ASTU Blog

American Sniper is full of the same depictions of Islamophobia and an American war mentality that that are also extremely prevalent in scholarly discourse. Academics are continually discussing the framing of the U.S and the Middle East within a sort of “us versus them” mentality, and the way we perceive people from Iraq as a “racialized other”. The ideas examined by scholars like Deer and Butler are directly represented in the movie. Middle Eastern people are often so far removed in western perception and are being viewed as our enemies. As well, American Sniper is almost an epitome of an American war mentality. The movie is extremely demonstrative of the prevalence of militarization and Islamophobia in modern society and this presents an interesting lens with which to view it. In some ways, the media may be to blame for the perpetuation of some of these harmful ideals, but in others the prevalence of these ideals in the media may simply be due to their prevalence in society. It is not entirely fair to blame movies such as American Sniper for these oversimplified, racist presentations without addressing that these are the ideas that have been so ingrained into our societal institutions for so many years, and that these are the ideas that the general population so often buys into. There is a reason American Sniper was the top grossing movie in 2014. I believe that Deer and Butler’s ideas taken together provide a look into the interplay of media into modern society and vice versa.

Judith Butler’s thesis on grievability raised the question of whose lives we see as grievable, particularly when there is perceived to be a direct threat on our, or our family’s well-being. She brings up an important point about the depersonalization that was very prominent during the Iraq war (and in the movie). How Iraqi loss of life, when seen as necessity in the face of danger, is no longer perceived as a big loss. In American Sniper, the Iraqi military characters aren’t given the same level of humanity within the context of the film, Kyle and his men show no remorse at killing the Iraqi troops, and the way the Iraqi troops are represented in the movie—brutal, bloodthirsty and remorseless—contributes an added level to this. Within the context of the movie there is a discourse presented about whether Kyle feels continuing guilt about all of his kills while deployed, and his justification is that his only concern is in protecting his men. This very much exemplifies what Butler is arguing in her essay about grievability and perceived threat—Kyle argued (and attempted to justify to himself) that the Iraqi lives lost were not grievable because they were a threat on his and his troops’ survival. In the film, the Iraqi people were depicted as evil, their narratives written over, and the movie was overtly Americanized. In a broader context, this stereotypical representation of the Iraqi people as harsh and barbaric shows a deeper cinematic decision to represent the Iraq military as unworthy of grievability.

I am not attempting to argue that the potentially racist over-simplified depictions of the Iraq and United States military were made out of a conscious attempt by Eastwood to brainwash the audience into a patriotic anti-Middle Eastern mentality. I believe that Eastwood’s cinematic choices depict a reality that is pre-ingrained into American society. Eastwood stated publically that he did not intend for American sniper to be a “political movie”. He argues that he was not trying to perpetuate any specific narrative about the Iraq war and he may really believe that he was depicting an honest and impartial narrative. So often people are often just so pre-set into this mentality that they may not even realise the broader implications. This movie may have heightened pre-conceptions about the Middle East, but it certainly did not create them. Butler’s argument about the distance we create between ourselves and those we were at war with in Iraq manifests itself in representations in modern media. Cinematic representations like this one depict these people as a “racialized other” so often because of pre-existing internalized racism within our society today.

Patrick Deer’s essay on militarization is another one that presents an interesting lens at addressing representations in American Sniper. He talks about the state of heightened militarization in America, from the language we use to the utmost esteem with which we view veterans. In the movie, Kyle was widely respected by fellow veterans and by everyday citizens. The movie itself and its widespread support also demonstrates the way in which American militarization is directly tied to American patriotism. Deer’s ideas of the way the military is represented in modern society is demonstrated by just how positively this movie was received. Although it received its fair share of criticism, the film was the top grossing movie of 2014—people wanted to pay to watch it. I believe that so much of American culture now feeds off of these narratives of American patriotism and heroism at the cost of villainizing another culture. People want to see the American military as the protectors of freedom against terrorism (and to justify America’s massive military budget) so that is the story that gets told. I believe that American culture prides itself in being this force of good throughout the world and that feeds into Deer’s idea of heightened militarization and leads to the creation of movies like American Sniper.

American Sniper depicts an anti-Middle Eastern and pro-war mentality that exists in society today. Scholars such as Deer and Butler have done interesting work at addressing these realities in day to day life—work which I believe can and should be used to examine movies like American Sniper. This type of media is extremely reflective of prominent perceptions in society about Iraq and the American military, but this type of media also works to shapes societal perceptions about these same topics. Although we need to address underlying causes to potentially problematic Islamophobic themes in media, this does not mean that American Sniper is not to blame for perpetuating stereotypes and harmful Americanized narratives.

Works Cited:

“American Sniper.” , directed by Clint Eastwood, et al. , Warner Bros.      Entertainment, 2015.

Butler, Judith. Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? Verso, New York;London [England];,2009.

Deer, Patrick. “Mapping Contemporary American War Culture.” College Literature, vol. 43, no.  1, 2016, pp. 48.

“Poems from Guantanamo” edited by Marc Falkhoff exemplifies poetry as a subversive and politicized genre. Poetry is so often perceived as somewhat intangible and theoretical, but Falkhoff’s work demonstrates the capacity of the genre to be a direct proponent and criticism of real-world social issues. It is not just an art form, but a social narrative. Although the genre itself may often be seen as inaccessible, poetry can prove an accessible means to promote a social cause, and is politicized enough to be an effective means for doing so. Poetry is something that can reach large numbers of people. The poems from Guantanamo really demonstrate the broad capacity of a genre.

Shoshana Feltman stated that “literature does justice in a way the law does not or cannot”[1]. She speaks on its ability to be an effective form of activism because it “cannot be closed”. There is not such a defined dichotomy of right versus wrong, and a continuing narrative adds all kinds of new complexities. Many scholars argue that “Poems from Guantanamo” contributes to human rights discussions by “depoliticizing” the subject[2]—making it less about the laws and more about the people. However, I would argue that the book does not take away politicization of the issue, but rather adds a politicized context to poetry. Trapp speculates about the impacts of the book on a Western audience[3]. We see the complexities of reading the book through a lens of “perceived guilt” rather than of “exception”—we do not necessarily assume the poets are innocent even though we begin to connect with them. That is to say we may feel for a poet’s suffering, but we are conflicted by the knowledge that he may have committed violent acts of terrorism. It is in this way that the book is neither about the barbaric nature of Guantanamo, nor the people there.

The format of poetry in itself is an interesting form of activism. In her essay about survivability, Judith Butler speaks on the novel. She recounts how prisoners would carve poetry into Styrofoam cups until they were finally allowed pencils and paper—how this writing was a means of survival and humanity for them[4]. In another sense, she discusses how these poems serve to establish a social connection that would not otherwise exist between the prisoners of Guantanamo and the readers in the west. This implies multiple dimensions of the effect of poetry as a genre. George Fragopoulos talks about the “dividing line between aesthetics and politics”[5]—a line that is being blurred by this politicized poetry. Poetry is very often personal and venerable, which is exactly what makes it such an effective means of communication.

This visibility and connection of these realities has broader political implications. Once people begin to see the detainees as people they begin to question the legitimacy of the procedures of Guantanamo bay. Erin Trapp argues that a big part of what the poems do is make many of the human rights violations that are happening visible and known. The actions taken by the US for the sake of the “war on terror” are more plainly seen and scrutinized. Butler argues that the reason the poems are so politicized is that they “convey a moral responsiveness to unjust ways”. The suffering in the poetry is visible and very moving. She also refers to the poems written as an “act of resistance”.

Since the poems carry these realities that are potentially detrimental to US policy it is hard to see why the book was even allowed in the first place. Only a few poems were okayed to be published however, the vast majority were filtered out by the department of security. They claimed that many of these poems posed a threat because of “potential encoded messages”. Marc Falkhoff countered this claim however by stating “The military wasn’t afraid of a secret message—but realizing the humanity of the detainees”. He believes, along with Butler and Trapp that this book and poetry as a genre has the potential to be a powerful force of social change, that they are more than just poems.

[1] Weber, Elisabeth. “Literary Justice? Poems from Guantánamo Bay Prison Camp.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 48, no. 3, 2011, pp. 417-434.

[2] Brittain, Victoria. “Reviews: “Poems from Guantánamo: The Detainees Speak” Edited by Mark Falkoff, and, “the Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison,” by Andy Worthington.” Race & Class, vol. 50, no. 3, 2009, pp. 104-106.

[3] Trapp, Erin. “The Enemy Combatant as Poet: The Politics of Writing in Poems from Guantanamo.” Postmodern Culture, vol. 21, no. 3, 2011, pp. no pagination-no pagination.

[4] Fragopoulos, George. “The Politics and Poetics of Transliteration in the Works of Olga Broumas and George Economou.” Melus, vol. 39, no. 4, 2014, pp. 140.

[5] Butler, Judith. Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? Verso, New York;London [England];, 2009.

The UBC Fonds house a collection of letters and newspaper articles praising Joy Kogawa on her novel “Obasan”. Public reception of the novel appears to have been overwhelmingly and immediately quite positive, and many critics expressed sentiments regarding the importance of widespread public recognition of the hardships experienced by Japanese Canadians at that particular point in history. The responses to the novel, while quite positive, very much possessed a sort of distance to them. Racist realities in Canada were being viewed as a negative part of history that has since been rectified. I believe the way in which Kogawa’s novel is talked about represents a widespread view of racism in Canada as a historical issue rather than a pervasive and modern one. By viewing these realities as a thing of the past many people are therefore able to read the novel and effectively detach Canada from its potentially racist reality, and to distance themselves from issues of systemic racism through the belief that they themselves are immune to the same kind of internalized prejudice that was once prevalent.

People often believe that they would have been untouched by a society’s widespread racism. Preconceived notions of heightened morality are not new concepts. Human nature is often overly generous in self-perception, an idea known as the “self-serving bias”[1]. Following WWII and many of the horrific acts by the Nazi party, social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a study to test whether or not American society was as immune to the same kind of actions as they believed themselves to be. He wanted to examine the defence presented by many Nazi soldiers that stated they were simply “following orders”. Is a person inclined to heightened inhumanity under strong authority? For his experiment, he set up a (fake) question and answer scenario wherein the subject was instructed to administer shocks to their “student” at increasing voltages for every incorrect answer. As the experiment progressed, the “student”, who was in on the experiment and not actually being shocked began to cry out in pain and complain of heart troubles at increasing levels until eventually becoming unresponsive[2]. Milgram found that the majority of subjects continued to administer shocks at lethal levels even to an unresponsive subject. Milgram’s findings demonstrate a general capacity (and tendency) for people to inflict a great deal of pain on another for the sake of obedience.

Although people may believe themselves to be inclined to act on morality rather than to blindly follow authority, studies such as Milgram’s have proven this not to be the case. Systemic racism within society is often times perpetuated through authority structures. In the case of Japanese internment, prominent governmental figures were enacting legislature that was both discriminatory and detrimental to the Japanese-Canadian population, and the general public was then internalizing these prejudices for the sake of law-boundedness. Societal racism, in many cases, has to do with a natural human inclination, therefore it is not necessarily accurate to assume a heightened morality because of an awareness of the negative implications of racism.

It can also be argued that the novel itself in many ways presents a simplified perspective of the history of racism in Canada. English scholar Lauren Davis argues that the novel presents a very inaccurate depiction of the nation’s shift towards multiculturalism, as it presents inclusivity as something that suddenly existed. She believes that the Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian constitution were not the be-all-end-all for banishing racism in Canada, but rather that tolerance is a process toward which we are slowly working[3].

To this day, Canada is far from a perfectly equal society. For example, the aboriginal population has a much higher percentage of poverty, unemployment, and incarceration rates, and face high levels of discrimination within society.[4] In her article, Davis also points out that Joy Kogawa’s house is in fact the only one publically recognized by the Canadian government as having been seized and unreturned, raising another potentially problematic societal reality. As well, recent Conservative leadership hopeful Kellie Leitch came forward with a platform of screening potential immigrants on the basis of whether or not they possessed the proper “Canadian values”.[5] Arguably a thinly veiled attempt at blatant racist discrimination, this demonstrates how Canada is still far from complete acceptance and inclusivity.

It is possible that Canadians are often broadly unaware of our racist realities, and that we tend to view ourselves as more overwhelmingly accepting than we are. Canadian ethnic studies authors Henry and Taylor argue that “in spite of the historical and contemporary evidence of racism as a pervasive and intractable reality in Canada… Citizens and institutions function in a state of collective denial”.[6] They claim that another potential reason for this moral distancing could simply be a tendency for societal institutions to not address problems, and to focus only on the ways in which Canada behaves positively towards diversity.

The public reaction to Obasan demonstrates a removal from one’s own potential for prejudice that is universally prominent. Society tends to address racism as a historical problem, and ignore many pressing realities in our country today. People like to believe that they have strong morality and would not behave in discriminatory or harmful ways towards another. Looking at realities both historically and currently, many of these problematic tendencies are ingrained both within us and within society, therefore we are by no means correct in distancing ourselves from mass discrimination and racist tendencies within society.

[1] “Http://Ljournal.ru/Wp-Content/Uploads/2017/03/a-2017-023.Pdf.” Is There a Universal Positivity Bias in Attributions? A Meta-Analytic Review of Individual, Developmental, and Cultural Differences in the Self-Serving Attributional Bias, 5 Nov. 2004, doi:10.18411/a-2017-023.

[2] Burger, Jerry M. “Situational Features in Milgram’s Experiment That Kept His Participants Shocking.” Journal of Social Issues, 4 Sept. 2014, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12073/full.

[3] Davis, L. K. (2012). Joy kogawa’s obasan: Canadian multiculturalism and japanese-canadian internment. British Journal of Canadian Studies, 25(1), 57-76,149. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1011059731?accountid=14656

[4] “Prejudices Against Aboriginal Peoples.” ENSEMBLE for the respect of diversity, www.ensemble-rd.com/en/learn-about-discrimination/discrimination-in-canada/aboriginal-peoples/prejudices-against-aboriginal-peoples.

[5] Ubelacker, Sheryl. “Is Donald Trump’s immigration policy fuelling racism in Canada?” CTVNews, 9 Feb. 2017, www.ctvnews.ca/canada/is-donald-trump-s-immigration-policy-fuelling-racism-in-canada-1.3278102.

[6] Frances Henry – THE COLOUR OF DEMOCRACY: RACISM IN CANADIAN SOCIETY, www.yorku.ca/fhenry/colourofdemocracy.htm.

The realities of growing up under an Islamic Regime, as presented in Marajane Satrapi’s “Persepolis”, can seem a jarring contrast for readers who have grown up in Western countries never having experienced first-hand the impact of war and revolution. It is easy to read Satrapi’s recount of a troubling and traumatic childhood and to feel far removed from the realities of un-democratic or oppressive governments. Not that readers are necessarily apathetic—just that they may not be able to relate to what the author has experienced. I would like to argue however, that although many of the specific undertakings of the government (such as public execution) are not universal, the broader and more overarching themes are. More specifically, that this idea of government surveillance as it pertains to control is an issue present in western societies as well.

In the book, Satrapi recounts the sudden and quite drastic increase of surveillance and regulation that accompanied the rise of the Iranian Regime. As the party held much more fundamentalist Islamic viewpoints, they enforced stricter regulations in regard to Sharia Law. These included, but were not limited to, a ban of alcohol, parties and even picnics.[1] The enforcement of these regulations was dependent on an increase in government surveillance. The regime was watching its citizens to ensure adherence to the proper standards.

In North America, we often do not perceive this same kind of “watchman state” wherein the government consistently monitors us to ensure our obedience. We see ourselves as free from the confines of a “Big Brother” type government observance and regulation. Although it is true that western societies are generally less regulated than the regime Satrapi discusses, I would argue that we also endure large amounts of government surveillance and that that prevalence is a very pressing issue for the autonomy of citizens universally.

Not too long ago, the National Security Agency in the United States was put under fire for claims made by former employee Edward Snowden. Snowden disclosed disturbing realities of the ways in which the NSA was monitoring US citizens. He revealed that a program called PRISM is being used to intercept 600 million civilian communications daily[2]. These include, but are not limited to, phone calls, emails, texts, and skype conversations[3]. Citizens are being monitored on an extremely large scale regardless of whether or not they are even suspected of illicit activity.[4] This calls in to question what type of control over citizens could potentially be gained from the possession of this information. Even though this example pertains to the USA specifically, Canada is so influenced by the undertakings of the American government that this surveillance very likely affects Canada as well. The NSA is not barred from monitoring Canada, and there is nothing to say the Canadian government is not conducting similar surveillance.

One of the NSA’s documented areas of interest was the “WikiLeaks” website. The agency was said to be tracking the IP addresses of both authors of articles and visitors to the site.[5] Since WikiLeaks is a site that is very much concerned with government accountability, this interest has dangerous implications. Were the NSA to decide to in any way attempt to prosecute visitors to this site, they would have the information necessary to do so. These surveillance abilities place a concerning amount of power into the hands of the government. Millions of citizens’ faces, browsing data, and text conversations are being monitored every day.  Even if the NSA strictly uses the data to prevent potential terrorist threats, they are using mass surveillance to impose authority and control over citizens, which was the goal of the Iranian regime as well.

A culture of mass government surveillance is a concept presented in “Persepolis” and it is a very real issue in North America as well as in Iran. Although the execution is different, the basic concept remains the same—governments watch citizens on a large scale in order to enforce dominance and assert control. It is easy to view western society as a stark contrast to the rule in Marjane Satrapi’s “Persepolis”, however, we may not be as far removed as we think.

[1] “What Is It like to Live under Islamic State?” The Week UK, www.theweek.co.uk/middle-east/islamic-state/60078/what-is-it-like-to-live-under-islamic-state-rule.

[2] “Edward Snowden: Leaks That Exposed US Spy Programme.” BBC News, BBC, 17 Jan. 2014, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964.

[3] Aid, Matthew M. “inside the Nsa.” The Independent, 2013.

[4] Ackerman, Spencer, and James Ball. “Optic Nerve: Millions of Yahoo Webcam Images Intercepted by GCHQ.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 28 Feb. 2014, www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo.

[5] Theintercept. “Snowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance and Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks and Its Supporters.” The Intercept, 18 Feb. 2014, theintercept.com/2014/02/18/snowden-docs-reveal-covert-surveillance-and-pressure-tactics-aimed-at-wikileaks-and-its-supporters/.

A topic I found to be of particular interest within our ASTU discussions was that of academic dishonesty in the “real world”. Specifically, its effect in politics.

University students all across the globe are impressed upon about the importance of academic integrity. Very often, academic institutions uphold severe repercussions for instances of plagiarism and dishonesty; including, but not limited to, failing a class, and even expulsion. If these ideals are so strongly impressed upon entire generations of students year after year, one would expect these values to be fairly strongly upheld within society. Why is it then that there is such a prevalent epidemic of plagiarism in the political sphere? Why are political figures constantly facing backlash for “borrowing” the words of another? Do those that pursue a career in politics simply begin to disregard the ideas of academic integrity that they were previously taught? Or is there simply just a finite number of sentiments politicians are attempting to express therefore it is almost impossible to never have any crossover?

One argument regarding the presence of plagiarism in modern politics is that society often has an inaccurate perception of what should qualify as plagiarism in the first place. Those running for political office often have speech writers to aid them in their process and therefore there is a much broader grey area between one’s own words and the words of others.[1] If it is acceptable to hire someone to write your campaign speeches why is it not acceptable to use a similar sentiment or two as your predecessors? As well, are many politicians simply looking to express the same sentiment and there are only so many ways to do so? Politicians often want to create a “better America” and a “better world”. They want the economy to thrive and believe in the importance of hard work. Perhaps there are only so many ways to say this.

This was a sentiment that was expressed and contested strongly throughout the “Malania Trump speech scandal”. This scandal involved what appeared to be her issuing a speech with segments nearly identical to one given by Michelle Obama only a few years earlier. Although she very obviously lifted full sentences from Obama’s speech, many Republicans argued that the similarities were merely coincidental. One very prominent spokesperson on this issue was White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. Spicer claimed that the sentiments expressed by both Malania Trump and Michelle Obama were extremely common values held by many people (“you work hard for what you want” etc.). He states that sure, although one could draw strong connections between the speeches by the two first ladies, one could also find those same connections on an episode of “My Little Pony”.[2]

Although Malania Trump has an important role as First Lady of the United States, it could be said that she is not an elected official and therefore need not be held to the same standards as say someone running for president. However, issues regarding plagiarism in formal speeches are not exclusive to those who hold no formal office and come from a non-political background. Former Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul was recently put under fire for taking parts of his speeches from the movies “Gattaca” and “Stand and Deliver”. Even former Vice President Joe Biden faced major criticism in 1987 for delivering a suspiciously similar speech to one given by British politician Neil Kinnock.[3] In addition, the argument that plagiarism in political spheres is merely accidental holds less traction when we continue to examine the track records of many politicians. Political figures with large roles, including Joe Biden, Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin, and Hungarian president Pal Schmitt, have been accused of plagiarizing large portions of their dissertations. This calls into question whether it is the field of politics that breeds problems with plagiarism, or whether it is the people. This is not to say that all politicians are corrupt and evil, but there is a definite trend in the field that raises many ethical questions.

It is possible that a lack of academic honesty does not develop as a result of entering a political career, but rather it is an issue that stems all the way back to one’s undergraduate years. Does political plagiarism occur because universities are not nearly stringent enough with regulations on academic dishonesty? Or are the universities enforcing these ideas to their full capabilities and some dishonesty is simply inevitable in every field? Or perhaps there will always be a certain proportion of the population who are dishonest, and some fields attract more of these than do others. Regardless, academic dishonesty and plagiarism is an issue that is prevalent in many areas and to many different types of people beyond the confines of a university, and it seems that the political arena may have more than its fair share.

[1] LaBossiere, Mike. “Www.blog.talkingphilosophy.com.” Talking Philosiphy, 27 July 2016, www.bing.com/cr?IG=0707B50684F84182869A7904E02A54B5&CID=38EC05A7E51369D202160EAFE4156880&rd=1&h=m1GMcrv-h7JBs0QG8v0IPVslNFIznNBKf9vg5Js-DRU&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww.blog.talkingphilosophy.com%2f%3fp%3d9757&p=DevEx,5063.1. Accessed 25 Sept. 2017.

[2] Krieg, Gregory, and Eugene Scott. “No one to be fired after Melania Trump speech plagiarism episode.” CNN, Cable News Network, 19 July 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html. Accessed 25 Sept. 2017.

[3] Krieg, Gregory, and Eugene Scott. “No one to be fired after Melania Trump speech plagiarism episode.” CNN, Cable News Network, 19 July 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html. Accessed 25 Sept. 2017.