fall2008|islammedia&thewest

I mean to post about this a few weeks ago, but it got away from me.

On November 16, Daniel Smith of New York Magazine published a piece entitled "Escape to Dubai" for the publication - it highlights the recent exodus of Westerners to the "hotly speculative Middle Eastern insta-metropolis" of Dubai, which I found to be very apropos in light of the lecture on October 29. As Smith writes, a growing number of Westerners have been all but fleeing to the economic playground of Dubai since the ground in the West began to crack, which - as I will explain in this blog - is a mind-boggling paradox, considering the West's involvement in that part of the world that is largely seen as negative and destructive.

I think that it is a very intriguing article from the get-go: Smith first profiles a young 24-year-old graduate of Dallas Baptist University named Brooke Butler, whose dreams of earning one million dollars within a year are so plausible and definite that it brought a tear to my impoverished bank account and mound of student debt. At times I couldn't tell if Smith was cheerleading for or warning against a young person's move to Dubai, as lucrative an enterprise as it clearly is for many.

What I found particularly eye-opening within the first few paragraphs of the article was Ms. Butler's invocation of the fact that she is actually in the Middle East, saying, “It doesn’t feel like you’re in the Middle East,” she says. “You really have to remind yourself sometimes, like, ‘I’m in the Middle East!’ It’s like you can be in this part of the world that’s booming but it doesn’t feel like you are. It feels like you’re in … New York City! You’re somewhere else.” Part of me senses that her visions of the Middle East - like those of many, many Americans - are of poor beggars, unslightly poverty, roaming terrorists (Middle-Eastern and American alike), and U.S. Army humvees scouting locations everywhere: yet, Dubai is so clearly removed from that vision, and from that reality that exists for so many people in that area of the world.

With the Western economy becoming more and more endangered, I would have to imagine that I am definitely not the only person who finds Western interest in working and living in the Middle-Eastern Dubai a remarkable irony, given the negative mediatized perceptions that so much of the Western population has of that part of the world. Although, as Smith points out, Dubai's economy is not immune to the collapse of the West's, a real estate development employee in Dubai said how the attitude there is like this: “What they are saying is, ‘The USA economic policies destroyed the whole world and dragged us down with it; once that enormous weight is off the world economy’s shoulders, Dubai will bounce right back.’ ” Smith evokes the questionable draw of Dubai to young American entrepreneurs when he writes, "Seen on a map, Dubai wouldn’t appear to be the most American-friendly environment. Located on the southern coast of the Persian Gulf, it is surrounded by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and, slightly farther to the east, Pakistan": are the tides turning, then?

What's also interesting is Smith questioning if Dubai is truly an escape from modern economic hardships, or just a mirage. As discussed in lecture, Dubai is a land of epic mirage: international cultural fixtures become replicated in a Las Vegas-esque quest for spectacle, selling itself more for the aesthetics than anything. As the same real estate development employee said at the end of the article, "“Mark my words, it’s going to be a lot better here than anywhere else. And if it’s not, well … then the world’s going to shit anyway.”

So is Dubai really a haven in the wake of economic hardship? That's hard to say. It is a booming economic stronghold, with an ever-increasing population that has seen rampant development over just several years. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it sure seems like the opposite is true of Dubai. As Sheik Mohammed said in the "60 Minutes" interview, when asked why Dubai has to have the highest buildings, the most rampant development, the most steady economy: "Why not?" The new visual lexicon of the Middle East is being fed from the visions of Dubai's developers, so can it be said that our vision of the Middle East in its entirety is under development as well? Is this notion of the Middle East as an untapped reserve only true when its oil is not considered?

You can read the article here: Escape to Dubai [New York Magazine]

I'm not only posting this because I love Molly dearly, but also because I want to expound upon the point of "celebrity terrorism."

The state of mainstream media is truly deplorable: I think that, for the most part, the majority of us can agree on that. While many members of the media are respectable journalists who are trying to communicate an honest opinion on world happenings to their awaiting audiences, the media - like us, as a population, have been for many, many, many many many MANY years - is privy to highlighting spectacle - creating an event that is composed of easily-recognizable images and rhetoric that are thereby paralleled with an event that is otherwise truly terrifying. Although, I would be wrong to blame the media entirely: while they do have the power, millions of us tune into these media channels religiously every week, thus legitimizing their means through which we are given news in our modernized, fast-paced, ADD-esque culture.

Terrorist attacks have indeed been created into spectacle events, particularly since September 11th: well, I guess terrorist attacks happen every single day all over the world, but those "smaller" ones are gingerly swept to the side in favor of bigger, larger death toll-ridden stories that prove that America is being threatened, even if the attack occurs abroad.

I remember when the massacre at Virginia Tech occurred: I was the primetime production intern at MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," which became the uber-spectacle station to watch because that was the network who was sent a video made by the crazed student. While I agree with Molly's point that these students were trying to achieve some level of celebrity and acknowledgment, it goes a lot deeper than that, as she points out: this kid was mentally depraved, and while terrorist attack overseers are also given the reputation of being blood-thirsty madmen - and thus on par with this terribly disturbed college student - (and I know I'm going to be manhandled for this opinion, probably) bin Laden and other terrorist attack coordinators are conducting their business in the same manner as Western armies in their neck of the woods: they have a point to make, a new society to seek out, and so do "we."

But I digress.

People who "achieve" "great acts" in any society are legitimized by media, and are thus celebratized: Robert Pattison wouldn't have wound up with such an increase in his paycheck if the CEOs in Hollywood thought that "Twilight" was going to blow chunks, Britney Spears wouldn't have been plastered all over the television when she had a mental breakdown if she wasn't an internationally-renowned pop singer, and the images of 9/11 wouldn't have been so magnified - as well as Osama bin Laden's likeness - had the event not had threatened the United States and Western ideals and interests, nor legitimized the common notion that those hailing from the Middle East are barbaric anti-American serial killers, nor had been conducted on the scale on which it did.

In the wake of the devastating and truly sad, multi-area and thoroughly-orchestrated terrorist attacks on tourist and "Westernized" centers in Mumbai, I agree with Molly in questioning our media's constant coverage of carnage: although I am not entirely behind it, I do have to wonder if the media is truly responsible for legitimizing terror and making it a part of our daily lives. Through the intensified reproduction of images and rhetoric, we are cast into positions of fear, whereby we rely on others to tell us how to react, how to feel, how to engage. I do believe that we are perpetuating the cycle of terrorism by legitimizing those individuals who orchestrate the attacks, but I think that pointing the finger in one direction is unfair. I think that we need to take a look in the mirror at our own hypocritical nature and come to a decision.

I was admittedly very hesitant to write about this earlier, but seeing as though it's the end of the semester, I thought that I would give it a shot.

To get it out in the open: I love Bill Maher, even moreso than I love Sami Yusuf (ask our beloved Lauren Bohn). With that said, I believe that the majority of the problems that I have had in discussing my opinions in this class this semester in a scholarly manner is the fact that my usual academic rhetoric has been eclipsed with my cynical frustrations about the nature of religion. I was brought up in a very, very agnostic family - I am Jewish by blood, agnostic by belief, much like Mr. Maher himself. I recall seeing his brilliant film "Religulous" hours before meeting with Molly and Amy to discuss a paper for this class, and when I met with them, I was in a cynic's daydream: what's the point of writing a paper about religion and media when I think that religion is a homogenizing mechanism?

Then it came to me: I can just write about that.

For those of you who have not seen "Religulous," Bill Maher - essentially - takes his cynical comedy schtich all over the world, interviewing religious leaders and religious individuals about the nature of religious belief, which is particularly apropos in this current climate of neo-conservative religious leaders from all over the world, spreading the "gospel" of their faiths through sociopolitical actions (i.e.; 9/11, The War on Terror... for those who haven't been listening). As Dubya so poignantly pointed out (and as Maher so brilliantly elicits), "I believe that God wants everyone to be free, and that's one part of my... foreign policy!"

As Maher points out, is religion to blame for the world's ills? Well, yes - when you have high-powered political leaders who are making incredibly important global decisions in certain societies that recognize the separation of church (or whatever) and state, then problems amount. As he says in the documentary, "You do not possess mental powers that I don't" - meaning that you can't prove that something exists when other people can't prove it themselves. When you take religion away from political action - from ANY time period in human history - how much sway does the leader have, then, really?

Who is to say that leaders are mandated by a higher power to reign over us? Maybe I'm too cynical, too secular, too non-academic in my beliefs when it comes to religion, but the politicization and mediatization of religion is truly horrifying to non-believers in a world that is constantly on the brink of one disaster or another. No, I do not see it as a sign of the apocalypse, but of vast human error that is not predicated on to whom or what one prays.

As the consensus on RottenTomatoes states, "Religulous is funny and offensive in equal measure, and aims less to change hearts and minds than to inspire conversation," and in that way, I think that Maher has accomplished his goal: to inspire conversation amongst populations - local, national, international - about the role that religion plays in our global political arena, and the dangers of how big of a role it truly plays. Not only does he poke at religion in a way that is unique to Maher, but he truly fears for the future of the world in which religion dictates the lives and the futures of everyone, when for so many people - largely undeclared - it is a unknown trove. As Joe Neumaier of the New York Daily News writes in his interview of the film, "What [Maher] does do finally in this funny, refreshing movie is assert how unrestrained religiosity could guarantee the 'end days' many of his subjects admit to looking forward to." Sit on that.

Joe Neumaier's Film Review: Oh God! 'Religulous' features Bill Maher in 'Real Time'

+ = response to the thread

thread: I like these previews for the end of the world that we keep getting.
+ I can't figure it out; are we pre- or post- Rapture?
+ pre-rapture. Unless real Christian have been taken and we are left with the rest.
+ I was monitoring the Twitter feed for "#mumbai" and some fundy kept plugging their "end times" website/newsletter.

see: "Religious: The Long-Awaited Entry"

What I find particularly interesting about Gawker is not only its oft-times satirical play on news - pointing out the hilarity in the stories that are being broadcasted to audiences by multi-billion dollar networks - but also because of its honesty. At the end of Alex Pareene's article - that lists the blog's top four favorite horrific descriptions of the violence in Mumbai by various news outlets, including the New York Times - he writes, "Don't forget to 'Digg It', everyone!", making a reference to the content-sharing community that "surfaces the best stuff as voted on by our users."

It's definitely cynical, and callous, but it also makes a fair observation on the introduction of terrorism into all of our lives, with it becoming a common occurrence that we are immune to until something truly horrible happens, then we are thrust into a well-coordinated veil of fear until we are told that things have been quelled. As Pareene may or may not be alluding to, sarcastically or not, these headlines are meant to not only report on the carnage, but to instill fear into as broad a population as possible. Mission accomplished?

Gawker entry: Nearly 200 Dead in India's Worst Terror Attack of All Time Ever

I found this article by Jim Muir to be a heartwarming piece

BBC Article: Taxi revolution on Tehran streets (there's even a video! yay!)

Supplemental BBC Article: Iran hires first woman bus driver

[will write more soon]

I'm just curious (and not just because I work for the guy):

How many of you have seen "Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?"... ?

AND: What did you think?

I can't write my opinion - regardless of its pro- or anti- leaning - at the risk of getting my head chopped off, but I'm curious as to what my classmates think.

After a news report was given to interior ministers during a meeting of the EU, several countries have said that they are ready and willing to accept Iraqi refugees who are now camping out on the streets in states of extreme poverty and emotional strife, with priority to be given to those with medical needs, as well as those who are torture victims, single mothers and religious minorities. Sweden has already played a major part in the relief effort for these refugees - having an Iraqi community of about 100,000 people - and is trying to motivate other countries in the EU to help.

The article writes how most Iraqi refugees have been taken in by the United States, Canada and Australia, yet - at least to me - this comes as a somewhat shocking report, for I have never heard of this happening in our country. Perhaps I have not been up on current events, but from what I know, this is not a widely-reported fact in our national media.

What I find to be so extremely sad is the notion of the refugee camps increasing in population yet decreasing in security and quality every day. As always, I am an idealist, but this is such a tremendous disappointment. Many of these refugees have set themselves up in Jordan and Syria, yet this dilapidated and chaotic way of living is no way for ANYONE to live.

BBC Article: EU ready to accept 10,000 Iraqis