Early/ Colonial Orientalism
Edward Said was one of the first scholars to introduce the idea of Orientalism, in his book titled Orientalism. Said’s Orientalism dealt mostly with Britain and France in the 18th century, and not the United States, because the U.S. was not yet a major world power. Scholars at the time lumped the Middle East, Near East, and Far East into one category, and “oriental” was used to describe all the regions. The Middle East, though, was the most important and pivotal region in shaping British and French perceptions. According to Said, “…it was in the Near Orient, the lands of the Arab Near East, where Islam was supposed to define cultural and racial characteristics, that the British and French encountered each other and ‘The Orient’ with the greatest intensity, familiarity, and complexity” (Said, pg. 41). He essentially defines Orientalism as a body of ideas, beliefs, and clichés regarding the Orient (Said, pg. 205). Specifically, the scholarly consensus was that the Orientals are uncivilized, liars, and altogether backwards (Said, pg. 207). It is from this early idea that later definitions of the term “Orientalism” are derived.
American Orientalism
In the first chapter of his book, American Orientalism, Douglas Little introduces the idea of Orientalism in America, defining Orientalism as a romanticized and stereotypical view of the Middle East, some of the Old World’s oldest civilizations. He argues that the missionaries, tourists, and merchants who sailed from America to the Eastern Mediterranean during the nineteenth century were, “appalled by the despotic governments and decadent societies that they encountered from Constantinople to Cairo” (Little, pg. 8). Then, Little asserts, the diplomats, oil men, and soldiers who were responsible for promoting and protecting U.S. interests and policies in the Middle East borrowed from the earlier intellectual history, as explained by Said, and adopted the 18th century British view of the Orient. They converted earlier cultural assumptions into an intellectual shorthand for handling the “backward” Muslims and “headstrong” Jews whose objectives were often not in line with the U.S. interests and objectives (Little, pg. 8-9). This view has become a staple of popular culture, and has permeated literature, films, journals, magazines, newspapers, and political cartoons. Moreover, this view has deeply affected American foreign policy outcomes.
Orientalism in Media and Popular Culture
One of the most enduring images of Oriental culture in American culture an in the American mindset is Disney’s beloved children’s film, Aladdin, released in 1992. This film is a prime example of Orientalism in American culture. As Little asserts, the film, “opens with a Saddam Hussein look-alike crooning ‘Arabian Nights’ (Little, pg. 11).
Saddam Hussein look-alike or not, the character does appear to be a highly caricaturized image of an actual person living in the Middle East. Even just compared to the image of Saddam Hussein, it is clear that certain features are very emphasized: the unnecessarily large nose, sinister-looking eyes, and turban.
This point is further argued in Jack Shaheen’s book, Reel Bad Arabs. He argues that Disney animators essentially Westernized or “anglicize” the film’s heroes, Aladdin, Princess Jasmine, and the Sultan. These characters appear as light-skinned and do not speak in accents. On the other hand, all of the other Arabs, including palace guards and merchants, are caricaturized as ruthless and uncivilized, portrayed with large, bulbous noses and sinister eyes, and they speak with crude Arabic accents.
Most importantly, though, Shaheen argues that, “Throughout, the action and dialogue imply that Arabs are abhorrent types, that Islam is a brutal religion” (Shaheen, pg. 57). As Little mentioned, the opening scene is particularly offensive. The original lyrics to “Arabian Nights” went:
Foreign Policy Outcomes
The United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East actually starts much earlier than one would expect. Colonialism, and the Sykes-Picot agreement shaped the region far before the United States became involved. Khalidi, in his book Resurrecting Empire, argues that until relatively recently, the relationship between the United States has been a positive one. Actually, according to Khalidi, “…the United States was often seen as a beacon of hope for those aspiring to democracy and freedom from foreign control” (Khalidi, pg. 31). The early Orientalism of the British and French ultimately shaped U.S. opinion and involvement. The relationship between the Middle East and other Western powers, however, was a different story. After WW I, the Sykes-Picot Agreement shaped European colonialism in the region. The Sykes-Picot Agreement was the basis of postwar division of the region into colonial influence between Britain and France. Britain had control of Palestine, and it waged a long, hard campaign to eventually conquer and establish control the region. There was a great deal of resistance, though, leading to a popular revolt against the British from 1936-1939. Khalidi poses an important question regarding this piece of history: what motivated poorly armed colonial subjects to rebel against the colonial state? At the time, Khalidi argues, “…the motivation of these Middle Eastern men and women was denigrated and demeaned in colonial accounts as ‘fanaticism’, rather than being seen as patriotism and a desire for freedom…” (Khalidi, pg. 28).
The most important event that changed the positive view of the United States held by much of the Middle East was the 1947-48 struggle over the partition of Palestine, in which the United States supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, documented by Geoffrey Wawro in his book Quicksand (pp. 102-104). Like the earlier rhetoric used by the British to justify colonialism, the U.S. wrote off concerns for Palestinian sovereignty. To give some background, in 1917 Britain released the Balfour Declaration, which explicitly stated British support for the creation of a Jewish state. In response to this, and to a growing wave of Zionism within the United States, the U.S. led a fact-finding mission aimed at gauging the level of support in the Middle East for a Jewish state in Palestine, which was supposed to determine whether or not the United States should support the creation of a Jewish state. The King-Crane commission, dispatched by Woodrow Wilson in 1919, discovered that the Arabs—even the Bedouin in the desert—wanted nothing to do with the British or the Jews. Nearly everyone in the region spoke emphatically against Zionism and the Balfour Declaration (Wawro, pg. 21). Yet on May 14, 1948, president Truman made the decision to recognize newly-proclaimed Israel as a state, despite the previous knowledge gained from the King-Crane commission that this would not be a popular decision in the region. Though this decision was far from the current almost unconditional support to Israel, it was an important landmark in our relations with the Middle East.
After this initial decision to support the creation of Israel almost immediately after Israel proclaimed statehood, our relationship evolved from passive support to active support. One particularly important even that marked the beginning of this major shift, as argued by Warren Bass in his book Support any Friend, was Kennedy's decision to sell Israel our Hawk surface-to-air missiles, just two years after the Eisenhower administration denied that same request on the grounds that the sale of the Hawk missiles would spark a regional arms race and undermine the United States' position in the Middle East (Bass, pg. 145). This decision marked the beginning of limited financial support for Israel. It was the 6-Day War, though, that truly marked the end of all efforts to avoid the appearance of favoritism to Israel. The events of the 6-Day War of acquisition for transformed Israel from a vulnerable country to a regional superpower, Wawro argues (pg. 276). Importantly, the U.S. did not force Israel to comply with U.N. resolution 242 and withdraw from the territories they had acquired during the conflict, which again echoes the Orientalist view that dismisses the sovereignty of the occupied Arab states as a concern. This led to a backlash from Arab leaders in the region, who agreed on the triple-no policy after the events of the 6-Day War: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with it" (Wawro pg. 287). The end result of this conflict, Wawro argues, was that U.S. prestige and credibility dropped to the lowest point it had been since American support of Israeli independence twenty years prior (Wawro, pg. 286).
Edward Said was one of the first scholars to introduce the idea of Orientalism, in his book titled Orientalism. Said’s Orientalism dealt mostly with Britain and France in the 18th century, and not the United States, because the U.S. was not yet a major world power. Scholars at the time lumped the Middle East, Near East, and Far East into one category, and “oriental” was used to describe all the regions. The Middle East, though, was the most important and pivotal region in shaping British and French perceptions. According to Said, “…it was in the Near Orient, the lands of the Arab Near East, where Islam was supposed to define cultural and racial characteristics, that the British and French encountered each other and ‘The Orient’ with the greatest intensity, familiarity, and complexity” (Said, pg. 41). He essentially defines Orientalism as a body of ideas, beliefs, and clichés regarding the Orient (Said, pg. 205). Specifically, the scholarly consensus was that the Orientals are uncivilized, liars, and altogether backwards (Said, pg. 207). It is from this early idea that later definitions of the term “Orientalism” are derived.
American Orientalism
In the first chapter of his book, American Orientalism, Douglas Little introduces the idea of Orientalism in America, defining Orientalism as a romanticized and stereotypical view of the Middle East, some of the Old World’s oldest civilizations. He argues that the missionaries, tourists, and merchants who sailed from America to the Eastern Mediterranean during the nineteenth century were, “appalled by the despotic governments and decadent societies that they encountered from Constantinople to Cairo” (Little, pg. 8). Then, Little asserts, the diplomats, oil men, and soldiers who were responsible for promoting and protecting U.S. interests and policies in the Middle East borrowed from the earlier intellectual history, as explained by Said, and adopted the 18th century British view of the Orient. They converted earlier cultural assumptions into an intellectual shorthand for handling the “backward” Muslims and “headstrong” Jews whose objectives were often not in line with the U.S. interests and objectives (Little, pg. 8-9). This view has become a staple of popular culture, and has permeated literature, films, journals, magazines, newspapers, and political cartoons. Moreover, this view has deeply affected American foreign policy outcomes.
Orientalism in Media and Popular Culture
One of the most enduring images of Oriental culture in American culture an in the American mindset is Disney’s beloved children’s film, Aladdin, released in 1992. This film is a prime example of Orientalism in American culture. As Little asserts, the film, “opens with a Saddam Hussein look-alike crooning ‘Arabian Nights’ (Little, pg. 11).
 |
| Disney's Character |
 |
| Saddam Hussein |
Saddam Hussein look-alike or not, the character does appear to be a highly caricaturized image of an actual person living in the Middle East. Even just compared to the image of Saddam Hussein, it is clear that certain features are very emphasized: the unnecessarily large nose, sinister-looking eyes, and turban.
This point is further argued in Jack Shaheen’s book, Reel Bad Arabs. He argues that Disney animators essentially Westernized or “anglicize” the film’s heroes, Aladdin, Princess Jasmine, and the Sultan. These characters appear as light-skinned and do not speak in accents. On the other hand, all of the other Arabs, including palace guards and merchants, are caricaturized as ruthless and uncivilized, portrayed with large, bulbous noses and sinister eyes, and they speak with crude Arabic accents.
 |
| Villains: Caricaturized |
 |
| Heros (Westernized) |
Oh I come from a land,In 1993, the LA Times published an article titled, “Disney Will Alter Song in‘Aladdin’". Changes were agreed upon after Arab-Americans complained that some lyrics were racist. Some Arab groups not satisfied”. The article explained that after a wave of criticism from Arab-Americans, Disney agreed to change the most offensive lyrics in Aladdin, so that the opening song now went:
From a faraway place,
Where the caravan camels roam.
Where they cut off your ear,
If they don’t like your face,
It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.
Oh, I come from a land,Overall, though, this one minor change to a lyric was not enough to change the nature of the film. An opinion piece published in the New York Times, titled, “It’s Racist, But Hey, It’s Disney”, responded to the changes, stating that though the change was progress, it was still an unacceptable. The piece explains in an incredibly eloquent manner why Arab-Americans were still so upset about how Arabs had been represented by Disney, in relation to the political atmosphere of the Middle East at the time:
From a faraway place,
Where the caravan camels roam,
Where it’s flat and immense,
And the heat is intense,
It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.
They find it difficult enough that Saddam Hussein is the villain du jour and that terrorists from Arab countries have recently threatened New York. The difficulties mount when policemen in Iran imprison women for showing their hair, or mullahs issue death warrants against authors they consider blasphemous. But the ayatollahs of Iran don’t represent all Arabs, nor all Muslims—just as sleazy televangelists don’t represent all Christians, or all Americans.This stereotypical view of Arabs and Muslims begins at childhood in America. Children who watch Aladdin are not able to pick up on the nuances of the film, or able to make the connection that the film is not an accurate portrayal of life in the Middle East. Later in life, this type of stereotypical portrayal of the Middle East, Arabic culture, and of Islam continues in the movies that depict war in the Middle East. As Shaheen argues in his comprehensive review of exactly these types of movies, most include negative racial slurs. To conclude his work, he does offer a list of recommended films, but the list of those which are not recommended far outnumber those films with an accurate portrayal of Arabs.
Foreign Policy Outcomes
The United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East actually starts much earlier than one would expect. Colonialism, and the Sykes-Picot agreement shaped the region far before the United States became involved. Khalidi, in his book Resurrecting Empire, argues that until relatively recently, the relationship between the United States has been a positive one. Actually, according to Khalidi, “…the United States was often seen as a beacon of hope for those aspiring to democracy and freedom from foreign control” (Khalidi, pg. 31). The early Orientalism of the British and French ultimately shaped U.S. opinion and involvement. The relationship between the Middle East and other Western powers, however, was a different story. After WW I, the Sykes-Picot Agreement shaped European colonialism in the region. The Sykes-Picot Agreement was the basis of postwar division of the region into colonial influence between Britain and France. Britain had control of Palestine, and it waged a long, hard campaign to eventually conquer and establish control the region. There was a great deal of resistance, though, leading to a popular revolt against the British from 1936-1939. Khalidi poses an important question regarding this piece of history: what motivated poorly armed colonial subjects to rebel against the colonial state? At the time, Khalidi argues, “…the motivation of these Middle Eastern men and women was denigrated and demeaned in colonial accounts as ‘fanaticism’, rather than being seen as patriotism and a desire for freedom…” (Khalidi, pg. 28).
The most important event that changed the positive view of the United States held by much of the Middle East was the 1947-48 struggle over the partition of Palestine, in which the United States supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, documented by Geoffrey Wawro in his book Quicksand (pp. 102-104). Like the earlier rhetoric used by the British to justify colonialism, the U.S. wrote off concerns for Palestinian sovereignty. To give some background, in 1917 Britain released the Balfour Declaration, which explicitly stated British support for the creation of a Jewish state. In response to this, and to a growing wave of Zionism within the United States, the U.S. led a fact-finding mission aimed at gauging the level of support in the Middle East for a Jewish state in Palestine, which was supposed to determine whether or not the United States should support the creation of a Jewish state. The King-Crane commission, dispatched by Woodrow Wilson in 1919, discovered that the Arabs—even the Bedouin in the desert—wanted nothing to do with the British or the Jews. Nearly everyone in the region spoke emphatically against Zionism and the Balfour Declaration (Wawro, pg. 21). Yet on May 14, 1948, president Truman made the decision to recognize newly-proclaimed Israel as a state, despite the previous knowledge gained from the King-Crane commission that this would not be a popular decision in the region. Though this decision was far from the current almost unconditional support to Israel, it was an important landmark in our relations with the Middle East.
After this initial decision to support the creation of Israel almost immediately after Israel proclaimed statehood, our relationship evolved from passive support to active support. One particularly important even that marked the beginning of this major shift, as argued by Warren Bass in his book Support any Friend, was Kennedy's decision to sell Israel our Hawk surface-to-air missiles, just two years after the Eisenhower administration denied that same request on the grounds that the sale of the Hawk missiles would spark a regional arms race and undermine the United States' position in the Middle East (Bass, pg. 145). This decision marked the beginning of limited financial support for Israel. It was the 6-Day War, though, that truly marked the end of all efforts to avoid the appearance of favoritism to Israel. The events of the 6-Day War of acquisition for transformed Israel from a vulnerable country to a regional superpower, Wawro argues (pg. 276). Importantly, the U.S. did not force Israel to comply with U.N. resolution 242 and withdraw from the territories they had acquired during the conflict, which again echoes the Orientalist view that dismisses the sovereignty of the occupied Arab states as a concern. This led to a backlash from Arab leaders in the region, who agreed on the triple-no policy after the events of the 6-Day War: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with it" (Wawro pg. 287). The end result of this conflict, Wawro argues, was that U.S. prestige and credibility dropped to the lowest point it had been since American support of Israeli independence twenty years prior (Wawro, pg. 286).
Throughout these two main events that forged the current relationship the U.S. has with Israel, Orientalism shaped the way the U.S. viewed the Middle East, especially regarding states' desire to protect their own sovereignty.
Other Options
Of course, though, scholars argue that it is other factors that have caused the Middle East to experience turmoil and unrest, not an Orientalist mindset or any specific policies that the U.S. has pursued. One such scholar who is noted in his field is Bernard Lewis. In his article, "What Went Wrong?", Lewis argues that, "...underlying much of the Muslim world's travail may be a simple lack of freedom". Lewis argues that blaming the West for the issues in the Middle East is problematic because Western influence and rule during colonial times was due to internal weakness already present. Lewis further asserts that the rise of nationalism (the force driving Arab desire for sovereignty) further hurt the countries, because nationalism allowed Arabs to place the blame for their failures elsewhere. To conclude his article, Lewis asserts that democratic governments, not a recognition of sovereignty, is what the Muslim world needs to succeed, but provides a rather dismal prognosis.
However, this argument falls short, mostly because it is evident that Lewis himself falls prey to the Orientalist mindset which still pervades American culture. This is painfully evident in another article, titled, "The Roots of Muslim Rage", that he wrote regarding the causes of Anti-Americanism. Rather than blame specific policy failures due to an overall Orientalist mindset, Lewis argues that, "At first the Muslim response to Western civilization was one of admiration and emulation- an immense respect for the achievements of the West, and a desire to imitate and adopt them. This desire arose from a keen and growing awareness of the weakness, poverty, and backwardness of the Islamic world as compared with the advancing West". Lewis fails to recognize the Muslim people as capable of possessing a legitimate desire to protect their culture and protect their sovereignty from outside threats, including the invasion of Jewish people into Palestine to create a country in that region.
Conclusion
In the end, it is clear that Orientalism, a stereotypical view of the Middle East, has become deeply embedded into American culture through media, films, literature, and even scholarly arguments. Orientalism shapes our perception on foreign policy as individuals and as a nation, and is an important factor which has led to U.S. support for Israel, an ongoing policy that has not only angered Arabs, but jeopardized diplomatic U.S. relations with the rest of the Arab world.
I really liked the use of Aladdin as an example of Orientalism in the media of America and of how it influences children about the Middle East and how it echoed public perception of the Middle East at that time. I think Disney has always done a bad job portraying people in different cultures throughout their movies, even ones that have a positive light to them and with strong female protagonists (Pocahontas and Mulan coming to mind). I do believe that America’s steadfast support with Israel as being one main reason for the change of attitudes in the Middle East of the United States. However, I think that Orientalism is better shown in America’s other operations in the Middle East, such as supporting the Shah of Iran in the 50’s in his overthrow of a democratically elected government, or the more contemporary example of the invasion of Iraq for the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Both of these show how America has used the region to further their own needs against a region that is too uncivilized.
ReplyDeleteThe affect Orientalism has on the United States culture is interesting. I wonder how this concept changed after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The attacks probably increased the Orientalist thinking of a backward, violent Middle East, and American culture would reflect that kind of thinking in its arts and entertainment. After those events I bet one could see a large increase in the amount of generic Muslim or Arab “bad guy” characters in American entertainment. Television series like 24 come to mind, with common storylines about Muslim terrorists. Its also interesting to note that Aladdin came out in 1992 right after the First Gulf War had concluded in 1991. I wonder if the fact that the United States had just engaged in a high successful military campaign against Iraq had anything to do with the portrayals of the guards or the Saddam lookalike merchant in the opening scene of the movie.
ReplyDeleteYour blog, particularly the first part about media reinforcing orientalist views in America, reminded me of a book I read in another political science class of mine, Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940. Even though the book was about discrimination against blacks, not peoples from Asia and the Middle East, the author made a comment that I found to be particularly relevant. “A picture, a representation, could convey contradictions and evoke oppositions like white racial supremacy, white racial innocence, and white racial dependency more easily and persuasively than a carefully plotted story.” The example you used of Aladdin and Jasmine being ‘westernized’ is just as potent as the caricaturization of the villains. As I was reading your post, I began thinking about other examples of blatant Orientalism in American culture, such as Nicki Minaj’s “Your Love” music video and Iggy Azalea’s “Bounce” in which they sexualize Japanese and Indian culture respectively. It’s incredible how much images like these contribute to how Americans views the Middle East and Asia and how it influences their political alignment. How would you suggest Americans go about combatting these overt misconceptions of foreign culture?
ReplyDeleteLooking at Orientalism and the effects that is has had on US foreign policy is very interesting. You did well at pointing out how children here in the US, while they don’t know it, are thrown into thinking about the Middle East as scary and violent because of the Disney movie Aladdin. I also agree with you about how the American notion of Orientalism directly reflects our foreign policy strategies in the region. Like you said, back in the day we had pretty positive relations with the countries in the region, however, our lack of listening to what the citizens said during the King-Crane Commission and supporting something (the creation of Israel) the Arabs strongly disagreed with started our decline in relations with the region as a whole. While there are many different factors that play into the current situation and violence in the Middle East right now, the United State’s intervention and considering the society as a backward culture has played a huge part in present situtation. Do you think there is any way that relations could be repaired, or is this going to be an ongoing thing for centuries to come?
ReplyDeleteYou chose a current and important topic to research, and provided an interesting perspective on it. I do believe anti-Muslim rhetoric is used as propaganda to support political agendas. But regarding Israel, I never made as many connections as you did, such as to popular culture. Children are unknowingly indoctrinated into believing stereotypes through the images portrayed to them in movies, etc. They associate people and regions with the attributes they are given in such movies, etc. But because the medium seems “innocent”, little if any attention is received to the severe problems it can cause. I think there are also other issues that contribute to attitudes towards and perceptions of the Middle East and the people there. I think some “religious” leaders, and political figures, use a misconstrued interpretation and application of religious tenets to support their greedy and selfish agendas in the Middle East. Israel is an important place for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, so the subject can be very sensitive, and is a priority to many religious people, who are manipulated by authorities and officials.
ReplyDeleteObviously there is a great deal of Middle Eastern history and politics as well as American foreign policy that I was not able to cover in this blog post. I do agree that Orientalism was present during the fall of the Shah of Iran in the 50s, but I also think that there was a great deal more at play here, and I think Orientalism may have actually played a more minor role in this situation that was overall plagued by a bad decision-making process that involved the control of the flow of information by one actor within the process. One important aspect I did not address in this post was the change in attitudes after 9/11, when hate crimes towards Muslims drastically increased and have not decreased since. This event was extremely important in further cementing Americans’ idea that the Arab world is backward and uncivilized. Orientalism certainly played into our perception of this event and into following the “war on terror”. Regarding ways to fix relations, I think Orientalism plays into how we view the Arab world, and I think it also affects our view of the anti-Americanism that we are currently experiencing. We tend to write this off instead of addressing it as a legitimate grievance, and I think a better education on the Middle East starting much younger is one way to begin to address this perception. Also important to addressing our relations with the Middle East will be re-evaluating our policy and support of Israel, through a less Orientalist mindset. Change will not come easy, but I do believe that if the steps are taken, the U.S. could begin to repair relations with the Middle East.
ReplyDelete