain predictable actions.
This article fit nicely with the article by Kumar which discusses how Orientalist modes of thought dominate our discourse resulting in a perpetuation of racism that has become so ingrained in our society that we do not even realize it exists to such a pervasive degree. Kumar offers the idea of “commonsense” beliefs which constitutie ideologies and come to characterize how we think about a topic. She points out the danger of these types of beliefs when they disappear from our view because when we cease to acknowledge their existence we are unable to be critical of them or question them. I think one of the most powerful lines from this article is when Kumar says, on this same topic, that “the very taken-for-granted assumptions that help one to “understand” the world as those are require critical scrutiny” (256). She references racism as one of the most profoundly naturalized existing ideologies and goes on throughout the article to explain how we have not been properly critical of our racist ideologies and have allowed them to shape the way understand history as well as view the present. I think this concept in a way summarizes what we are trying to do in this course, uncover and be critical of the way in which certain unspoken beliefs have affected our discourse overtime and continue to today.
I agree with you that the Carney and Stuckey article particularly stood out, as I had never really considered the parallels between the wars either. After reading the article, it is very clear that the rhetorical strategies from both wars mirror each other in many respects and have the potential to create the same outcomes. Your point that, “The figures of “Indians” and “terrorists” also function in much of the same way, as the terms generalize large, unassociated groups into single entities while simultaneously dehumanizing them and associating them with certain predictable actions,” defines the essence of the article very well. The two generalized terms work in the same way to create two massive groups that allow for dehumanizing stereotypes to be easily conveyed.
In the article titled “Us, them, and the war on terror: reassessing George W. Bush’s rhetorical legacy” by Michael J. Lee, he discusses how George W. Bush’s rhetoric throughout his presidency worked to construct dualist notions about 9/11, the Middle East, and Muslims that pit the US and its allies against the Others. There has been an acceptance of the “‘clash of civilization’ view of the war on terror (p. 5). Lee argues that in addition to a civilization clash theory, Bush drew from a universalist theory that posited that “liberal capitalism had won” (p. 5). I enjoyed reading about this alternative theory of universalist notions because I think so often the discourse focuses on the binaries of the crash of civilizations that Bush’s rhetoric constructed.
The Deepa Kumar article, “Framing Islam: The Resurgence of Orientalism During the Bush II Era” was really great because I think it successfully portrayed and then dismantled the dominant “taken-for-granted frames” that form the undercurrent of western discussion surrounding the Middle East in a post 9/11 world. I particularly liked how when it couldn’t entirely dismantle the argument, it countered the argument by saying that if we are portraying Islam in a certain way because a specific reason, there are also plenty of reasons to accuse the West of participating in those same traditions. Kumar mentions the “civilizational’ view of history” and I thought that was really interesting because I had never challenged my own concept of what a civilization is. Kumar challenged the idea that a civilization is isolated and distinct and once they brought this point up, I realized that I had kind of held the prior belief but that it didn’t really make any sense when put under any sense of scrutiny.
I thought that Carney and Stuckey’s argument that Indian rhetoric and Terrorist rhetoric are grounded in the same narratives and represented an evolution in presidential rhetoric was super interesting. I had never really made the connection on my own, but once it was made explicit to me I realized that it made a lot of sense.
I agree with you that Lee’s article was very eye-opening, as we traditionally read about how Bush’s rhetoric only works to create an “us versus them” rhetoric. After reading this article, it was also clearer to me how he was able to use a universalistic argument to further his agenda, while still appealing to a greater audience. That being said, I think it is interesting that majority of this class went into reading the article assuming it would only discuss his dualistic attitudes. This goes to show that rhetoric that does create another group, or rhetoric that can be viewed negatively, sticks with the audience more so than a universalistic argument.
This weeks readings demonstrated just how powerful language really is and how it has the ability to completely change society’s trajectory. The news media and politicians are generally the most influential bodies involved in circulating specific discourse, which the articles ground their arguments with. Kumar discusses the “primary definers,” which is actually a term I discovered through my own research for my final paper. Primary definers are the people and or platforms that create an immediate frame for which all further discourse of a topic must fit in to. I think this point is extremely important because as Kumar discusses, these frames dictate public perception and opinion. Reading these types of articles makes me realize how the repercussions of these frames are also significant because even today we still struggle with the connection between Islam and terrorism.
A frame that has dominated the discussion of terrorism is the “us” versus “them” and “good” versus “evil” argument that Lee uses as the foundation for his argument about Bush’s post-9/11 rhetoric. I found Lee’s discussions using the dualist and universalist approach to be compelling because, as he says, they are not separate, rather inherently intertwined with one another. Although his article was dense and discussed a variety of arguments, theories, and analyses, I felt his article to be overall important because it outlines how war itself is justified, constructed, and reported. Considering the current state we are in with the war on terror, and the relatively stagnant discourse surrounding it, I would argue that these dominant discourses and rhetorical frames are almost impossible to break once they are solidified.
The “us” versus “them” rhetoric that we recognize Bush’s rhetoric created after 9/11 is still a prevalent framework that the United States still perpetuates. We have discussed in class the many examples of our struggles with connecting Islam and terrorism prevalent in airport security and other police investigations. All of the articles we read for the week came together nicely to outline your point that the media and public are responsible for justifying, constructing and reporting the War on Terror. We are certainly currently stuck in the same dominant discourses (often perpetuated by the media), and are having an incredibly difficult time breaking them.
In Michael Lee’s article, “Us, them, and the war on terror: reassessing George W. Bush’s rhetorical legacy,” focused on the post 9/11 discourse in relation to Arabs and Muslims. In addition, the article discussed President Bush’s rhetoric and the way in which he would categorize Arabs and Muslims. As Taylor had pointed out in her blog post, the United States is constructed as a dominant power, leading others like the Arabs and Muslims countries as needy. Through Lee’s examination of Arabs and Muslims post 9/11, we can see the change in which we view and affiliate these groups of individuals.
In El-Nawawy and Powers’ article, “Al-Jazeera English: A Conciliatory Medium In a Conflict-Driven Environment?”, focused on the stereotypes that news journalism encourage towards certain cultures. I found this article to be connected to Lee’s article because of the dominance media when influencing viewers on how they should act towards certain stories. El-Nawawy and Powers argue throughout this article they ways in which media and journalists down play conflict, especially the violence that comes with it. I agree with Taylor’s point that while these media sources try to downplay these events into hoping there isn’t much of an emotional response from viewers, there’s no justification of whether viewers will respond this way based on the story itself.
A frequent justification for violence and war is framing the victim of imperialism as needy, and desperate for our help. We are able to do this as the United States is a dominant power in our technological advances, and strong military. Your point that Lee’s article connects to El-Nawawy and Powers’ article is interesting. As I stated before, I find it interesting that most of the class went into Lee’s article assuming it would specifically be about his dualistic rhetoric that created an “us versus them” rhetoric. I believe this is the kind of discourse we heard most about from the media after 9/11. This kind of framework was furthered even more by the media, influencing how our class generalized Bush’s rhetoric to solely a dualistic discourse.
Personally, I thought “Us, them, and the war on terror” was an article that really brought together a lot of separate elements that we’ve touched on over the course of the class. One of the biggest takeaways for me was Bush’s idea that democracy was a legitimate possibility for the Middle East. I want to agree with Bush, that “When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations,” because I agree that no religion or culture should necessitate any form of oppression. But upon reading Lee’s writing I was reminded of the simple fact that we cannot reserve the right to speak for all cultures, because in doing so we are once again assuming the values, rights, and needs are the same as our own. The assumption that a democratic government would work in alignment with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, is ignoring the fact that these are countries that have been founded in their religious-based ideologies for thousands of years and it easily could cause even more political unrest, as Lee points out (11). Whereas in the U.S., our much newer, complicated melting pot that has created cause for universal rights because we cannot create a hierarchy among social groups. This is not to say that people should reserve the right to oppress others based on traditional religious values, but it shows how we are walking a thin moral line in our assumptions and ignoring other ways around the problem. But more importantly, it shows how we are allowing Islam only within the confines of democracy, and not just any democracy, but one under the control or supervision of the United States. For me, this and the other articles illuminated the idea that the U.S. is keen on ignoring its own mistakes because of the consistent belief that we are still morally and intellectually ahead of everyone else. I think this idea is a probable contributor to the not-so-underlying Orientalism laid out by Kumar and Carney and Stuckey because it allows the U.S. to reaffirm this moral high-ground it stands on when imposing unsolicited “help” on the Other.
It is certainly a difficult topic to navigate when discussing democracy in the Middle East. While it is true that no one should live in a society that enforces such harsh oppression, whose choice is it to decide how another country runs their government. We do not reserve the right to speak for other cultures, and the United States has a distinct history of forcing our culture and democratic ideals on specific regions. I agree with your point that we are stuck believing that we are morally and intellectually ahead of everyone else, as the U.S. seemingly continuously is getting itself into situations of “helping” others who are not like us.