Dreamworlds is an instructional well made documentary which demonstrates the sad true reality of the contemporary music video industry. The message transmitted in the music videos is generally the same: the objectification of woman’s sexuality and the veneration of male dominance and control. Women are reduced to a single identity, a submissive passive sexual being. The movie does not portray a puritanical criticism of exposed sexuality but try to get the audience to meditate on how we as a society, accept the denigration of woman’s dignity by using their bodies to sell anything, including CDs.
The documentary is broken down into three parts that are intimately connected. All parts show the patriarchal cultural views which reduce women to their sexuality. Part one begins by stating that since the beginning of industry in the 80s, music videos present provocative images of woman’s body to attract attention. This is consistent in all genres of music. Hip Hop and Rap show prevalent images of violent male sexual behaviors towards women. In Techniques of Storytelling, women’s bodies appear repeatedly with bands, or as part of the audience, or fulfilling the sexual fantasies of men. In Constructing Femininity, our culture according to the music videos, define woman as a sexual being. Being addicted to sex and submissive to men is what is normal for women. Women will do anything to have sex with whoever is available. They will have sex in public spaces or have group sex. Part two starts with Pornographic Imaginary. Like in pornography movies, footages involving erotic encounters between women and use of violence against them are also present in music videos. Disturbing scenes like men throwing food at women’ bodies are disturbing. In Ways of Looking, the narrator explains that the message of what means to be a woman is how well their body can attract and be wanted by men. Part three talks about female artist being trapped in pornographic world. They realize that you cannot sell CDs unless they appeal to the sexualization and exposure of their bodies. They find themselves being pressure to fall into the same cliché. In Masculinity and Control, in order to have a submissive persona the industry needs dominant figure whose masculinity is define by power and control. Sexual violence is showed with acceptance, normalcy and is celebrated because the women in the videos seem to like it.. What values are these videos teaching the young audience who watch them? Crooks and Baur state that “exposure to sexual to violent pornography may have negative effects on men’s attitude and behaviors towards women”1.
One can argue that the narrator does not convey that woman’s sexuality is harmful and evil. It differs from the religious teaching on non-reproductive sexuality as sinful. The movie presents the belief that all people’ sexuality should be celebrated, enjoyed and satisfied. However, it proclaims that it is unethical to present woman’s sexuality as the only meaning of her existence. The music video industry fails to show the other sides of women (intellectual, professional, social activist, artist) resembling the patriarchal mentally which are transmitted by the main religious authorities that reduce women’s role in society to the fulfillment of her obligations at home as mother and wives. Often, this industry combines pornography images with the stories of the songs just because this is what sells, turning the images very predictable and often the same. It demonstrates social construct of masculinity and femininity reflecting an individualistic approach to sexuality. Gender inequality is public being communicated by defining masculinity as the dominant and powerful sex, just like most religions assert.
Dreamworlds invites us to reflect, rethink, and evaluate our approach towards sexuality and gender equality as a person and as a society. If the media is so influent in our popular culture, it is discouraging to belief that we will have a more equal society. After Dreamworlds I will never watch a music video the same way I used to.
Notes
1- Crooks, Robert, & Baur, Karla, Our Sexuality, Eleventh Edition, (2008), Page 520
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Sexual Ethics and Environmental Ethics
“Going green” has been a major trend in the recent years. We hear about it every day in the media news coverage, religious leaders’ discourses and political campaigns. In the United States, we witness an increasing public consensus in the importance of preservation. There is a general awareness of how we as a society have disregarded Mother Nature in the last centuries due to the exploitation of her resources. When examining environmental ethics concerns, I find it hard to separate them from any other area of ethics. Whether I think about bioethics, political ethics or corporate ethics, there will always be an issue that will directly affect the natural environment. Our attitude and views on contraception and family planning, sex education, sterilization, gender equality will significantly impact our planet. It is in promoting a sustainable global culture that we can begin to change the damage we’ve made and provide the future generation with a healthy and safe place to live.
Overpopulation is in my view, the number one concern shared by sexual ethics and environmental ethics. Our blue planet is not able to sustain and feed a large number of people. The results of overpopulation are catastrophic to the natural environment. The list is long and includes: air and water pollution, resources depletion and degradation, climate change, toxic and nuclear waste, soil erosion, etc. One way to manage high increases in population is promoting a better understanding of family planning and contraception. In the developed world, we have witness a decrease in family size among the majority. Positive results are due to women’s education, their engagement in the work force and the easy availability and distribution of contraceptives methods, even when the Roman Catholic Church still proclaims the denunciation of their usage. However, in the developing world, much has to be done. Women lack basic education and accessibility and information about condoms, birth controls pills and IUD. Developed world programs intended to prevent population explosion and poverty are resented due to the belief that these programs camouflage imperialism and neo-colonialism (1). In other developing countries, where the government imposes programs to control and reduce population via methods of taxation and forced sterilization, the results are ineffective and controversial. In China, many women die from illegal abortions and many infants are killed due to the one-child policy. In India, when Indira Gandhi implemented a program that required sterilization of men after having a second child, many men accused the government of sterilizing people who had no children or were less educated and members of the opposition. That program backfired because it provoked Indian families to object the use of other methods of contraception and family planning (2). According to the United Nations Population Funds, every minute, 380 women become pregnant: half of them did not plan or wish the pregnancy;110 women experience a pregnancy-related complication;100 women have an abortion, of which 40 are unsafe;11 people are newly infected with HIV/AIDS;1 woman dies from a pregnancy-related cause(3).
It is imperative that we demand world leaders to create a comprehensive program to decrease or contain population growth that contain platform of gender equality and education. This program should focus on offering the public with information about their options of contraception reinforcing people’s rights to make their own decisions according with values and traditions of their culture.
References:
1 Christine Gurdof, Body Sex and Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics, (1994) The Pilgrim Press: Page 33
2 UCLA Division of Social Science http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Independent/Indira.html
3 United Nations Population Funds, Annual Report, 2000, Reproductive Health: Meeting people’s needs, http://www.unfpa.org/about/report/2000/2ch1pg.htm
Overpopulation is in my view, the number one concern shared by sexual ethics and environmental ethics. Our blue planet is not able to sustain and feed a large number of people. The results of overpopulation are catastrophic to the natural environment. The list is long and includes: air and water pollution, resources depletion and degradation, climate change, toxic and nuclear waste, soil erosion, etc. One way to manage high increases in population is promoting a better understanding of family planning and contraception. In the developed world, we have witness a decrease in family size among the majority. Positive results are due to women’s education, their engagement in the work force and the easy availability and distribution of contraceptives methods, even when the Roman Catholic Church still proclaims the denunciation of their usage. However, in the developing world, much has to be done. Women lack basic education and accessibility and information about condoms, birth controls pills and IUD. Developed world programs intended to prevent population explosion and poverty are resented due to the belief that these programs camouflage imperialism and neo-colonialism (1). In other developing countries, where the government imposes programs to control and reduce population via methods of taxation and forced sterilization, the results are ineffective and controversial. In China, many women die from illegal abortions and many infants are killed due to the one-child policy. In India, when Indira Gandhi implemented a program that required sterilization of men after having a second child, many men accused the government of sterilizing people who had no children or were less educated and members of the opposition. That program backfired because it provoked Indian families to object the use of other methods of contraception and family planning (2). According to the United Nations Population Funds, every minute, 380 women become pregnant: half of them did not plan or wish the pregnancy;110 women experience a pregnancy-related complication;100 women have an abortion, of which 40 are unsafe;11 people are newly infected with HIV/AIDS;1 woman dies from a pregnancy-related cause(3).
It is imperative that we demand world leaders to create a comprehensive program to decrease or contain population growth that contain platform of gender equality and education. This program should focus on offering the public with information about their options of contraception reinforcing people’s rights to make their own decisions according with values and traditions of their culture.
References:
1 Christine Gurdof, Body Sex and Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics, (1994) The Pilgrim Press: Page 33
2 UCLA Division of Social Science http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Independent/Indira.html
3 United Nations Population Funds, Annual Report, 2000, Reproductive Health: Meeting people’s needs, http://www.unfpa.org/about/report/2000/2ch1pg.htm
Legitimacy of International Law
I understand International Law as a set of rules that govern relationships and conflicts between states ensuring order and justice. They represent the views of different cultures on how the world should be ordered. These set of rules regulate and somewhat predict the behaviors of states and individuals. In order to be legitimate, they have to be formulated respecting the principle of good faith. Laws that are viewed as representative, inclusive, fair and effective will claim legitimacy and will have a better chance to generate the consensus among states and successful compliance. Legitimacy in International law provides accountability, responsibility and consequences for non-compliances. Because the world evolve and develop in a fast pace, international law has to be able to adapt to changes in a timely manner, otherwise if it gets caught up in bureaucracy, the question of illegitimacy may arise. Liking general consent to legitimacy is erroneous in my view. There is a general agreement that constitutional national law is legitimate regardless the fact that not all citizens abide to national law.
Another point that I would like to make is that the position of government on the legitimacy of international law and on the authority of international organizations influence how its citizens perceive the value of such institutions. The Bush Administration disregard for the opposition of members of the UN Security Council in its proposed use of force and invasion of Iraq and the breach of the Geneva Convention using torture in prisoners of war at Guantanamo, influenced not only how Americans perceived of the effectiveness of diplomacy but also fermented a worldwide question of the efficacy and competence of the UN in moderating conflicts. The Obama Administration has since tried to change American image abroad in how we conduct our foreign affairs. Pres. Obama, in his 2009 speech in Cairo, said “Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible”.
In my view regardless of the inconsistencies of its applications, International law is the path to achieve peaceful relationships and dignity for all human beings.
Another point that I would like to make is that the position of government on the legitimacy of international law and on the authority of international organizations influence how its citizens perceive the value of such institutions. The Bush Administration disregard for the opposition of members of the UN Security Council in its proposed use of force and invasion of Iraq and the breach of the Geneva Convention using torture in prisoners of war at Guantanamo, influenced not only how Americans perceived of the effectiveness of diplomacy but also fermented a worldwide question of the efficacy and competence of the UN in moderating conflicts. The Obama Administration has since tried to change American image abroad in how we conduct our foreign affairs. Pres. Obama, in his 2009 speech in Cairo, said “Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible”.
In my view regardless of the inconsistencies of its applications, International law is the path to achieve peaceful relationships and dignity for all human beings.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Sex Education
Sexuality is an important component of life and is a natural part of human growth. Understanding our sexuality contributes to one’s discernment in taking the rights choices regarding sex. However, our society still is tormented by the fear imposed by Christianity that sex is the corrupting source of one’s soul. Thus, sexuality is not a topic that parents and educators feel comfortable discussing with children. The youth is either getting wrong sex information from venues such as friends and the internet or getting no information at all. It is primordial that we demand changes and seriously address this issue of misinformation and provide our future generation with all the knowledge necessary for them to make responsible decisions about their bodies.
It is discouraging to see the recent statistics regarding sexual health of the American Youth. Teenagers are at great risk of contracting sexual transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies due to ignorance of their own sexuality. Most teenagers look for information about sexuality from their close friends. Pressure from friends contributes to engagement in unprotected sexual activities putting their health at risk. Parents are not proactive in starting conversations about sexual health with their children due to taboos, ignorance and the false belief that they have no influence on their children’s behavior. Children feel embarrassed to ask for information from parents and educators in fear of rejection. This cycle of shame only exacerbate bad sexual decisions. The media has also part of the blame in contributing to provoke children in engaging in early sexual activity due massive use of sex images to sell their products. With their higher part of the brain not fully developed, teenagers do not understand the risk they are putting themselves into when they have unprotected sex because of the idea that “it won’t happen to them”.
Informing our children about safe sex practices will contribute to their general health. Understanding sexuality as a whole should be part of the United Nations human’s right. Kids with the proper information can make responsible decision whether they choose to abstain or engage in sexual activity. Safe sex education should be part of every school curriculum so kids can comprehend the importance of protected sex and the contraceptive options available to them. Our society cannot blindly assume that all of our teenagers will not engage in sexual activities even when they were told that abstinence is the best option in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies. Abstinence only sex educational programs supported by conservative views in our government do not effectively reduce early sexual initiation, STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Only with a comprehensive sexual education program we will be able to see changes risky behaviors and better the quality of life of teens and prevent long term health consequences.
It is discouraging to see the recent statistics regarding sexual health of the American Youth. Teenagers are at great risk of contracting sexual transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies due to ignorance of their own sexuality. Most teenagers look for information about sexuality from their close friends. Pressure from friends contributes to engagement in unprotected sexual activities putting their health at risk. Parents are not proactive in starting conversations about sexual health with their children due to taboos, ignorance and the false belief that they have no influence on their children’s behavior. Children feel embarrassed to ask for information from parents and educators in fear of rejection. This cycle of shame only exacerbate bad sexual decisions. The media has also part of the blame in contributing to provoke children in engaging in early sexual activity due massive use of sex images to sell their products. With their higher part of the brain not fully developed, teenagers do not understand the risk they are putting themselves into when they have unprotected sex because of the idea that “it won’t happen to them”.
Informing our children about safe sex practices will contribute to their general health. Understanding sexuality as a whole should be part of the United Nations human’s right. Kids with the proper information can make responsible decision whether they choose to abstain or engage in sexual activity. Safe sex education should be part of every school curriculum so kids can comprehend the importance of protected sex and the contraceptive options available to them. Our society cannot blindly assume that all of our teenagers will not engage in sexual activities even when they were told that abstinence is the best option in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies. Abstinence only sex educational programs supported by conservative views in our government do not effectively reduce early sexual initiation, STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Only with a comprehensive sexual education program we will be able to see changes risky behaviors and better the quality of life of teens and prevent long term health consequences.
Sexuality: Constructivists vs. Essentialists
Defining homosexuality, bisexuality and trans persons is a source of polarized battles between social constructivists and essentialists (biological and religious). People in same sex relationships are trying to gain social acceptance to enhance their quality of life. The gays right movement, longing for empathy and understanding, have gain great support by our society in the past decades. Better understanding of our inherent free will should help those who are against homosexuality to appreciate the fact that love sees no boundaries as age, race, religion and gender.
Constructivists understand sexuality as a social constructed reality. It takes into consideration the history and culture of a certain society. Sexual orientation and gender identity is an occurrence external to the person. There are several factors that influence sexuality as biology, culture, religion, politics, family values and individual choices. Sexual identity, orientation and behaviors are influenced by limits set by the society and therefore impact ones choices. Within a society there is a pattern of behavior demonstrating the power that the society plays over its people in conforming with the social norms. Thus, different cultures have different norms on sexuality. Gender roles, regulations of the institution of marriage, employment opportunities are relevant factors in the formation of homosexual behaviors. Homosexuality is defined not universally or innate but in a cultural context and in a given time. Constructivists believe that the person makes a conscious choice about their sexual preference and partners after hearing discourses made by different institutions within the society.
Religious essentialism has its focus on creation and naturalism. Human sexuality is given to us and it is universal and unchangeable over historical time. When one is born, one is either homosexual or heterosexual and there are no variations in one’s lifetime. Therefore, sexual orientation and gender dwell within the individual and it is not a conscious choice. All deviations are morally wrong because they go against God will. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence though abnormal. Homosexual relations are sinful because they are imperfect manifestations of the essences.
Non religious essentialists are very secular. They are also called biological essentialists. The norms are based on human biology. They use social biological explanation to justify several occurrences in sexuality such as male innate tendency to promiscuity due to natural instinct in the preservation of the specie. Sexual desire is biologic driven. Genetics influence sexual orientation in both men and women.
In my view, the constructivists have the broadest understanding of free will. They acknowledge the individual ability in making their choices regarding sexuality. Even if they are confronted with social norms, they still are free to make the choice. This is very contradictory if we are talking about free will which is given to us by our Creator. That implies a religious connotation to it and it would make sense to assign the religious essentialists as the group who better understands free will. To me, it is even more disturbing to think that the religious essentialists who are the ones who claim that homosexuality has a natural causality fervently oppose it.
Constructivists understand sexuality as a social constructed reality. It takes into consideration the history and culture of a certain society. Sexual orientation and gender identity is an occurrence external to the person. There are several factors that influence sexuality as biology, culture, religion, politics, family values and individual choices. Sexual identity, orientation and behaviors are influenced by limits set by the society and therefore impact ones choices. Within a society there is a pattern of behavior demonstrating the power that the society plays over its people in conforming with the social norms. Thus, different cultures have different norms on sexuality. Gender roles, regulations of the institution of marriage, employment opportunities are relevant factors in the formation of homosexual behaviors. Homosexuality is defined not universally or innate but in a cultural context and in a given time. Constructivists believe that the person makes a conscious choice about their sexual preference and partners after hearing discourses made by different institutions within the society.
Religious essentialism has its focus on creation and naturalism. Human sexuality is given to us and it is universal and unchangeable over historical time. When one is born, one is either homosexual or heterosexual and there are no variations in one’s lifetime. Therefore, sexual orientation and gender dwell within the individual and it is not a conscious choice. All deviations are morally wrong because they go against God will. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence though abnormal. Homosexual relations are sinful because they are imperfect manifestations of the essences.
Non religious essentialists are very secular. They are also called biological essentialists. The norms are based on human biology. They use social biological explanation to justify several occurrences in sexuality such as male innate tendency to promiscuity due to natural instinct in the preservation of the specie. Sexual desire is biologic driven. Genetics influence sexual orientation in both men and women.
In my view, the constructivists have the broadest understanding of free will. They acknowledge the individual ability in making their choices regarding sexuality. Even if they are confronted with social norms, they still are free to make the choice. This is very contradictory if we are talking about free will which is given to us by our Creator. That implies a religious connotation to it and it would make sense to assign the religious essentialists as the group who better understands free will. To me, it is even more disturbing to think that the religious essentialists who are the ones who claim that homosexuality has a natural causality fervently oppose it.
Sacred Sex vs. Secular Sex
Sexuality is an important component of life and is a natural part of human growth. Public interest in sexuality seems to be at high level. Media is bombarded with programs containing sexual material. The news coverage reflect our society attention to sexual debates such as celebrities’ relationships and affairs, same sex marriage, artificial reproduction, abortion, priest sex abuse scandals, etc. Views vary on how we, as a society, should define human sexuality either as sacred or secular. However, advocating for either extreme can cause problems and can promote discrimination. A careful ethical examination on how we should categorize human sexuality has to focus on finding a middle ground between sacred sex and secular sex to promote and reflect all people’s position.
Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions with patriarchal influences regard heterosexual sex within marriage as sacred. Sex is viewed as a manifestation of God’s gift to human beings first and foremost for procreation. In the last decades, churches have tried to change some of their old traditions where sexuality was understood a carnal sinful act of our body denigrating the purity of human soul. Sacred sex advocators emphasize the importance of identifying sacred nature of sex. The principle purpose of sexual relations should be the respect of each person involved in the activity. Both partners have to fully consent to engage in the sexual act. Sacred sex is also called consecrated sex which aims to bring both partners closer together in a “spiritual” bond. It is meant to enhance the relationship because it will provide a strong sense care for each other. In enhancing personal intimacy, couples will praise each other bodies as temple of their Creator. This sense of closeness will transcend their relationships and will transfer this positive connection to children, family and ultimately to the society as a whole. However, classifying sexual intimacy as sacred can imply a religious meaning to sex and can alienate views of non-religious individuals. This is particular important to individuals whose relationships are not recognized by traditional religious. Such groups are homosexual, bisexuals, non-married couples, etc. It is important to distinguish sacred sex from the puritanical moralist Judeo-Christian traditional values which preoccupied to in dishonor our innate sexual desires.
Non-sacred or secular sex is usually advocated by people who are against traditional religions’ views on sexuality and gender roles. They feel that religions should not be mandating what society accepts as morally right or wrong. Religions punitive sex agenda is viewed as hypocritical because it goes against of what they proclaim as fundamental values such as equality and love. Sacred sex is associated with judgment and blame. Apart from the connotation of religious tone to sacred sex, some sort of “sanctifying” term should be used to associate sexual relation and intimacy with trust and respect. When you trivialize sex as pure carnal activity, we give intimacy an individualist approach. Individual sexual pleasure stays above mutual trust and respect. There is no regarding for mutual enjoyment. It can be used to oppress and abuse the weaker person in the relationship. It has no moral parameter to protect the victims against sexual abuse. The media has take advantage of this secularization of sex. Millions have been made in ads promoting superficial views of relationships and casual sex. Women with “perfect” skinny body and wealthy good looking mid-age men sell everything. However, this non- sacred sex trend only contribute to people feeling ashamed of own body. We are undervaluing intimacy and giving priority they way we look.
To conclude, our society will only come to enjoy the fullness of our sexuality (whether one believe or not that it was given to us by a Creator) when we are able to create a environment where sex is understood as an opportunity to embrace each other with respect and appreciation and the desire to be mutually connected in physically, emotionally and spiritually way. Prejudice and discrimination in sexually does reflect social justice.
Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions with patriarchal influences regard heterosexual sex within marriage as sacred. Sex is viewed as a manifestation of God’s gift to human beings first and foremost for procreation. In the last decades, churches have tried to change some of their old traditions where sexuality was understood a carnal sinful act of our body denigrating the purity of human soul. Sacred sex advocators emphasize the importance of identifying sacred nature of sex. The principle purpose of sexual relations should be the respect of each person involved in the activity. Both partners have to fully consent to engage in the sexual act. Sacred sex is also called consecrated sex which aims to bring both partners closer together in a “spiritual” bond. It is meant to enhance the relationship because it will provide a strong sense care for each other. In enhancing personal intimacy, couples will praise each other bodies as temple of their Creator. This sense of closeness will transcend their relationships and will transfer this positive connection to children, family and ultimately to the society as a whole. However, classifying sexual intimacy as sacred can imply a religious meaning to sex and can alienate views of non-religious individuals. This is particular important to individuals whose relationships are not recognized by traditional religious. Such groups are homosexual, bisexuals, non-married couples, etc. It is important to distinguish sacred sex from the puritanical moralist Judeo-Christian traditional values which preoccupied to in dishonor our innate sexual desires.
Non-sacred or secular sex is usually advocated by people who are against traditional religions’ views on sexuality and gender roles. They feel that religions should not be mandating what society accepts as morally right or wrong. Religions punitive sex agenda is viewed as hypocritical because it goes against of what they proclaim as fundamental values such as equality and love. Sacred sex is associated with judgment and blame. Apart from the connotation of religious tone to sacred sex, some sort of “sanctifying” term should be used to associate sexual relation and intimacy with trust and respect. When you trivialize sex as pure carnal activity, we give intimacy an individualist approach. Individual sexual pleasure stays above mutual trust and respect. There is no regarding for mutual enjoyment. It can be used to oppress and abuse the weaker person in the relationship. It has no moral parameter to protect the victims against sexual abuse. The media has take advantage of this secularization of sex. Millions have been made in ads promoting superficial views of relationships and casual sex. Women with “perfect” skinny body and wealthy good looking mid-age men sell everything. However, this non- sacred sex trend only contribute to people feeling ashamed of own body. We are undervaluing intimacy and giving priority they way we look.
To conclude, our society will only come to enjoy the fullness of our sexuality (whether one believe or not that it was given to us by a Creator) when we are able to create a environment where sex is understood as an opportunity to embrace each other with respect and appreciation and the desire to be mutually connected in physically, emotionally and spiritually way. Prejudice and discrimination in sexually does reflect social justice.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
“Jihadism ”, 9/11 and the US Encounter/ Relations with Muslim World
The tensions’ relationship between the United States and the Muslim World is not a new subject. However the attacks in World Trade Center and at the Pentagon have aggravated the situation because it brought to our backyard the on-going clashes in the far Middle East. Our leaders backed by the media, deceivably portrayed that the American hope for a safer and prosper world was in danger due to fanaticism among Muslims who hated us because of the freedom we preached. The only way to combat this horrible Islamic threat was by initiating a global war against them. The United State government response to the attacks of September eleven has increased the fear, suspicion and antagonism among Muslims. Military action in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq has contributed to validate extremist groups’ platform in calling for a global jihad against American imperialism in the Muslim world. Unless an unprecedented commitment emerges to reduce ignorance, misperceptions and stereotypes from both sides together, Americans and Muslims will continue to disrupt the so important steps towards reconciliation and the violence preached by a minimal fraction of extremist groups will gain more popularity and will not cease.
The 9/11 events killed thousands of innocent civilians in America by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Bin Landen was seen as the evil by us and also he was seen as a hero by some. The ones who saw him as a courageous hero justified his attack stating that he was able to shake the superpower imperialist United States and send a message of hate. The event was an awake up call to all Americans. In one day, we saw ourselves in the reality of what millions of Muslims have experienced in their daily lives. Even though this terrorism attack acted against the peaceful message of the Qoran itself, Islam was somehow described as our enemy and the American people bought the concept. Hence Muslims, by watching the US media propagating the “bad” image of Islam, understood the threat against their religion and the conflict escalated and hurt even more the weak image of Americans by the Muslim world. Years of interventions in internal affairs, the support of the US to authoritarian governments, the disregard for the Palestinian cause, the invasion of Iraq based on forged propositions only exacerbated the Anti American sentiments throughout the Muslim World and the Jihadism movement gained ground to flourish. Al Qaeda was portrayed by the Bush Administration as a transnational well structured organization with hieratical leadership directly led by Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was exposed with no moral values and their main desires were the total destruction of the American society and the imposition of Islam in the world. He also wanted to replaced western inspired secular oppressing regimes in the Muslim world by an Islamic governments ruled by the sharia. The US commission conducted the investigation of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal investigation and focus on the understanding of the plot itself and people behind the attacks instead of focus on understanding the social movement behind it. The report was based on the interrogation of few Al Qaeda members captured by the coalition forces. The report itself did not provide significant information about the organization decision making process or about the main leaders (Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri who was an important figure in the ideological and religious vision of Al Qaeda). The report is very controversial because in using intense methods of interrogation (torture basically), the information extracted from the prisoners is believed by many to be not credible, inconsistent or unreliable. The report was supposed to help us to understand the dynamics of the Jihad movement that provoked the attacks in American and help US policy makers to act according, but it failed provide the information. It is only in understanding the causes that let the globalization of the Jihad movement that we will address the issue assertively. Gerges in The Far Enemy help us to better understand the Jihadism and politics of Al Qaeda. Differently of what was projected by Bush Administration, Al Qaeda is a minimal fraction of the Jihadism movement. Most religious nationalist leaders reject its agenda, strategies, and the use of the violence against civilians. The focus of the religious nationalist was to battle the status quo at home, and not to battle the “far enemy”. Gerges portrays Jihadism as movement that is far from being monolithic and shows the tensions inside Al Qaeda. He argues that since Bin Laden saw their defeat in the jihad at home, transferring the fight globally would be his last beat for his cause to succeed, and in with move he showed the fragmentation of the movement. Gerges states ”Understanding the tension, differences and shifts among jihadis will shed light on how Sept. 11 occurred as well as on the relative weight of transnationalist jihadis and religious nationalists. It will also illuminate the rise of AL Qaeda, its influence within the Jihadism movement, and its potential long-term durability.” In reality, AL Qaeda is not such an organized entity as we were made believe. It was this exaggerated threat presented by the administration that helped the organization to gain popularity and Bush and his cabinet purposively sent the message of an evil empire to gain public support for his so wanted war.
Understanding terrorism in contemporary days has led many scholars to agree and disagree about terrorism goals and operations. Robert Pape, discusses that after 9/11 there was a imperative need of understanding suicidal terrorism. He argues that the cases he studied gave him the assertion that suicide terrorists do not act on religious motives. Rather, it is an ideology to transform the world independently of religion. He state “Terrorists compel modern democracies to withdraw combat forces from territory they prized.” That is the case in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. He argues that never in Iraq occurred suicidal attacks since the invasion. The solution is to withdraw all station troops extracting the motive that causes the suicide bombs from the Middle East and station them off shore to protect American interest in the region. In Contrary, Mark Juergernsmeyer’ s, in The Logic of Religious Violence states that extremists or people who excuse the use of violence in the defense of faith, portray their secular government as the responsible force in advocating anti-religious ideology that threats the traditional way of living. As presenting their faith under attack, militia leaders win individuals adherence to their cause requesting them to have discipline, courage and strength to fight their enemy, if necessary to the end. It is a cosmic battle between truth and evil. Talk is not enough to fight injustice, they are called to act. Leaders’ misuse of religious language legitimizes their cause to overcome human politics and economic problems and to give moral endorsement to their use of violence. Scott Atran in The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism states that suicide attackers today do not fit Pape’s description. Suicidal terrorist are composed by idealist youth inspirited by religious oriented heroes (Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri). Since they are isolated from societies especially in Europe, and with all the spare time available to navigate the Internet and watch television, they incorporate the jihad movement as they can identify social oppression and political repression around the Muslim world with their own lives. They vow that suicide for the cause of jihad is the noblest cause. Atran proves the opposite of our main visualization of “traditional” terrorist as poor, deprived, no other option, criminal and hate freedom stereotype. The suicide bombs in the British consulate and HSBC in Istanbul is an example to disprove Pape’s theory about a strategic political objective as too narrow too broad, outdated, and misleading. The invasion of Afghanistan eliminated the training camps and the disruption of the money flow to Al Qaeda and from Al Qaeda to its militants which degraded it back to a decentralized network of small cells. Today, Atran says “Zawahiri calls jihad everywhere to inflict the greatest possible damage and maximum causalities among the West, regardless of time and effort required or of the immediate consequences.” Humiliation then is a great tool in the hands of extremist Islamist because they produce rage and quest for vengeance in the Muslim youth community. The idea of a centralized Al Qaeda recruiting and leading militants to expel troops is not correct anymore. These young people are inspired by the global Jihad movement (usually from reading “posts” on the Internet), self generated from below, organized by groups of friends. Understanding the group dynamics is the key in challenge it. Jihad cells are small in groups (usually 4 to 8 people). They are individuals with similar characteristics within the group but very different from other cells, and they form spontaneously. The cell members are so united to themselves that individuals are willing to give their lives for their peers. Therefore, it is important to channel religious beliefs to less violent expressions. In fighting this new ideological threat, Mark Sageman in Understanding the Jihadi Networks states “ Develop a coherent and comprehensive strategy by discrediting the legitimacy of leaders and the ideology behind the global Salavi jihad and replacing it with an inspiring vision of a just and fair partnership with Islam.”
The US Administration keeps committing the same old mistakes according to Atran’s To Beat Al Qaeda, Look to the East. In increasing troops in order detain counterinsurgency efforts and to focus on trying to gain popular support for a corrupt government is a proven failed strategy. What is actually happening is that by overestimating the threat of Al Qaeda, we are instigating an increase in Pakistan Taliban surge that is now threatening Pakistan stability and the world. He argues that the war against Al Qaeda has to be local, and that it will only work when the West realize that what unify the terroristic networks are cultural and familial rather than political ties. Europeans have been successful in preventing plots doing exactly that tracking links among local extremists, families and friends and improving relations with young Muslims immigrants.
Pres. Obama’s speech in Cairo was a true ground break in the reconciliation process. American image has been damage so much in the Muslim world that only an address by the president in a Muslim country could break the ice and set a new tone. The Bush Administration made so many mistakes that people around the world would not be willing to listen to Americans if there was no change in the administration. I believe Obama was very successful. His speech was truly a remarkable piece of diplomatic “re-commitment” owned to the Muslim community. It assured that his administration was serious about a new beginning where diplomacy would prevail. Differences will be spoken and discussed at public level. America will remained behind its most cherished values of freedom, democracy and justice. Human rights will be again priority and he proved that American will not be hypocritical about it with the closure of Guatanamo Bay Facility. He assured that America is not in war against Islam, since Islam is part of our own history. We will go beyond the definition of our relations with Muslims based on our differences and work together in our shared principles of tolerance and dignity.
Religion is too important and influential today to be ignored by the US policy makers. Agents in foreign policies have to engage religious leaders in other to advance its agenda of promoting human rights and democracy. Cairo was crucial, but we need to move to action, otherwise the speech will be soon forgotten. Religious leaders can be important allies in the resolution of conflicts and the achievement of global peace. The moderate voices in Islam are being shut down because of our fear of engaging in dialogue with religious leaders. It is our common goal to eradicated extremists use of violence against innocent people. There has to be a unified effort to educate members of public and private sector about religions. Acknowledging achievements of religious leaders in social programs could help to break down misconceptions. Providing participation in government by religious leaders would also help to bring their knowledge and agenda to the government. The Report of the Task of Force on Religion and the making of US foreign policy suggest an American Muslim as ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Conference and encourage ambassadors who work in countries where religion is important to be knowledgeable about them.
The responsibility for peaceful coexistence is in the hands of United States and Muslims leaders equally. We need to re-build trust, respect and understanding. If we cannot achieve a common ground, the danger of further conflict escalation is great. Our immediate action has to be the better use of diplomacy and dialogue. Solving the problems together will stop the violence. Americans have to live up to values we advocate to avoid perceived cynicism and resistance among the world community.
The 9/11 events killed thousands of innocent civilians in America by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Bin Landen was seen as the evil by us and also he was seen as a hero by some. The ones who saw him as a courageous hero justified his attack stating that he was able to shake the superpower imperialist United States and send a message of hate. The event was an awake up call to all Americans. In one day, we saw ourselves in the reality of what millions of Muslims have experienced in their daily lives. Even though this terrorism attack acted against the peaceful message of the Qoran itself, Islam was somehow described as our enemy and the American people bought the concept. Hence Muslims, by watching the US media propagating the “bad” image of Islam, understood the threat against their religion and the conflict escalated and hurt even more the weak image of Americans by the Muslim world. Years of interventions in internal affairs, the support of the US to authoritarian governments, the disregard for the Palestinian cause, the invasion of Iraq based on forged propositions only exacerbated the Anti American sentiments throughout the Muslim World and the Jihadism movement gained ground to flourish. Al Qaeda was portrayed by the Bush Administration as a transnational well structured organization with hieratical leadership directly led by Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was exposed with no moral values and their main desires were the total destruction of the American society and the imposition of Islam in the world. He also wanted to replaced western inspired secular oppressing regimes in the Muslim world by an Islamic governments ruled by the sharia. The US commission conducted the investigation of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal investigation and focus on the understanding of the plot itself and people behind the attacks instead of focus on understanding the social movement behind it. The report was based on the interrogation of few Al Qaeda members captured by the coalition forces. The report itself did not provide significant information about the organization decision making process or about the main leaders (Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri who was an important figure in the ideological and religious vision of Al Qaeda). The report is very controversial because in using intense methods of interrogation (torture basically), the information extracted from the prisoners is believed by many to be not credible, inconsistent or unreliable. The report was supposed to help us to understand the dynamics of the Jihad movement that provoked the attacks in American and help US policy makers to act according, but it failed provide the information. It is only in understanding the causes that let the globalization of the Jihad movement that we will address the issue assertively. Gerges in The Far Enemy help us to better understand the Jihadism and politics of Al Qaeda. Differently of what was projected by Bush Administration, Al Qaeda is a minimal fraction of the Jihadism movement. Most religious nationalist leaders reject its agenda, strategies, and the use of the violence against civilians. The focus of the religious nationalist was to battle the status quo at home, and not to battle the “far enemy”. Gerges portrays Jihadism as movement that is far from being monolithic and shows the tensions inside Al Qaeda. He argues that since Bin Laden saw their defeat in the jihad at home, transferring the fight globally would be his last beat for his cause to succeed, and in with move he showed the fragmentation of the movement. Gerges states ”Understanding the tension, differences and shifts among jihadis will shed light on how Sept. 11 occurred as well as on the relative weight of transnationalist jihadis and religious nationalists. It will also illuminate the rise of AL Qaeda, its influence within the Jihadism movement, and its potential long-term durability.” In reality, AL Qaeda is not such an organized entity as we were made believe. It was this exaggerated threat presented by the administration that helped the organization to gain popularity and Bush and his cabinet purposively sent the message of an evil empire to gain public support for his so wanted war.
Understanding terrorism in contemporary days has led many scholars to agree and disagree about terrorism goals and operations. Robert Pape, discusses that after 9/11 there was a imperative need of understanding suicidal terrorism. He argues that the cases he studied gave him the assertion that suicide terrorists do not act on religious motives. Rather, it is an ideology to transform the world independently of religion. He state “Terrorists compel modern democracies to withdraw combat forces from territory they prized.” That is the case in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. He argues that never in Iraq occurred suicidal attacks since the invasion. The solution is to withdraw all station troops extracting the motive that causes the suicide bombs from the Middle East and station them off shore to protect American interest in the region. In Contrary, Mark Juergernsmeyer’ s, in The Logic of Religious Violence states that extremists or people who excuse the use of violence in the defense of faith, portray their secular government as the responsible force in advocating anti-religious ideology that threats the traditional way of living. As presenting their faith under attack, militia leaders win individuals adherence to their cause requesting them to have discipline, courage and strength to fight their enemy, if necessary to the end. It is a cosmic battle between truth and evil. Talk is not enough to fight injustice, they are called to act. Leaders’ misuse of religious language legitimizes their cause to overcome human politics and economic problems and to give moral endorsement to their use of violence. Scott Atran in The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism states that suicide attackers today do not fit Pape’s description. Suicidal terrorist are composed by idealist youth inspirited by religious oriented heroes (Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri). Since they are isolated from societies especially in Europe, and with all the spare time available to navigate the Internet and watch television, they incorporate the jihad movement as they can identify social oppression and political repression around the Muslim world with their own lives. They vow that suicide for the cause of jihad is the noblest cause. Atran proves the opposite of our main visualization of “traditional” terrorist as poor, deprived, no other option, criminal and hate freedom stereotype. The suicide bombs in the British consulate and HSBC in Istanbul is an example to disprove Pape’s theory about a strategic political objective as too narrow too broad, outdated, and misleading. The invasion of Afghanistan eliminated the training camps and the disruption of the money flow to Al Qaeda and from Al Qaeda to its militants which degraded it back to a decentralized network of small cells. Today, Atran says “Zawahiri calls jihad everywhere to inflict the greatest possible damage and maximum causalities among the West, regardless of time and effort required or of the immediate consequences.” Humiliation then is a great tool in the hands of extremist Islamist because they produce rage and quest for vengeance in the Muslim youth community. The idea of a centralized Al Qaeda recruiting and leading militants to expel troops is not correct anymore. These young people are inspired by the global Jihad movement (usually from reading “posts” on the Internet), self generated from below, organized by groups of friends. Understanding the group dynamics is the key in challenge it. Jihad cells are small in groups (usually 4 to 8 people). They are individuals with similar characteristics within the group but very different from other cells, and they form spontaneously. The cell members are so united to themselves that individuals are willing to give their lives for their peers. Therefore, it is important to channel religious beliefs to less violent expressions. In fighting this new ideological threat, Mark Sageman in Understanding the Jihadi Networks states “ Develop a coherent and comprehensive strategy by discrediting the legitimacy of leaders and the ideology behind the global Salavi jihad and replacing it with an inspiring vision of a just and fair partnership with Islam.”
The US Administration keeps committing the same old mistakes according to Atran’s To Beat Al Qaeda, Look to the East. In increasing troops in order detain counterinsurgency efforts and to focus on trying to gain popular support for a corrupt government is a proven failed strategy. What is actually happening is that by overestimating the threat of Al Qaeda, we are instigating an increase in Pakistan Taliban surge that is now threatening Pakistan stability and the world. He argues that the war against Al Qaeda has to be local, and that it will only work when the West realize that what unify the terroristic networks are cultural and familial rather than political ties. Europeans have been successful in preventing plots doing exactly that tracking links among local extremists, families and friends and improving relations with young Muslims immigrants.
Pres. Obama’s speech in Cairo was a true ground break in the reconciliation process. American image has been damage so much in the Muslim world that only an address by the president in a Muslim country could break the ice and set a new tone. The Bush Administration made so many mistakes that people around the world would not be willing to listen to Americans if there was no change in the administration. I believe Obama was very successful. His speech was truly a remarkable piece of diplomatic “re-commitment” owned to the Muslim community. It assured that his administration was serious about a new beginning where diplomacy would prevail. Differences will be spoken and discussed at public level. America will remained behind its most cherished values of freedom, democracy and justice. Human rights will be again priority and he proved that American will not be hypocritical about it with the closure of Guatanamo Bay Facility. He assured that America is not in war against Islam, since Islam is part of our own history. We will go beyond the definition of our relations with Muslims based on our differences and work together in our shared principles of tolerance and dignity.
Religion is too important and influential today to be ignored by the US policy makers. Agents in foreign policies have to engage religious leaders in other to advance its agenda of promoting human rights and democracy. Cairo was crucial, but we need to move to action, otherwise the speech will be soon forgotten. Religious leaders can be important allies in the resolution of conflicts and the achievement of global peace. The moderate voices in Islam are being shut down because of our fear of engaging in dialogue with religious leaders. It is our common goal to eradicated extremists use of violence against innocent people. There has to be a unified effort to educate members of public and private sector about religions. Acknowledging achievements of religious leaders in social programs could help to break down misconceptions. Providing participation in government by religious leaders would also help to bring their knowledge and agenda to the government. The Report of the Task of Force on Religion and the making of US foreign policy suggest an American Muslim as ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Conference and encourage ambassadors who work in countries where religion is important to be knowledgeable about them.
The responsibility for peaceful coexistence is in the hands of United States and Muslims leaders equally. We need to re-build trust, respect and understanding. If we cannot achieve a common ground, the danger of further conflict escalation is great. Our immediate action has to be the better use of diplomacy and dialogue. Solving the problems together will stop the violence. Americans have to live up to values we advocate to avoid perceived cynicism and resistance among the world community.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)