Drawing Conclusions: How Political Cartoons Shape Western Opinions of the Middle East and Islam

Reading: Old Pictures in New Frames: Images of Islam and Muslims in Post World War II American Political Cartoons by Christina Michelmore

As the title suggests, this article discusses how political cartoons since World War II have shaped (or rather, reinforced) Western views of the Middle East, and more specifically, Islam itself.

The religious figure on the left is saying: "violence is wrong."
The Muslim figure on the right is saying: "take it back or I'll kill you!!!"

It is almost cliche to hear that the media has massive amounts of influence in shaping an individual's opinions, paradigms, and culture; so much so that the idea has seemingly lost its impact.  This is true mostly of TV, movies, and music today, but political cartoons have had, and continue to have, the largest impact in shaping opinions.  This is because, according to the author, one does not need to "read" a political cartoon to understand it, but rather the cartoon speaks to you and can "tell readers what to think and how to feel about what is happening"(p. 37).  It is this image-feeling association that has the largest impact on shaping opinions generally, and political views, specifically.

Political cartoons are able achieve this because of their very nature: succinct.  To reach the largest audience, the artist must draw a cartoon that can be both easily understood and must generalize subject matter for easy recognition.  Take, for instance, the cartoon above; the figure on the right is a menacing, black-clad, shadowy, evil Muslim figure complete with a giant Scimitar, great black beard, and turban.  While the figure on the left, presumably a Christian figure judging by the papal-style clothing, is shrouded in white and is on the "light" side of the picture.  What is the message in this cartoon?  What conclusion is one led to about these two figures generally, and the two religions represented, specifically?  When one answers these questions, it is hard to deny both the impact that these types of images have on a person, and the level of control artists have in shaping opinions and/or beliefs.

Political cartoons created and displayed in the United States have been used to progress foreign policy and shape public opinion about conflicts in the Middle East.  Particular focus has been payed on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on the demonization of leaders of oil-rich states within the region.

*Note the minaret in the background

What is this cartoon's message? While it may seem obvious to some that it is declaring that Hamas, the Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip, is militant and violent (even to the point of killing their own women and children), there are many, more subtle features of this cartoon that are worthy of mention.  For instance, once again we see a bearded, turban-wearing, menacing, presumably Arab man strapping bombs on a baby while a silent, burka-clad woman passively stands by.  This cartoon isn't just about Hamas, whether or not it was intended to be.  This cartoon is projecting an image about Islam and a notion of "people who look like this, do this." 

Islamic Art in... Hawaii?

In class, we are currently learning about Islamic Art, i.e. the forms and meanings behind those forms.  I read an article entitled "Shangri La" in Hawaii: The Politics of Representation of Islamic Art by Suchart Setthamalinee which discussed a private museum of Islamic art in Hawaii which was once the home of Doris Duke.

Her private collection of art is spread throughout her home, which is basically a campus, and is classified in the article as falling into three main types: calligraphic, geometric, and arabesque.  The collection contains pieces and styles from all over the Islamic world, from Morocco to India.  Yet what is amazing about the collection, and Islamic art in general, is that even though the collection has roots in cultures from all over the Islamic world, it is still centered around a core Islamic style.

While this collection impresses many visitors to the museum, it is interesting that most questions asked are concerned with the Doris Duke and her life, rather than questions about Islamic art or Islam itself.  The author does not find this surprising, since most people go to the museum to consume the wealth and opulence of Shangri La, rather than consume knowledge about Islamic art or Islam.  In fact, some have argued that such a collection of Islamic art is a product of the American upper-class culture of the early 20th century, which included a fascination with the Orient and all things Oriental.

To me, this notion seems to make the most sense.  For instance, the foyer is "awash with color, light, pattern, and texture, an effect created by Duke’s juxtaposition of a great variety of Islamic architecture and artistic forms in the room. Textiles with floral motifs from Central Asia and India are displayed behind mother-of-pearl inlaid wood chests from Syria. Above them is a painted wood ceiling made in Morocco. Ceramic tiles from Turkey cover the walls, which are pierced with Spanish-style stained glass windows" (p. 425).  This smorgasbord of cultural Islamic art adorning the foyer suggests not so much an academic, or even basic, appreciation for Islamic art as rooted in its specific cultural context, but rather a generalized, and otherwise idealized, Orientalist arrangement of Islamic art.

Another example of this is how the mihrab, or niche found in the wall of many mosques which signifies the direction towards Mecca--the direction of prayer for Muslims--is placed 3 feet from the bathroom and faces the wrong direction. Muslim leaders and academics who have toured Shangri La have commented that it is not such a big deal because the house is not a mosque.  While yes, this is true, it still demonstrates the fascination with the art as merely a generalized "Islamic art" object rather than what it truly means or signifies.

Mihrab

Perhaps what is most surprising to me, at least from what is written in the article, is the response from many guests once they enter and see the Islamic art collection.  Many are surprised to find that Muslims have such a vibrant culture and civilization, a reaction I think is symptomatic of how Muslims and Islam are portrayed (or not portrayed).  However, I do believe it is a good thing to have this collection available to the public, whatever the original intentions or motivations of the owner may have been.  Even if people are surprised at first at the level of sophistication and beauty of Islamic art, they leave having a better appreciation and understanding of it which they can relate to their friends and family.

First Things First: A Look at Orientalism.

Since this class, and subsequently this blog, is dedicated to the study of Islamic Cultures (how Islam is practiced around the world), I thought it would be appropriate to begin with a look at Orientalism and how it affects Western notions of not only the Middle East, but of Islam globally.

Orientalism is a term coined by Edward Said which essentially expresses the lens through which the West, whether in academia, art, or literature, has portrayed and generalized the "Orient." Orientalism has both created and perpetuated stereotypes of the Middle East, and Islam, that have come to be accepted as "truth" today. Some of these stereotypes include images of despotic rulers, tribal nomads, exotic landscapes and practices, and religious fanaticism.  These images are conjured in the minds of many westerners even though they may not have ever set foot in the Middle East, or more generally, the "Orient." It is this feeling of having first-hand knowledge of the Middle East, specifically, or the Orient, generally, that constitutes the basis of Orientalism.

In class, we watched a short film entitled "On Orientalism" in which Edward Said was interviewed and explained some facets of Orientalism.  In the film, some examples of how Orientalism is perpetuated today included many major Hollywood films where Arabs are consistently portrayed as violent extremists or terrorists.  The news media was also another place mentioned, as exemplified in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which the news media reported had all the signs of Middle Eastern extremists being responsible.  In fact, the FBI told people to be on the look out for three "Middle Eastern men" who were most likely to blame.  Once it was discovered that a white, Christian man was responsible for the bombing, there was no apology to the Arab community.  I suppose everyone just accepted that Arabs or "Middle Easterners" were inherently suspects in a bombing and therefore didn't warrant an apology.

I think this event highlights just how prevalent Orientalism is here in the United States.  What is most striking to me, however, is how even the FBI, without having any real evidence, just told the public to look out for "three Middle-Eastern men."  This statement, to me,  shows that Orientalism is not just a vague concept in academia, but ingrained stereotypes that even our own government perpetuates. I guess the larger questions would be: Why is it ok to stereotype "Middle Easterners"? Why Islam? Does every culture or civilization need "the other," or "them"?