Culture Wars

Ariane R., post 12

2007-12-13T11:39:00.000-05:00

Hello All...
Since I am very clearly procrastinating from writing my essays for my final exam I figured I might as well hop on the bandwagon and spread some cheer to all my fellow bloggers. David this was a very good idea if based only on the grounds that it gives me a somewhat valid sounding excuse not to do my work. I mean what can sound more official and worthy of one's time then another Culture Wars blog?
Anyways... here are some cartoons you might enjoy. We think it...they speak it!

click here for bigger pic

Ashley C. Post 13

2007-12-12T22:52:00.001-05:00

Look guys! It's David!!!!

P.S. David would like it to be know that he, David Vanderford Celis, came up with the idea for the blog. No one wants to incur his wrath.

Kim Post 12

2007-12-12T22:37:00.000-05:00

Kim tends to agree with Ashley that Justin and David are rather ridiculous; however, she is intrigued at the idea of continuing blog posts. (After all, Kim has really begun to miss these things.)
Kim is also curious to see if anyone else will join in on the craze... CALLING ALL CULTURE WARRIORS, HOP ON THE BAND WAGON! It's like the partridge family, only much more dysfunctional. YAY for crack babies! :D (jk of course)

Ashley C. Post 12

2007-12-12T22:32:00.000-05:00

Dear CW Blog,

Today I realized what enormous losers David and Justin are. It's sad really.

Love,
Ashley

Justin Wright Post 12

2007-12-12T22:24:00.000-05:00

Well it looks like this class is over. But why let this blog go to waste? I’ve always wanted somewhere to write about my daily activities so I think I will take the opportunity to share them with the other members of my class.

Today I had a physics review, so I had to get up kind of early. 9:30, which was early compared to when David woke up. He said the only thing he remembered from this morning was me opening and shutting the door about twenty times. That’s why when I sleep, I use earplugs.

Some drunk people were hollering over their game of Madden NFL this morning, which made me want to go home even more. I kind of miss my dog too.

Shea went home today and David and I were a bit upset to see her go. We’ll be pretty bored as we play Dawn of War and World of Warcraft until Friday.

I think tension is starting to mount between me and David. Today he made a post on his blog about how loud my rave music is. I wear headphones so he doesn’t have to hear it! Ughhh maybe I should tell him how annoying it is to hear him studying late at night when I try to go to bed at 11 pm. Those page turns don’t need to be that loud. I don’t know how I’m going to live through another semester like this!

David Celis Post 12

2007-12-12T21:56:00.001-05:00

Dear Blag,

Well, it's the end of the semester now. I am almost done with all of my finals (only chemistry remains), and then it's home sweet home. Christmas break will be a lot of fun. I have a bunch of family coming to visit us in Tampa. My oldest brother and his wife, my middle brother and his girlfriend, several aunts/uncles, cousins, and one grandma will be visiting. This will also be the first winter break since middle school where I will have no work to do. High school winter breaks were ridiculous; biology projects over Christmas? Are you freaking serious?

I'm very glad classes are over now. High school ---> college was a big jump! I definitely wasn't ready for my honors course. I am so used to being a normal honors student where I can slack off, procrastinate, and use SparkNotes; none of this fake honors rubbish. That reminds me, I am considering taking a music minor along with my psychology major. While the two, I realize, are completely unrelated, I've always loved music so I figure why not? Speaking of music, Justin is listening to his rave music right now, and I can hear it through his headphones.

TURN OFF YOUR DAMN RAVE MUSIC, JUSTIN!

But I digress. You may be wondering why I am writing to you right now, oh dearest Culture Wars Blag. Truth be told, I don't quite know. Right now, all I care about is evading Candlejack... I think he's after me.

... Oh my god, I just said Candleja

Morgan, Post 11

2007-11-15T09:42:00.000-05:00

Morgan Frost

1.) War images become “official” through repetition and their power to symbolize ideologies. The image achieves this “official” status from government and media support. It is backed by the government’s effort to keep it in circulation, and the media prints it in magazines and newspapers, plasters it on billboards, and floods the televisions. War becomes a single moment, whether in a real photograph or a cartoon-drawn image, and ideas are represented within this moment. The reason these ideas are supported by the government and by the people (either of their own accord or as a result of the government-supported media portrayal) is that they confirm specific identities of the nation that are desirable in a time of war. These identities are based on patriotism and concepts the nation considers itself to hold valuable, such as human rights and environmental welfare. The “official” image depicts exactly what mass society wants to believe about its government and the role it plays in the war. It embodies the very reasons we justify our fighting, as well as the reasons we believe our cause is worth soldiers’ lives. We want to believe that our part in the war is for the better of the world, and so the “official” image strokes our ego and confirms this for us. Inevitably the image possesses a political agenda, but it is one we want to uphold as a nation. “Official” war images serve exactly the purpose Plato describes in The Republic, one of empowering the nation toward unification and progress.

The following images satisfy their position of being “official” through similar portrayals of American ideology. The first displays an American soldier helping a small Iraqi child. Not only does this show the generosity and compassion of Americans in bringing medicine to those less fortunate, but the happy mother in the background shows us approval and gratitude for our actions from the Iraqis. The second image shows Muslims and Christians working together to reopen St. Jude’s. This image becomes a sign that America can spread religious tolerance, and bring peace to people. The third image is from an article titled “The Good War on Terror,” and we are shown the American soldiers are proud of their comrades who have died fighting for such a noble cause. The last picture is of the toppling of the Hussein statue, which is meant to represent the dictatorship he held over the people of Iraq. With its destruction we associate the coming of democracy, brought by America and shown to be supported by the Iraqi people. All of these images work to promote the “official” status, through representation of patriotism, democracy, freedom, secularism, and humanitarianism. Through “official” images we see exactly what we want to see—proof in the nobility of our beautiful country, America.

2.) In “Regarding the Torture of Others” Susan Sontag may present the argument that images should be ignored as ideological and that we should focus rather on the events depicted by the photo. But this she addresses as a factor in the corruption of American leadership. Sontag herself does not deny the capacity of photographs to hold ideological values. She recognizes that they are causing an issue not just because of “what the photographs reveal to have happened,” but also as a result of more implicit meanings the images possess. Sontag addresses that a further problem is that the pictures were used as “trophies” and the “perpetrators apparently had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show.” She hardly wants us to ignore the images as separate from ideologies when she makes the claim that they illustrate the “culture of shamelessness (and) the reigning admiration for unapologetic brutality” that has increasingly become accepted as entertainment in America (Sontag).

An analysis of the pictures and not necessarily of their depictions, however, reveals even further portrayals of ideologies. As Susan Libby explains in her “Culture/War” article, elements of the picture itself such as camera angle, character of being an “everyday picture,” gaze of the people present, and even the fact that someone controlled the camera as the picture was taken all play a part in a picture’s ideological implications. These specific aspects when applied to the Abu Ghraib photographs reveal principles of domination, control, and inequality (Libby). They become dangerous as they are circulated to the public, and these ideologies are presented to society through the visual representations.

What is depicted in the Abu Ghraib photos directly reflects many of the same ideologies that can be found in the analysis of the pictures as vernacular photography. This can actually lessen the degree of harmful potential because those who do not accept the explicit are likely to not accept the implicit either. Thus in this case viewers of the public can reject the violence they see being depicted simultaneously with the latent ideas of domination and control. As Libby points out, visual representation is about “controlling our knowledge,” something that is utilized heavily in the political world. The real dangers arise when ideologies are imbedded within a picture that people accept. The best example of this concept is a picture that actually depicts something agreeable with the viewer, but is imbedded as an image with ideological ideas possessing harmful values. An image previously discussed in this course, Roses for Stalin by Vladimirski shows an agreeable photo of children giving roses to Joseph Stalin. Some underlying messages here that can be delivered furtively through the positive exterior are of communism, dictatorship, and male domination. This idea of the public more readily identifying accepting the explicit part of the image and consequently accepting the implicit is discussed in “Mass Media and the Public Sphere” as the “hypodermic effect” effect of mass media. This refers to “an increased passivity in viewers ‘drugged’ by media texts with less explicitly political messages.” When performed, it can become a “means of domination” on the masses of people by “‘selling’ them ideas through the media” (Sturken). Photos can have the same effect even if they have parallel meanings, but that are used to represent something that is not congruent with the two. Take the example of when only pictures that project a positive image of our efforts in a war are shown. The actual depiction may be something positive just as the ideologies represent (see photos from question #1), but they do not offer the full scope of the situation. The negative aspects are not represented. As to what is harmful ideology is to a degree up to discretion, but when the minds of the masses can be controlled by hidden or completely absent ideologies, there is great danger in the corruption of societies.

The separation of the photos from ideologies does make for successful politics, though. Those in the Bush Administration can then claim to be shocked and appalled at the photos, since they do not represent the “‘true nature and heart of America’” (Sontag). This separation, though, is like putting on a neck brace—they can cover up the problem and prevent further damage, but they are not actually going in and reconstructing and fixing the framework. And yet do we blame them so readily without any ideas of alternative methods? Analyzing ideologies and working to change them requires the removal of longstanding accepted ideas. Not only does it require the deconstruction of present ideologies, but new ones must be ready to successfully establish in their absence. This takes a great amount of time and effort, and the people of a country need immediate attention as well as perseverance through time. And we cannot forget that new ideologies can most certainly not be accepted or instilled by authorities who the masses do not trust.

2.) With all of this in mind it is important not only for those in control of the dissemination of images to be conscious of the vulnerable public they are providing for, but it is important for us as viewers to be critical of the information we are presented. Censorship has many fine lines, and there should be differences between what can be shown in an elementary school classroom and what an adult citizen can view by choice. Images of war may be kept from the view of younger audiences, but should not be kept from the public at large, especially the public of the country actually in the war. The exhibition of photographs is just as important during war as during a time of peace. Just because something is already in progress does not constitute the need for its continuation, and photos that question the movement of the war thus become very important in its path. The Abu Ghraib photos provide a perfect demonstration of the horrors of war that we are often sheltered from. Without exhibition, actions may not be accounted for, and the terrible things people are capable of can be allowed to proceed. By excusing accountability we often excuse responsibility, and not only can actions continue, but the dangers can escalate if those performing them have no one watching and thereby no one holding them accountable. Alas it is evident that even the exposition of these horrors does not always lead to their demise, but we cannot expect anything to change if the images remain hidden from the public eye.

Justin Wright Post 11

2007-11-14T23:42:00.000-05:00

1. War images can become official through government or media proclamation. In either case, such images must be easily recognizable and also emotionally charged in order to come into widespread use. These images are usually propagated by the media, which will reuse them again and again in order to avoid the need to find new material of the same quality, and because of viewer identification with the images due to familiarity. If the images reinforce a particular view of a war, then this view must be held by a large majority of the people in order to become well known.

The first image, perhaps the most widely known so far of the Iraq War, is of the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue after the invasion. There are actually hundreds of images of this – because it was staged as a media event by the military. Civilians were brought in from a village to produce a fake crowd, and they watched as the statue was pulled down. In most photographs, it appears as if a large crowd was present but this was due to the framing of the picture. In this particular shot, the large empty areas can be seen, making it evident that support for America was not as strong as the typical images of this event suggest.

The photograph of a detainee in a black shroud and hood standing on the box is the most often reproduced image of the Abu Ghraib photographs, which number over eighteen hundred. This image is most often used because it is not offensive, and the media tries to self censor itself in order to keep viewers. The more sexual Abu Ghraib photographs are typically not shown. Also the anonymous man (who has since been identified, but he is still masked) stands on a box that resembles a pedestal, while spreading his arms in the typical pose of the martyr – the cross. But instead of having his hands nailed, they are attached to electrodes, a more modern version of a painful death. These images were originally taken to serve the interest of the soldiers who conducted interrogations, but now they have been used by anti-war activists as the icon of protest.

A picture from a gallery on the official White House website entitled “Photos of Freedom” shows marines distributing food to civilians. The behavior in the photograph is civil – there are no riots breaking out over limited rations. The truck is also fully loaded with supplies – showing America’s infinite reserves of wealth, which we gladly are sharing with our new democratic partners. Since this image promotes the Iraq War by assuring that we are helping the nation far more than harming it, the President’s interests are furthered. Also, this image could easily have been posed and framed to get this effect. Here, the official status is gained by the government’s proclamation that this is a good image.

2. While I believe that the need for reform emphasized by images such as the Abu Ghraib photographs are a primary concern, I think that downplaying the images as Sontag suggests will lead to a lesser understanding of the events themselves. We must understand what we decide to condemn, and only by deep examination of the images can this be done. The most important thing to ask about any image is “why was this created?” The answer to this will reveal the bias. All photographs are biased, since they only offer an edited version of reality. Only what lies between the borders of the lens, and happened in the fraction of a second of exposure is often promoted as a true and unbiased account, although it will be laced with ideology.

The irony here is that the Abu Ghraib photographs were taken by soldiers promoting the abuse, but now they are used to condemn it. The conflict in ideology seems almost sick – the soldiers smiling behind the naked bodies of detainees forced into humiliating poses. While with one photograph there is some doubt about the events that occurred around it, and the image’s staging, there is much less doubt with a series. There were over eighteen hundred photographs of the Abu Ghraib incidents, which showed the evolution of different torture sessions so that some sense of the passage of time could be gained through still images.

While these considerations seem to remove most of the uncertainty around the events, they also continue to propagate the misconception that photographs are a perfect form of truth. Just because some photographs tell the same story that occurred does not mean that others will be so candid. These misconceptions are harmful to visual literacy and the examination of ideology behind images – the lack of such scrutiny leaves one vulnerable to propaganda.

3. In a democratic society, the voters must be informed politically in order to make the most informed decisions. Withholding any sort of information necessarily compromises this, yet there are instances of national security where the public must be kept in the dark. But the effect of a war is not one of these areas. The public needs to know what exactly they are voting for directly, or what their elected representatives are voting for. If the war has gone into stalemate, the “enemy” is being tortured for dubious reasons, and civilians are dying, then people must know so the war can be reconsidered with these factors in mind.

There is a difference between images of offensive and defensive conflicts. The offensive conflict is inherently an ethical issue, since a decision must be made to engage in violence or not. A defensive conflict presents no option – rise and fight, or be annihilated. If there is no justifiable reason to be engaged in offensive conflict, then the citizens of a nation have a right to make the decision to end it. Also, war should not be used as a common tool to force the compliance of smaller, less stable nations. War devastates everything, and supporters need to know the consequences of authorizing violent force. There should be no censorship whatsoever in this case.

In a defensive war, the nation’s very existence may be at stake. But if there is no threat of annihilation, then involvement should be minimal and not include “revenge” actions, such as the Iraq War today. Thus again, there should be no censorship of war images, so that the public does not seek out revenge, because of the pain it will inflict on the innocent. This only leads to the escalation of conflict anyway – as we further fight terrorists, we cause more of them to rise up against us than there were to begin with.

When the nation is indeed about to be toppled, as the Soviet Union nearly was in 1941 by Nazi Germany, then the government must do all it can to resist destruction. The injustices inflicted by the government on its own people will be nothing compared to the enemy’s wrath. Certainly censorship of war images to keep morale high would be acceptable as an alternative to rape and slaughter of the citizens, at the hands of some other force. But another alternative would be to use images of violence directed against the “good guys” in order to motivate the nation to stand strong and resist, because the images will remind them of their fate if the nation’s struggle fails.

The Abu Ghraib photographs should not have been withheld from the public. When they were eventually leaked, the negative reaction against the Army was much greater than it would have been if the offending soldiers and been summarily punished. The cover up was a form of tacit approval of the tactics carried out at Abu Ghraib. While I think that the public has a right to know about offensive wars it is engaged in, I do not think the photographs should have been exhibited at the International Center of Photography. Association with an artistic institution almost praises the photographs in a way, because they acknowledge something about the nature of war. But these photographs never should have existed in the first place, so they should not be associated with art. Also, these photographs were taken as trophies by the soldiers, in order to glorify their dominance over the prisoners and also to humiliate them. The victims’ rights should be taken into account, as they were forced to participate in the photographs, and then had them used in blackmail during interrogations. The fear of being seen in such impious poses (the homosexual poses in the context of Islam) by others made prisoners comply, but now thousands of people will see them, adding to the humiliation. The public has a right to know the war though images in the media, and the media will self-censor itself to a large degree, which would filter out the most degrading of the photographs. But putting them up on display is furthering the emotional damage done to the detainees.

Image Sources (From left to right):

http://www.dannyrudd.com/brokenmedia/images/statue.jpg

http://peacework.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Abu%20Ghraib%20Torture-715244.jpg

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/photoessay/essay1/09.html

Ted Henderson Post 11

2007-11-14T23:41:00.000-05:00

1.) It seems that, in today’s society, images of war, as well as those depicting/representing any significant cultural/political issue, are deemed “official” within American minds when they are given mass media display and commentary. Though one could certainly argue that any explicit photographic images of America’s most recent war with Iraq, such as those taken by American soldiers during their occupation of the Abu Ghraib war prison, are in some way “official” images of the war (being that they specifically depict the actual goings-on of the multinational conflict), these images were only given their “official” status after being widely exposed and explicated on national television and in national news writings. Much of the reason for media exposure being the main qualifier for war images being considered official is the simple fact that only through such exposure are the images able to be viewed by a significant enough amount of people so as to be associated with the particular war that they depict. Another possible explanation for why this method of exposure is a means by which images can gain “official” status is that, by being presented with “professional” commentary concerning the images and their connection to various wars, the viewer subconsciously assumes that such images must be official images of a war if they are given so much attention so as to be made note of by those men and women assumed to hold high places of political knowledge and power.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/whoops.jpg

The above image could certainly have been considered by the American public (following its being displayed on television screens across America) an official image depicting America’s proud “victory” over Iraq soon after the war between the two countries had began. Obviously, the intended purpose of such a specifically pre-planned image of the American President giving a victory speech while standing directly underneath a giant electronic banner displaying the phrase “Mission Accomplished” (superimposed over an American flag for added patriotic effect), was to send the message to the civilians of America that they needn’t worry about possible negative outcomes of the Bush administrations newfound war with Iraq, for in fact, the “mission” had been “accomplished”, and all was well (for Americans at least). Obviously, this declaration of

the mission having been “accomplished” came just a tad too soon, considering the fact that this image was taken in May of 2003, and that even now, on the very cusp of 2008, the American Military’s occupation and “liberation” of Iraq continues. An interesting side note is the fact that this very image is used for a decidedly opposite purpose by various comedians (i.e. The Daily Show’s John Stewart) today, that being satire regarding the Bush administration and its many follies and false foresights, most notably those concerning its dealings with Middle Eastern nations such as Iraq.

http://theredhunter.com/images/Saddam%20Statue%201-thumb.jpg

Above is an image of an Iraqi statue of Saddam Hussein being uprooted by American soldiers amidst an elated crowd of Iraqi citizens. This image and many others of the same scene were, shortly after their being created, proudly displayed in various forms of American news media. The purpose of the photographs of this scene being shown as “official” images of America’s war with Iraq could very well have been to send the message to Americans that, by invading Iraq, the American government was seeing to the overthrow of a tyrant, hated even by his own people (Iraqi citizens could be seen in video footage of the spectacle happily dragging the remains of the statue through Iraqi streets) and thus pursuing justice within another, less liberated nation.

2.) In regards to the difference of opinion between articles such as Libby’s “Culture/War” and Sontag’s “Regarding the Torture of Others” on whether or not images hold harmful ideological power over the viewer, I must admittedly place myself in a moderate position, with an err towards the views expressed in Libby’s article. I believe it is undoubtedly true that images, in the way by which they are intentionally constructed (by the photographer for instance), in the gaze that they assume, and in the limited amount of space/time that they represent, do depict reality with certain biases, and thus perhaps are not accurate references when searching for the absolute truth regarding any situation, such as that having occurred at the Abu Ghraib war prison. As stated by Libby, “…images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond.” Thus, no matter how shocking or horrifically inhumane the actions depicted within a photograph may appear, one must consider the setting in which the image was created, the intentions of the photographer, as well as many other technical aspects that go into the immortalization of a moment via photography. Though, because of a certain amount of involuntary human emotional reaction, one is undoubtedly inclined to immediately assume sympathy for people being abused or victimized in images and to likewise assume a disgust for the abusers seen in the same images, it is nonetheless detrimental to the objective viewing/assessment of an image to lose sight of the simple fact that it is an image, and should not, again, be assumed as an absolutely unbiased depiction of an actual happening.

On the other hand, when photographs of inhumane torture such as those taken by American soldiers during their occupation of Abu Ghraib are publicly exposed, a certain number of assumptions concerning the images can and should be made. Being that these images depicting decidedly unnecessary and heartless abuse of war prisoners were taken with a seeming sense of pride by the very abusers seen within them, one can assume that such instances of torture were not staged, and were in fact deemed by a number of soldiers and military officials as acceptable and even humorously entertaining treatment of war prisoners. Thus, when the obvious fact is officially established that the images of the American Military’s treatment of Iraqi prisoners are relatively accurate depictions of what happened in reality, what is subsequently most important is how those seen within the images as committing such atrocities are dealt with, as opposed to close, meticulous philosophizing on the ideological nature of the images, and what that nature might imply. The fact of the matter is that these images were created by American Soldiers as a glorification of their incredibly hostile treatment of other unarmed, and thus defenseless human beings. The moment that images of this nature are presented to the American public, and perhaps most importantly, to American government/military officials, the most important issue on which to focus becomes a swift end to such abuse, and just punishment of those having taken part in it. To focus more intensively on the photographs as images rather than what actions they are evidence of can, in fact, be used as a way of avoiding actually addressing the obvious problem within America’s military system that can be clearly seen within the pictures. Susan Sontag reflects on this with the assertion that, “There was, first of all, the displacement of the reality on to the photographs themselves. The administration’s initial response was to say that the president was shocked and disgusted by the photographs – as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict.”

3.) It is my strong opinion that war images such as the Abu Ghraib photographs, as well as countless others having been taken of many wars since the dawn of photography, should be made open to public viewing both during and after times of war. Though many might believe it unpatriotic to show any negative images/photographs of American soldiers and their discourse during a time of war with another nation, the result of not making such images open for public viewing is, in my humble opinion, far more detrimental to America as a nation. If American’s are, by their own government, prohibited to view available images of a current war, they are forced to be ignorant to an all-to-important, be it unfortunate as it may, issue concerning their homeland. Ignorance is one of the many tools utilized by dictatorships in order to elicit total trust and subsequent obedience from those masses over which they hold power. Whether or not a nation’s lawmakers/enforcers use the special circumstance that is wartime as an excuse for refusing citizens the right to view any less-than-positive images of their country’s military, such a prohibition is to assume that what is “best” for a national public can be decided without their consent, and even without their knowledge of the whole truth. To make such an assumption is to completely forget, and in fact go against everything that is Democracy, a political philosophy on which America was founded, and by which its Constitution was formed. Sontag, in “Regarding the Torture of Others”, claims that, “…as it was regarded by many as an implicit criticism of the war to show on television photographs of the American soldiers who have been killed in the course of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it will increasingly be thought unpatriotic to disseminate the new photographs and further tarnish the image of America.” This belief that the public display via photography of the cold, harsh realities of a war is in some way unpatriotic or an “implicit criticism” of the war with Iraq is entirely false. Whatever gung-ho image certain Americans might like to associate with their nation’s attack of Iraq, the truth is, large numbers of American soldiers have died as a direct result of the current Iraq war, as many continue to die with each passing month. These soldiers deserve recognition for the ultimate sacrifice that they gave for their own homeland, whether or not the cause for their combat was just. They were real people, and their deaths were real – the real result of war. Likewise, the Iraqi war prisoners that were shown within publicized images of the Abu Ghraib prison are real men, and the abuse they endured on the part of American soldiers was very much a real and ugly thing. Whether or not an American super-patriot finds such images detrimental to the overall American morale is irrelevant. The goal of wartime photographers should be to display (via photography) the most accurate interpretation of the war that they are covering as is possible. Though it was certainly unbeknownst to them, the American soldiers who photographed their own abuse of Iraqi war prisoners in Abu Ghraib were quite accurately immortalizing, by way of their personal cameras, depictions of events occurring during America’s war with Iraq – events that, without being photographed by these soldiers, and perhaps even more importantly, without being publicized in different forms of media, would not have been brought to attention during discussions of the Iraq war. Americans, and members of any nation or society, deserve as objective a depiction as possible of any past or present war, most especially one in which their own country is immersed. This objective depiction is only possible through extensive display of all facts and actions having taken place on the part of both sides. Americans had and have a right to view the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib, and in fact, if their wish was/is to maintain an unbiased position on the very history-in-the-making that surrounded/surrounds them, viewing these images is vital.

Sources:

1.) Sontag, Susan, “Regarding the Torture of Others”, The New York Times, May 23, 2004

2.) Libby, Susan, “Culture/War”, The International Journal of the Arts in Society, Vol. 1, No. 5, 2007

3.) Gogan, Jessica; Sokolowski, Thomas, “Inconvenient Evidence: Iraqi Prison Photographs from Abu Ghraib”, at The Andy Warhol Museum, text by Hersh, Seymour M., September 11-November 28, 2004

Ruth D. Post 11

2007-11-14T23:40:00.000-05:00

Ruth E. Day

Images become “official” because they do something to further a certain cause. In the context of war imagery, official images tend to work to further the idea that the war is just and having positive affects. They tend to be patriotic and glorify the soldiers fighting on our side of the war as heroes. They also bay depict the soldiers fighting for the opposition as evil and sometimes terrorists. I have found two images that have achieved official status regarding the war on terror. The first is an image of a statue of Saddam Hussein being taken down by American soldiers in Baghdad amidst the cheers of Iraqi natives. This image has achieved official status because it furthers the idea that the war in Iraq has accomplished its goal. It has freed Iraq from the tyranny of an evil dictator and has caused much rejoicing among the Iraqi people who were subject to his rule. It leads people who see it to believe that the war has made the world a better place. The second image is a photograph of Sgt. 1^st Class Paul R. Smith as he is serving in the field during the war in Iraq. Sgt. Smith was the first soldier who has served in the war to be awarded the Medal of Honor. He was given this award for his role in the Battle of Baghdad Airport. This image has received official status because it glorifies the soldiers who serve in the military during times of war as heroes. The light around him gives him a sort of halo that makes him look angelic and he is looking at the camera as if he is about to do something important. The gruesome details of his job are not touched upon. He appears very clean despite his very dirty situation.

I believe that images can be harmful, beneficial, or neither depending on who is looking and them and what is in them. For example, the image of the Saddam Hussein statue being toppled can be considered as both beneficial and harmful. It can be beneficial in that it elicits pride in being American and relief over the end of a horrible Iraqi regime. However, it can also be considered harmful in giving Americans a skewed idea of the Iraqi response to American soldiers’ occupation of Iraq. This image shows Iraqis who are happy about their presence but that may not be the case for all citizens. Some may resent the United States Occupation and may have even mourned the fall of Saddam Hussein. This image is could mislead citizens of the United States into believing that all Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein and that the war being fought over there is completely just and in agreement with all other Iraqis. The image of Sgt. Smith can also be beneficial. It honors a very brave man and could help garner support for our troops. Our troops definitely need and deserve support and respect and that is what this image helps spread. This image could also be harmful however because it glorifies the lives of soldiers who are on the front lines. It shows Sgt. Smith clean and about to fight a noble battle. It shows nothing of the gruesome reality of soldiers’ lives. This could lead those thinking about enlisting to believe that all soldiers live a glorious noble lives and some die noble deaths. It could lead them to believe that they are all always honored as Sgt. Smith was and give them a false idea of what to expect when enlisting themselves. Obviously, the purpose of both of these images is to further war ideology but their function is not always harmful. In “Regarding the Torture of Others” argues that we should ignore images as ideological and harmful and focus on the events depicted by them. I agree with this stance in some situations. Such a situation would be one in which images could serve as evidence that a certain event took place. The picture of the falling statue tells us that a statue was there and that it was taken down. That is the event behind the picture. However, in situations where images are not needed solely as evidence that a certain event took place; their ideological and possibly harmful possibilities should not be ignored. Images are powerful and that power should not be taken for granted by ignoring those components.

I do not believe that images should be kept from public view during wartime. Images can both garner support for a war and reveal the harsh realities of it to the public. That is what the Abu Ghraib photographs did. They showed Arab prisoners being abused and even tortured by American soldiers. They opened peoples’ eyes that it isn’t only the terrorists who are capable of evil acts. American soldiers are as well. They show war as something that is not always glorious and noble but as something where people get hurt and abused and exploited. It leads normally good people to commit evil acts. I am a strong believer that situations such as war and tragedy bring out the best in some and the worst in others. It is important to have representations of both sides. Yes, war does cause some to do many heroic things, such as in the case of Sgt. Smith. However, it can lead others to do evil and to lose their sense of morality and their sympathy for other human beings. This is what happened to the American soldiers at Abu Ghraib. War caused their view of right and wrong to be blurred and to rationalize evil acts. This is why I believe that the Abu Ghraib photographs should have been exhibited at the International Center of Photography. If such images are not made public, those of us whose sense of right and wrong have not been skewed by the experience of war can see both sides of the picture: the side that produces people who we can admire by showing the best of the themselves in times of hardship and the side that produces people who, once they have seen the atrocities that human kind is capable of turn to committing those atrocities themselves.

Image sources:

Statue: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/446366a

Medal of Honor: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7091

Kevin Boone Post 11

2007-11-14T23:26:00.000-05:00

Kevin Boone

I don’t think war images can ever become “official” in the sense that they depict reality. Rather, the term “official” is loosely fitted to the images that are portrayed heavily throughout all forms of mass media: TV reports, magazines, newspapers, etc… I mean who really has the authority to determine whether or not a war image is “official?” I believe the validity of every photograph has to be called into question, and the answer is impossible to reach. Rather, images are “essentially windows into a larger, truer reality that must be deciphered using the pictures as clues” (Libby 45). It would seem unrealistic to me to firmly believe that “photographs are objective renderings of the real world that provide an unbiased truth because cameras are seemingly detached from a subjective, particular human viewpoint” (Practices of Looking 17). Granted, pictures taken spur-of-the-moment, identified by poor lightning and blurriness as well as other photographic flaws, can idealistically become “official,” but that is assuming the situation in which they were taken was not created but merely witnessed. Essentially, photographic truth has to be called into question.

In that respect, war images are ideological and harmful because it is their inherent nature to evoke a response or reaction and convey a message to the viewing public. It is their very intention to influence viewers and sway support either for or against the war in question. Gruesome pictures of the atrocities of a war are meant to foster and promote an anti-war sentiment and create opposition among the viewing public. On the other hand, pictures of President Bush giving a thumbs up or a soldier smiling while serving his country are meant to foster and promote a pro-war sentiment and gain support among the viewing public. In either sense, war photographs are propaganda. They destroy an individual’s ability to think for him or herself and cater to one’s immediate reaction which is far rasher.

It would be too unrealistic to demand that images be kept from the public view during wartime. I think keeping images from the public would be a good thing in that it would free the viewing public from this form of propaganda. However, this brings up the more important issue of censorship and essentially our First Amendment Rights. Where is the freedom in government’s complete control over what is seen on television or in magazines and newspapers? Furthermore, as Dr. Susan Libby points out, “Avoiding…or censoring [photographs] in the public sphere would prevent us from recognizing and choosing ethically to act on their many implications for our society both as records and representations” (Libby 48).Therefore, it is important that we as a nation are able to view photographs in time of war. Essentially, I think awareness is the ultimate argument. We as a nation must be made aware of what’s going on beyond our borders. We need all aspects of media available and free from complete government control in order to optimistically be able to think for ourselves. If this means exhibiting the Abu Ghraib photos at the International Center of Photography, then by all means it should be done. The end justifies the means.

These images seen here would fit under the loose definition of "official" because they were published in a major magazine and shown seemingly on every television report and newscast.

Kim Post 11

2007-11-14T23:18:00.000-05:00

Kim Hambright

1. In times of war, countless images are captured via digital cameras, camcorders, cell phones, and other sorts of electronic devices. The images are sent back to the United States and shared with friends, family members, and often times millions of strangers through their placement on the World Wide Web. The more the images circulate, the more people see them, and the greater chance they have of becoming “official” war images. “Official” images, by social definition, are images that are well known to a large audience. In this case, “official” images of the Iraq war would be easily recognizable to a majority of the American public. Without captions or explanations, the images would be understood, and given meaning. Though the particular meanings of each image will vary person to person, an undeniable understanding of the patriotism, terror, and destruction of war is undeniable in the images.

In the first “official” image, a number of American soldiers form a line in anticipation of some sort of attack. The faces of the men are clearly visible, easily recognized as someone’s son or brother. The interest and intent of this picture, whether conceived purposefully or not, is to gain support for the war. Since the figures are personal, the viewer feels connected to the soldiers, sharing their anticipation, their worries, and their pain. One feels as thought the soldiers are innocent; with their gentle faces and almost timid appearances, these men in uniform can do no wrong. Even amidst what the public knows to be a cruel and harmful place, the viewer sympathizes with the soldiers of the Iraq war, remembering their ties to fellow Americans.

The second image depicts an Iraqi child and an American soldier. Clearly an anti-war image, the photograph contrasts the stark and barren ground with the chaos of war. The soldier standing on the left with the gun is not immersed in battle, nor can the viewer detect any immediate harm in his proximity. In spite of the current lack of necessity for the soldier to don any extreme means of protection, the photographer captures this American soldier with a gun. Several feet away from the soldier stands a young Iraqi child. He appears to be both enamored and afraid of the grandiose adult standing before him. The viewer cannot help but wonder what is taking place in this image, is the soldier threatening a young and innocent child? Or is the image just a cropped version of a larger scene? Whatever the case, the image appears to capture inappropriate behavior on the part of an American soldier. Anti-war activists would look and the image and be horrified; after all, what is an armed American soldier doing anywhere near children?

2. When answering the question, “Can images be harmful?” one must take into consideration the context of the word harmful. Who or what is one worried about harming? Surely the images of the American soldiers at Abu Ghraib were harmful to the reputations of the soldiers and their families, and likewise the images of the planes hitting the twin towers on September 11 are harmful to America’s overall opinion of Middle Easterners. Who though, does one wish to protect from harm?

I agree with some of the statements made by Libby, Gogan and Sokolowski that images can be harmful. Surely images of war and violence can be demoralizing and shocking to the public viewer, though I tend to agree more with Sontag. I feel that people are often too caught up with their immediate reactions and emotions when viewing a photograph that they often forget it actually happened. Ignoring the image mutation possibilities created by programs such as Photoshop, I feel that the raw truths of images are often forgotten or misunderstood when viewers focus on their own reactions to the photos. Whether one is afraid, excited, horrified or unsure of an image is irrelevant. In my opinion, artists of war photography rarely take photographs for the sole purpose of indulging the viewer’s emotions. Instead, photographers attempt to capture real life actions, telling genuine stories of the soldiers overseas and their lives. Though the images may be “harmful” or “offensive” to the masses, I feel that it is the duty of war photographers to capture and expose war as it factually happens. Photographs are meant to bring the truth of an event, regardless of how one feels about it.

3. Looking at war images as a whole, and understanding the power they hold, I still feel that the most important thing is education. Censorship in times of war may be necessary, especially when concealing graphic images of deceased American soldiers; however, I do not feel that it should be used to an extreme. The most important aspect of war photography is informing the public. Thousands of miles away from the action, it is nearly impossible for anyone in the United States to begin to comprehend what the war is like without media venues such as photography and television. It is the responsibility of the people involved with such venues to provide accurate and unbiased information on the events taking place overseas, whether or not said information reflects positively or negatively on the United States military. In order for everyday citizens to make informed decisions and opinions about the war, especially when Presidential elections and other voting situations roll around, it is necessary for them to be accurately informed. The images depicting torturous events taking place at the Abu Ghraib prison may or may not affect the way a particular individual feels about the war; though, it is his or her right to be informed about what his or her country’s military forces are doing overseas, with or without the government’s permission.

I feel that censorship is warranted when concealing situations that would undoubtedly evoke an uprising in the public. In these cases, censorship, controlled by the government, should not only be acceptable, but encouraged. Along with the responsibility to inform the public, comes the responsibility to protect the governmental structure. It is not this way in all cases though. For example, images of destroyed cities, distraught soldiers and unfair treatment of prisoners have no reason to be censored. Granted, I do not believe that images similar to the ones from the Abu Ghraib prison should be displayed in a museum gallery, I feel that is of the utmost importance that all people of America be informed as to the way the soldiers, supposedly fighting for their country, are acting.

Fatema, Post 11. The Last One!

2007-11-14T22:38:00.001-05:00

Fatema Kermalli

1) Images become official when they serve the national interest during a war and are thus shown over and over again in order to solidify the country’s stance and reassure the people that they are in the right. As mentioned in the PowerPoint Presentation, four messages which are perpetrated by these “official” images are:

War is a national endeavor
War is an American Tradition
War is manly
Winning is everything

They all put a positive spin on war, depicting it as a courageous and patriotic act.

One image that fits into the category of “winning” is the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Firdos Square which helped perpetrate the false idea that the war was about to end. Showing such a “victory” scene helped to downplay the fact that battles were still raging throughout Baghdad during that same week… and even that same day. A dramatic decline in war imagery and war stories followed the appearance of victory (70% on Fox News and 26% on CNN), making it seem as though the situation was actually improving within the region (Aday). This was the interest that was served: the image helped to placate the American people by making it seem as though an end were in sight.

Another example of an “official” image relating to the Iraq war is that of President Bush in gear, an image which was usually accompanied by the words “Mission Accomplished”. The picture shown here of a TIME magazine cover doesn’t support the administrations actions at all. But, it does play off of the fact that that very image had been used before much in the same way that the image of Saddam’s statue toppling was used: to prove that everything was going well in the region and that the US was going to win (or already had won) the war.

This last image of another TIME cover shows “The American Soldier” as being the person of the year. Three soldiers are seen standing together in uniform, upright, unyielding, and proud of the work they do. This particular image fits into the category terming war as being “manly”; it also, especially with the help of the wording also present, makes the soldiers who represent the war a source of national pride because of the positive way in which they are represented. Such an image that brings soldiers into the pictures really helps to further the interest of the country because the military is one aspect of war that most everybody agrees about: nobody would want to say that they don’t support the military when the people in the military are losing their lives for the protection of others.

Overall, the images work towards gaining a national unity in favor of the war that is occurring. It is also important to note, however, that these pro-state images are not the only ones that make it to the front covers, even if they are the majority and the most likely to do so. Other images, sometimes precisely for the reason that they were first censored and thus caused an uproar, also make the covers (such as the image of a detainee with his head covered by a sack, or about to be “electrocuted” and even to an extent the flag-draped coffins). These, I suppose, are never really “official”, however, as they work to the detriment of those leading the charge.

Aday, Sean, John Cluverius and Steven Livingston. “As Goes the Statue, So Goes the War: The Emergence of the Victory Frame in Television Coverage of the Iraq War.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 49 no. 3 (Sep 2005), 314-331.

2) I agree that images have a lot of power which, like all power, can be used for good or bad (depending on how you look at it). This notion goes all the way back to Plato’s use of images to further the state, as well as Hitler’s, and the differing ideas regarding modern art during times of fear and war.

But in the photography of real-life events – photography which was not even done with the idea of propaganda, such as was be the case with the other examples seen as either helping or harming “the state” – should we ignore the images (to an extent) and focus on the events?

First, let me quote Sontag herself and clarify her position: “So, then, is the real issue not the photographs themselves but what the photographs reveal to have happened to ‘suspects’ in American custody? No: the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken – with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives.” Sontag does not appear to be arguing at all that we should ignore the images at all; rather, she ties the fact that the images were taken to the actions, and then focuses on the fact that these actions occurs. And I totally agree with her.

Torture was occurring even before these pictures “came out”… and there were people who knew about it (as proven in greater detail in part 3). This maltreatment, even if it wasn’t of the same type as the posing which was done for the images that we see today, still existed and was still deplorable. The actions themselves solicit the responses of disgust. The images main role was really in making the actions available to the view of the public… without which, people would not know what was going on in the prisons.

As Sontag said, fact that these people would actually smile at the camera behind the naked detainees and regard the whole event with humor worth saving in the form of a picture is indeed quite horrific; however, the acts themselves can stand alone as being horrific occurrences whilst the pictures are as disconcerting as they are because of the fact that the things depicted therein really happened. The response against the pictures is not one calling for the stop of photography in prisons as much as it is a call for the stop of torture itself. The torture is what is inhumane, and it remains so even if no picture is taken of it occurring.

3) Images of war definitely should not be kept from public view during wartime because doing so deliberately misleads the population into believing things are much better than they really are. People have a right to know what is going on, not only because they are the ones going or being sent off to war, but also because they have the responsibility, if it is wrong, to change it.

So should the Abu Ghraib photos have been exhibited? Unequivocally, yes. These images brought to light for many people some of the atrocities that were occurring within US prisons. It forced the administration/military to own up a bit more, to do something about what was going on. As Sontag states, the pictures were “…necessary to get our leaders to acknowledge that they had a problem on their hands. After all, the conclusions of reports… about the atrocious punishments inflicted on 'detainees' and 'suspected terrorists'… have been circulating for more than a year… Up to then, there had been only words, which are easier to cover up… so much easier to forget.”

This idea that the human rights violations were simply ignored before the pictures came out is mirrored in the report by an independent panel headed by Schlesinger, “…the first to assign responsibility for the abuse of prisoners… to senior Pentagon officials including Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.” In the Abu Ghraib Timeline presented in “Inconvenient Evidence”, it says: “The report states that officials were aware of the problems at the detention facilities and failed to address them.”

The purpose of showing these images is thus to raise awareness of the occurrences and help to wake the people up to the truth of this war and its costs… not just to us, but also to the rest of the world. And it seems that the administration is aware of the power of these images to force change… which is precisely why they are afraid of them. Sontag in her article says that Rumsfeld acknowledged the existence of many more photographs and videos, and said: “If these are released to the public, obviously, it’s going to make matters worse.” Presumably, as Sontag states, it would be worse “for the administration…not for those who are the actual – and potential? – victims of torture.”

Not only can exhibiting these pictures help bring justice in the present, it can also provide the force to stop even more injustice in the future.

So while I don’t know about everyone else, I’m most assuredly willing to trade a bit of dissent for the safeguarding of justice and human rights.

Christopher Post 11

2007-11-14T22:37:00.000-05:00

Christopher McCauley

Question 1

Most everything has an image or multiple images associated with it. War especially has images associated with it because it is such a huge thing in today’s world. The War on Terror or the War in Iraq (or whatever they are calling it these days…), has been going on for several years now. It has had a huge impact on the globe. One reason that it has had a huge impact is the fact that we have images that can show us the horrors of war, rather than just a few words to describe it.

What does it mean to be an image of war? And just because an image may be of war, does that mean that it is “official”? An official image is one that has become “standard,” or incredibly recognizable. There are certain images that people think of when they think of the War on Terror. Several of these images are of the attacks on September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center in New York City. If these attacks had never happened, there would not be a war going on right now, in my opinion. Therefore, such images are highly relevant in the history of the War on Terror in Iraq.

Sometimes we can also see parallels between two wars, and images associated with those wars can show this. A famous photograph from World War II shows a flag being raised by soldiers amidst the clutter and rubble of battle in Iwo Jima (a small island in the Pacific). There is an image from 9-11 depicting a flag being raised amongst the rubble of the attacks as well—there is an eerie similarity between the two photographs. Each are beautiful images, which are highly recognizable as photographs of war.

During this war, the Iraqi government has been reformed into a crude democracy. Within the past few years, the first elections have occurred in Iraq in its entire history. When Iraqi citizens voted, they were required to stick their finger in purple ink, to signify that they had voted. An image of this (shown below), has become official because of its widely recognizable symbolism of increasing freedom in Iraq. This photograph depicts what little triumph US involvement has triggered in Iraq, and may also symbolize future advancements.

Question 2

“Sontag argues that we should ignore the images as such and focus on the events depicted in them.” I would absolutely agree with this argument. Yes, content in images can be dangerous; however, sometimes it is important for these images to be seen to get messages, themes, and news across. “Photographs have laid down the tracks of how important conflicts are judged and remembered.” In the modern world, photographs have become an integral part of history, and are extremely important. Take for example, the photograph of Mary Ann Vecchio kneeling over the body of a dead student at Kent State in 1970. It is a horrible image, and beautiful image, and at the time (and even still today) a necessary image. This shows what horrible things war can do. Even in peaceful protests, a “war” erupted, and killed a human life. Someone in that picture died. The look of pain, sorrow, and despair on Vecchio’s face embodies this completely and beckons to the viewer, for help, and for answers. We are in a way, included in this photograph. Sontag even said, “Photographs are us.”

Question 3

I am not a proponent of censorship of war photography; therefore I do not think it is right to hide war images during wartime. If a war is going on, people need to know about it. They best way to know about it is to see it. Photography has given our society that advantage. Whether or not such photographs are damaging does not matter. Being able to view these images, such as the photographs from Abu Ghraib, is such an asset to our society. It helps us see what war can do to our people, and to humankind. It is an atrocity, and yes these pictures paint a group of American soldiers and beastly and barbaric, but these photographs serve a purpose of anti-war. These images may prevent war from occurring again, or help resistance to war spread.

http://www.wgerlach.com/archives/disasters/index.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=71966&articleTypeId=0

http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/thumbnail399.html

http://www.fairvote.org/blog/?p=20

http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/kent-state-1970.html

Theresa C, Post 11

2007-11-14T22:29:00.000-05:00

Theresa Chu

Part I

War images become “official” when they serve to represent the government’s interest on the war. The “official” images convey ideologies of patriotism and honor in order to garner support for the government’s agenda; therefore, we can see that many, if not all, of the “official” war images contain subjects along the lines of proud soldiers in uniform standing with the country’s flag billowing in the wind in the background or government officials giving a sweeping look of satisfaction over organized troops.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2007-01-10_Mission_Accomplished.jpg

In this image, George W. Bush is seen holding a thumbs-up sign in front of a sign reading “Mission Accomplished.” A crowd including soldiers can be seen cheering for him. This image conveys how the goals of the war have been met as well as the amount of support the crowd is giving the president; furthermore, the troops are in support of a president who is sending them to war.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AFP_Photo/2006/09/28/1159438877_9412.jpg

Soldiers can be seen bowing their heads in prayer in this image; thus, furthering the message that the Iraq War is a moral war that is being fought with honor and integrity and that God is on the side of the “good” guys.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Bush%20Marines%20Iraq%20%20jim%20watson%20afp%20getty%20images-thumb.jpg
George W. Bush can be seen speaking to a group of what appears to be hundreds of soldiers who appear to be listening intently and respectfully to everything the president is saying. By displaying this image, the government wants the American people to see that the troops who are giving their lives for their country support the president; therefore, those who are safe at home should also support the president. This image also shows that the commander-in-chief does care about those being sent off to war.

Part II

Images wield significant power and can thus be ideological and very harmful. Looking at the pictures in Inconvenient Evidence: Iraqi Prison Photographs from Abu Ghraib disgusted and shocked me more than reading the accompanying text. Inscribed in these images is the potential to completely ruin the efforts the government is trying to make in Iraq; furthermore, with each new “unofficial” image emerging from the war, the reputation of the United States becomes even more tainted.

Sontag argues that the viewer should be more focused on the event occurring in the photo rather than the photo itself; however, the photo IS the evidence of the event. Without the images, the viewer would not be able to associate as much with the event than if an image was available. The image also serves to bond those who view it together: “Vernacular photography also serves a bonding purpose in its ability to create a sense of community and group identity among participants in events and between the participants in events and between the participants and the viewers” (Libby 45). Knowing this, if Sontag wants the viewer to focus on the event, then it would be more efficient to have the viewer focus on an image of an event. By concentrating on the images from Abu Ghraib, for example, the viewer can then center better on the events being depicted in the images.

Part III

Although they may be graphic and disturbing, images of war should not be kept from public view during wartime. It is the right of the people to know everything that is occurring as a result of the choices made by the leaders they elect into office. Photos that portray the cruel and dishonorable side of war, such as the Abu Ghraib photos, should definitely have been exhibited. Citizens must be made aware of the events occurring outside the borders of their respective countries. Many people harbor ideas of superiority in comparing their country to others. To say the least, many Americans instill in themselves the belief that they are untouchable when it comes to morality, honor, integrity, courage, and every other good virtue; however, because of the Abu Ghraib photos, we, along with others around the world, can see that this is not the case. These photos bring the harsh realities of the brutality and heartlessness of war into view better than any form of text ever could.

Ally, Post 11

2007-11-14T22:11:00.001-05:00

Ally Best
Post 11

1. The term “official” brings to mind boy band fan clubs and facebook groups. Why would groups want to use such a term? Most likely, they use the term “official” to add a certain validity to the group; to show that the club or group represents the best interests of the subject. Some war images are considered “official” for similar reasons. Most often images are considered official when they are somehow endorsed by the subject. In the case of the war in Iraq, the military and, ultimately, the government are being portrayed, so they are generally the ones who, through the media, determine which images are deemed “official” and ok to represent the war. Several magazine covers depict such images. One “Times” magazine shows a woman wearing a combat hat and gazing off into the distance. If this does not spark patriotic vibes in a person, I don’t know what will. This image portrays not simply an American soldier, but a woman. By picturing a female, the magazine has accomplished two goals. First of all, as the caption reads, and her gender seems to imply, she is a mother. She has a family. Her role as not simply a soldier but a family member draws attention to all of the sacrifices members of the American military have been forced to make. Viewers tend to rally behind individuals they can relate to and sympathize with. Once the public supports the soldiers, they begin to support the war itself, or at least that’s what the government hopes will happen. The government, while not directly telling the media what to produce, is able to influence them by promoting certain images and stories. Another example of an “official” image appears on yet another “Times” magazine cover. The title boldly advertises “The Sinister World of Saddam,” and, by the look of the image, “sinister” is the perfect word to describe the image. The photograph portrays a tile mural in Baghdad depicting Saddam. With his hat pulled low, dark sunglasses, thick moustache, and unsmiling face, he seems to exude a sense of evil. This representation helped viewers see Saddam exactly as the government wanted them to: a mysterious monster. By picturing Saddam, the media also succeeded in providing a face for the people’s hatred. Most people would have had trouble hating an entire country they knew very little about. However, when the media began showing pictures of Saddam, he became a symbol of terrorism and corruption. US citizens were able to unite behind their common hatred for him and give more support to the war in Iraq.

2. “Practices of Looking” discusses the effect mass media can have on public opinion. As the article argues, the results of certain images can be incredibly powerful. We see an image of five happy people sitting around a dinner table and suddenly we know what a family is “supposed” to be. We see advertisements of women dressed in tiny clothes and wearing loads of makeup being followed by attentive male stalkers and we know what a woman is “supposed” to look like. The danger with such images is that they cause us to forget that we are “supposed” to be individuals, not clones of the images we see. The world is made up of many different people with many different beliefs and views. This diversity adds beauty to the world and makes it a better place to live by pulling on the strengths of a wide variety of people. Imagine how utterly meaningless life would seem if you walked out of your house one day to see that every woman had turned into Paris Hilton and every man had become Patrick Dempsey. Yet, so many people attempt to emulate the images they see that portray the “ideal” ways of life. Images tell us a lot of things about life that we are better off discovering ourselves. The visual has the ability to ignite emotions that the literal can barely touch. However, while images can have very powerful consequences, the real power is a result of the event or theme to which they refer. As the “Culture/War” article explains, image controversies “erupt along existing fault lines dividing highly polarized positions on social and political issues.” In other words, the “wars” that center around images are not “created” by the images themselves, but rather by some other issue already present in society. Sontag refers with frustration to peoples’ tendency to act “as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict” (“Regarding the Torture of Others”). She is entirely right. Images are like telescopes. Their power is in allowing us to view certain phenomena, but they themselves are really quite unremarkable. In other words, images are powerful not because of what they are, but because of what they allow us to see.

3. “These pictures will not go away” (Sontag, “Regarding the Torture of Others”). These are perhaps the most powerful words in Sontag’s essay. Referring to the Abu Ghraib photos, Sontag is discussing the inability of the influence of the photos to be silenced. Once released, they had such an immediate, appalling, and memorable effect on the American public that there was no way to simply recall them and forget about them. They were already burned into the brains of millions of people across the globe. Some people argue that such images should be kept from the public, especially in times of war. They argue that the images will only create anger. They are entirely right: the images will create anger. In a war against terrorism, “some of our own” are terrorizing “the enemy.” This event SHOULD create anger. People SHOULD get mad. By exhibiting the photos in the International Center of Photography, people got angry; they grew passionate, as they should have. Nearly every great change in American history is the result of people with passion. When there are injustices in the world, people have a duty to stand up for humankind. If that means people have to see images that they are not “comfortable” with, then so be it.

Amy I post 11

2007-11-14T22:11:00.000-05:00

Amy Iarrobino

Post 11

March 31, 2003
Marines from TF Tarawa hand out needed food and supplies to Iraqi citizens near An Nasariyah, Iraq, while in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 31, 2003. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Nealy)

March 30, 2003
On March 30, 2003, in Umm Qasr, Iraq, a group of Iraqi people wave at the passing coalition forces who are in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Jones)

April 8, 2003
An Iraqi boy holds a humanitarian food ration given to him by U.S. Army soldiers during an effort to distribute food and water to Iraqi citizens in need. (U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Arlo K. Abrahamson)

President George W. Bush and President Jalal Talabani of Iraq, shake hands Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007, as they meet in the Oval Office. White House photo by Eric Draper

The four photographs are clearly official as they are taken and sponsored by the U.S. government. Despite the fact that the Abu Ghraib pictures were also taken by military personnel, the above official photographs were meant to be published and used to depict a positive image of the Iraq War in favor of the government. In the first three pictures all of the images indicate that the United States troops are having a positive impact on the Iraqi people. Official simply means endorsed by the government.

The first image has no reference to actual warfare involving deaths and fighting. Rather, the image makes it seem that the U.S. troops are in Iraq simply on humanitarian mission. In direct contrast to the unofficial images of coffins, torture and road-side bombs, these photographs focus on peace and the altruistic motives of the United States.

The second image indicates Iraqi men waving in joy to the American soldiers. Once again the image indicates that the Iraqi men see U.S. soldiers as helpful. Their exuberance indicates the soldiers to even be rescuers. The way that they are waving is similar to the cliché visual of castaways signaling for helpwaving in joy to the American soldiers. Once again the image indicates that the Iraqi men see U.S. soldiers as helpful. Their exuberance indicates the soldiers to even be rescuers. The way that they are waving is similar to the cliché visual of castaways signaling for help in desperation. Iraq is thus depicted as a depraved and war-ridden land from which the people need to be saved.

The third image is the quintessential heart-jerking pro-Iraq War image. The main focus is the little child, representing innocence and dependence. Notably, in this official image the child is holding a food package clearly marked in English: “Food Gift From the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Humanitarian Daily.” The positioning of the child and clear visibility of the source of the humanitarian aid indicates that this photograph was taken purposefully. The words are in English indicating that the target viewing audience is the American people.

The final image is the first image to appear on the screen when clicking on the Iraq topic link on the whitehouse.gov website. Thus, this is the official image that the government wishes to portray as the face of the Iraq war: cooperation. The image is of the leaders of the United States and Iraq presumably finishing a discussion and making an agreement in a cooperative manner, as indicated by the hearty handshake depicted in the image.

The White House website includes several photo galleries of official Iraq War images: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/photoessay/essay1/01.html.

Images can be ideological and harmful because they are subjective. Subjectivity affects the interpretation and creation of the image on the part of the viewer and the photographer/artist respectively. For example, Libby stresses the importance of the social relations in which an image exists (Libby, 44) and its “external relations with spectators and with the world” (Libby, 45). These relations determine interpretation and effect of an image on the viewer through various gazes. For example, the several gazes studied in this course and discussed in “Practices of Looking”: male gaze, feminist gaze, political gaze and numerous others. The perspective or mindset of the viewer thereby determines whether the image is ideological and harmful. Each gaze may assign a different ideology to the image. The potential for an image to have a harmful effect is based on this ideology. If the image challenges a firmly held ideology it may be harmful to the believer and solidarity of a group. Also, as indicated by the Bobo experiments in psychology mentioned in a previous blog, images can induce violence. Children who watched an actress on screen behaving violently with a stuffed doll they were more likely to behave in a similar fashion when presented with the doll.

The subjectivity when creating the image attests to both the ideological nature of images as well as the importance of focusing on the image rather than the actual event. The subjective and interpretive nature of image-making presents problems when determining the reliability of images as depicting true events. Libby directly negates Sontag’s argument in focusing on the events and ignoring the image as Libby states, “With all due respect to Sontag, I propose that much of the fault and horror [of the Abu Ghraib photographs] does in fact lie in the images, precisely because images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond” (Libby, 44). Photographs are not transparent screens depicting all of the realities of that moment as pictures can manipulate “looking relations and line of sight among the pictured subjects and between the pictured subjects and the camera/viewer” (Libby, 46). Thus, framing is a major factor in the message an image sends to the viewer. For example, “the photographer chooses what to photograph, the vantage point, the proximity to or distance from the objects in the photograph and” what not to include in the picture (Libby, 46).

However, although I disagree that the only focus should be the events depicted in the image, I do agree that there is some truth in the photographs. The fact that the photographs were even able to be taken and at times posed is extremely disturbing. The fact that a smile appeared on a soldiers face as he looked at a person being tortures is undeniable.

Images of war should be shown to the public. Limiting such freedom is a violation of freedom of expression and should thus be unlawful to limit if it does not reveal military intelligence that would endanger troops. Also, if Americans are to make informed decisions they must be presented with as much evidence as possible so that they can know the consequences of their decisions. The more information decision makers have the more likely the plan of action is to be successful. However, when referring to information, this includes images that equally represent all areas of war: the fighting, the death, the humanitarian aspect and accomplished missions. Knowing both sides of an argument ensures that the best analysis is undertaken and an educated decision is made.

Abu Ghraib photographs can acceptably be displayed in the International Center of Photography as long as the positive aspects of the war are also properly represented. One-sided arguments are dangerous to the public due to the psychological availability heuristic “in which we use the ease with which we can recall instances of an event in memory to help us estimate the frequency of the event” (Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo, 313). Thus, if the media is flooded by only negative images of the Iraq War, when a viewer is asked about the war a negative outlook will be most easily available and thus adopted. The negative portrayals are so frequent that they are easily recalled from memory. The availability heuristic explains the reason why opinion of the Iraq War declined after the mass distribution and media frenzy of the Abu Ghraib images. Due to the availability of these images of torture, viewers most likely determined that such torture was frequent in Iraq. In order to minimize the bias that results from the availability heuristic, images must be equally represented from all angles of the Iraq War.

Pastorino, Ellen, and Susann Doyle-Portillo. What is Psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2006

Hoffman Post 11

2007-11-14T22:02:00.000-05:00

1) It is very tempting to say of images that they become official when they achieve a sort of universally accepted status. However, nothing so high minded or egalitarian need be true of “official” images. Instead, we can consider that anything has attained a position of official-ness as soon as it is sanctioned by whatever the relevant office is. In this case, images become official when they are the ones accepted and promoted by the office or authority in a given area. When the area in question is war, the office in charge of governing the area is clearly the government. Hence, images of war become official when they are the ones being supported and promoted by the government.

Given that the government does not have complete control of all images or the media, however, there are always images that surface that contradict and disagree with the official ones. When these opposition images gain enough support and credibility, they can gain a certain kind of official-ness as well. While they are not sanctioned by the government, they can be sanctioned by the media “office,” or the dominant forces in the media world. While in some senses our view of photographs is such that we consider all pictures to be authoritative, there are countless pictures being taken all the time, and considering them all to be the official images seems to run counter to the definition of official.

http://middleeast2.blogs.bftf.org/files/2007/07/iraq_war_topix2.jpg

This image has been fairly widely circulated since the invasion of Iraq. While the actual context of the picture is unknown, the image appears to depict a tank or other armor motor vehicle driving up a deserted highway. The road sign, clearly visible in the picture, reads “Baghdad.” This image sends a very clear message: the United States military, moving in on Baghdad, without even the slightest opposition before it. The image symbolically represents the message the President and the government wished to spread about the invasion. We came, we saw, and we conquered with little to no difficulty.

http://www.sar.org/ohssar/WarOnTerror.jpg

While this image does not necessarily relate to the Iraq war directly, it is clearly a product of 9/11 and the war on terror. This was an image that appeared in many different places in the months following the attacks on 9/11. It is clearly meant to inspire patriotic feelings of sympathy for the victims of 9/11. By constantly reinforcing the reality of the situation to the general populace and by stressing the point that we had been attacked, the government was capable of creating a kind of unify force. This patriotic unity was then available to be used as support for the invasion of Afghanistan (and eventually Iraq). It should be clear what the government had to gain from sanctioning this as an official image.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Bush%20Marines%20Iraq%20%20jim%20watson%20afp%20getty%20images.jpgv

This is another image that sends very clear messages about the military. This time around, however, the focus is primarily upon the President and his relationship with the military. Bush is seen addressing soldiers, surrounded by them on all sides. Visually, the image makes a strong argument for the strength of Bush’s relationship with the soldier and their loyalty toward him. No one is seen questioning the war or arguing with the President. Instead, he is one of them, and they are, quite literally, standing with and behind him.

http://www.rubyan.com/politics/missionacccoffx.jpg

Unlike the previous three examples, this is perhaps not an official image. Pictures of this sort have been conspicuous in their absence from the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. While pictures of the coffins coming home were present during previous wars and while it is clear that American soldiers are dying in the Middle East, we have seen surprisingly few images of this sort. The vested interest that the government has in keeping such images from becoming official should be immediately apparent. A picture such as this reminds us of the toll of the war and makes us question whether or not it is worth fighting; these are just the sorts of questions that undermine the power of the government and therefore just the sorts of questions that it benefits the government to have us not asking.

2) When it comes to an issue of images being ideological and/or possibly harmful, the philosopher in me has a certain immediate reaction. Whether the image itself carries with it any meaning or if it is merely the events depicted in the image that matter is something of a question of realism versus idealism. Sontag’s arguments are ultimately ineffective because they rely upon the existence of the “subject matter of the picture,” when in reality we have no reason to actually believe that any such subject matter exists. We can attempt to analyze the ideological value of the picture itself, for that we have, but we cannot evaluate the speculative world in itself, for we do not have it. From a Kantian perspective, we can never know anything about this world. So too can we know nothing about the actual events depicted about the Abu Ghraid pictures or other images from looking at photographs. All we can know about is the photographs themselves.

That being said, what can we say about the ideological nature of images? It seems fairly clear to me that images can and do carry with them certain ideological commitments. To argue the opposite is to do the impossible; one would need to establish that images of all kinds say absolutely nothing. This is blatantly absurd. Images must have connected ideological messages for us to see them as anything other than formal expressions of abstract structure and composition.

So if images are ideological, can they be harmful? This is where it becomes difficult to make blanket statements. For some people who are operating under certain paradigms, no image is truly offensive or destructive. For others (whom I would feel safe saying are the majority), at least some images can be considered harmful. This eventually boils down to a matter of perspective. If only one person claims that images are harmful to them, how could we possibly refute them? We would be forced to concede that images can, in fact, be harmful under certain circumstances or to certain people.

3) In cases where a given picture could undermine national security or put lives at risk, then yes, those images ought to be censored. We should not go around publishing pictures of sensitive intelligence information. That being said, I doubt these are the sorts of issues to which the question is referring. The images from Abu Ghraib, for instance, do not directly undermine national security or place our soldiers (or anyone else, for that matter) in greater harm. They make us look bad and give the Iraqis another reason to hate or distrust us, but they are not directly dangerous images.

If the images are not directly dangerous, then they ought not be censored. As a country that is, at least nominally, run by the people, we should be informed about what exactly is going on during the war that we are helping to support. We should know as much about the war as we can without placing those fighting the war in danger. This becomes only more important when instances like Abu Ghraid highlight just how capable of depravity our own side can be.

Still, there can be many troubling or disturbing images that arise out of war, and people should not have such things forced upon them. Ideally we would be able to make the images available to the public in such a way as to allow those who so wished to view the images while allowing those who so wished to avoid them. Some might say that we should not allow anyone to continue living in ignorance and that we ought to show the realities of war to everyone, regardless of their own wishes or inclinations. This brings us back to the point in part two, however; what right does anyone have to decide how others should view images? If someone is offended by a given image, who are we to say that ought not be? Those in favor of total viewing would be offended if the other side made their choice for them, so why should it not go both ways? Failure to see things from other points of view or respect other choices than our own is what gets us into the mess of war in the first place.

Shea post 11

2007-11-14T20:40:00.000-05:00

Images become official by repetition. Usually, when an image matches a political climate, thereby eliciting positive viewer responses, it will continue to turn up in the various forms of mainstream media. The frequent use of a single image often has to do with profit or popularity. A news broadcasting station, for example, will repeatedly show the same footage of a soldier returning home to see his young son in an effort to appeal to its viewers’ emotions and heighten its ratings. It does not hurt that “official” images usually side with supposedly national aims and, in doing so, maintain government approval.

President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech suits these conditions by portraying triumph and general optimism. The president looks composed and pleased in his well dressed position behind the podium. The camera’s slightly upward looking angle allows us to focus both on the presidential seal and the patriotic banner mounted behind him which lend a level of legitimacy to the scene. He is telling an implied crowd of cheering onlookers exactly what they want to hear in a language they can understand: red, white, blue, and thumbs up. The image depicts the U.S. government as powerful and deserving of the control that it exercises over other countries.

In this 2003 edition of Time Magazine, all U.S. soldiers are named person of the year. The MEN appear brave, prepared and resolved. Regardless of what the article on American soldiers has to say, the cover speaks to their courage and selflessness for the protection of U.S. citizens. We, as viewers, are meant to gaze at these MEN with admiration and gratitude for all that they do in the name of our “freedom”. It is a unifying image because it endorses the American military without specifically taking the side of the Iraq war.

The claims made by professor Libby’s “Culture/War” article and those made by Susan Sontag’s “Regarding the Torture of Others” are not mutually exclusive. The conflict between the two seems to be over the meaning of photographs like those from Abu Ghraib and how that meaning ought to be deciphered and managed rather than what ought to tangibly done with the photos. The authors address this issue by placing emphasis on different components of the images’ power but without coming to contradictory ends.

“Culture/War” argues that the picture does not have the final word. It offers only a portion of some bigger picture and is simultaneously subject to the influence of outside forces. There is no guarantee of conclusive truth, especially considering the popularity of image manipulation programs like Photoshop. Even despite digital photography’s compromised validity, it is a medium that is not exempt from visual interpretation. The way that an image functions is culturally determined. Individuals and entire societies alike employ the tools provided to them by their environment when approaching an image and so aesthetic analysis is worthwhile so that we might understand why the photos were taken and why we react the way we do.

“The ‘reality effect’ produced by the medium of photography can ironically deflect our attention from the visual structuring that can reveal as much as the content.” (Libby, 47) This visual structuring, she argues, takes place even within informal photography like that of the Abu Ghraib soldiers. The soldiers’ choice to gaze directly at the camera or to focus on humiliated prisoners, with the assistance of guiding lines like pointing arms or leashes, is said to set up an “exclusive relationship” between themselves and the viewers “creating and legitimizing a shared dominance over the prisoners, most of whom are objects” (Libby, 46).

Aspects of composition like these are enhanced by the violation of social constructs. Many “employ gender as a weapon of torture.” (Libby, 44) The forcing of prisoners into sexual positions most stereotypically associated with females plays off of the societal gender distinctions that often favor masculine over feminine. This “category error” is meant to humiliate the prisoners by making them to feel womanly, but further serves towards the viewers’ repulsion at seeing such a breach in what is considered to be socially acceptable. There is also a violation of setting that works to unsettle the viewer which combines the familiarity of quick and casual digital photography with acts of conscious brutality. We are subsequently made to identify with the culprits. This contributes to the images’ over all horror, because the distance that we seek to establish between such seemingly inhuman soldiers and ourselves is shortened by the “exclusive relationship” and the shared method of photography.

I do not think that “Culture/War” means to say that the horror depicted by the Abu Ghraib photographs lies solely within the images. It seeks instead to attest to the importance of self evaluation and understanding when it comes to our own responses to images of the like. I agree that this understanding is crucial to the recognition of why images like this are created and why they wield such power over viewers. I do not think, however, that this evaluation ought to take precedence over the investigation of the action that these images portray.

Susan Sontag’s primary complaint has to do with misplaced attention on the circulation and effect of the Abu Ghraib photos. Political figures seem to value morale over humane behavior as they focus on the negativity that these images will inspire at home and abroad rather than the rectifying of an appalling allowance. This apparent disregard is apparent in President Bush’s statement that he was “sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and their the humiliation suffered by their families.” But “equally sorry that people seeing these pictures didn’t understand the true nature and heart of America.” (Sontag, 2) She employs factual information on the suspicion of torture and the likely innocence of Abu Ghraib prisoners to attest to the power of images. No recognition was given to this violent misconduct until photographs were made available. Sontag’s article does not reject photography as a medium worthy of interpretation, but calls for a priority to be placed, in this case, on what is being done rather than how it is being portrayed.

Ultimately I agree with both arguments. Certainly the methods by which images gain their power over us should be identified and analyzed so that our reactions might be intelligent and composed, but in events of emergency this analysis ought to be set aside in favor of preventative action.

In both cases, it is crucial that the Abu Ghraib photographs are made available to viewers. My agreement extends to this aspect as well. In the words of Professor Libby, “avoiding or censoring [photographs] in the public sphere would prevent us from recognizing and choosing ethically to act on their many implications for our society both as records and representations.” (Libby, 48) At the risk of indulgent sensationalism, wartime photographs are important for a realistic perspective. They will never be 100% reliable but the same dubious quality applies to information gathered from the textual media and from political figures themselves. There is never a foolproof guarantee, but photographs can act as an alternate source of information that will help to build a thorough perception of the situation as it really is.

Tawny N post 11

2007-11-14T19:13:00.000-05:00

Tawny Najjar

Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.” – George Bernard Shaw

In America, the country is ruled by the government, but the government is ruled by the people and the ideas that they have. Throughout the semester, we have learned how images can have a lasting impact on the ideologies of the public, and on the way they view current events. The Nazis controlled what images were in used in the media and museums to support their cause and beliefs. Riefenstahl’s documentary was used as a form of Nazi propaganda, while art that went against the Nazi ideals was considered degenerate and unacceptable. Images were used by the government to progress and win support from the people. Plato believed that the power of the arts should be marshaled and used for the good of the state, to empower the state and lead it on a prosperous path, toward glory and unification rather than toward disharmony and conflict. The images’ power to depict reality or create a new one has had tremendous influence in society throughout the years. The current images of the war in Iraq, the “War on Terror,” have shown that power.

During wartime, numerous images are displayed in the media, depicting scenes that support the war, or depicting scenes that clearly berate it. In America, the government has attempted to display images that show the war in a positive light, images that speak of patriotism and protecting one’s country. They feed off people’s craving for nationalism and togetherness, offering images that appeal to those desires. Pictures with the American flag blowing in the wind, large numbers of troops marching in line, and aerial shots of buildings of power (the White House, the Pentagon, etc) are commonly used in magazines, newspapers, and television, inviting United States citizens to join in and support the cause. War is supposed to appear to be honorable and noble, an attack on the immorality and unjust ways of others.

The government supports the circulation of positive images, but discourages images that go against American beliefs. Images, if used for those purposes, can be viewed as too ideological and even harmful in certain circumstances. The United States government saw the Abu Ghraib photos as harmful and derogatory to the “war on terrorism” effort. Yes, the content of the photos does depict some American soldiers in a negative light, but even more disturbing is the fact that these photos were taken and passed from soldier to soldier, as if they were some kind of joke. These pictures, which completely degraded the prisoners in them, served no constructive purpose other than to be used as a form of torture, embarrassment, and more importantly, to provide humor. They were meant to be circulated and seen by numerous people; it was all in good fun. This thinking highlights one of the growing problems in America: from realistic video games to television and movies, the fantasies and practices of violence are seen as good entertainment, as fun (Sontag 4). Images have an impact on the viewer. They can represent a reality, or they can create a new one. In this age of technology, photos can be manipulated to depict whatever the photographer wants to present to the viewer. Unlike paintings or drawings, this manipulation can have a bigger impact on the viewer. Photos have the sense of reality, an element that is missing in brush strokes and pencil lines. Viewers react stronger to actual depictions of emotions, rather than emotions that are obviously drawn-on by the artist to fit the theme of the painting.

As Libby says in Culture/War, “images, as least realist ones, tend to be regarded as natural signs that passively provide visual records of what is recognizable in the image. This is especially true with photographs, which, even in this digital age, are commonly understood neutrally to represent the events as they occur” (Libby 43). Cameras are used on a daily basis to record everyday events. They are used as a recording system, a way for people to forever remember their precious moments. This has become so common that people do not think about the dangerous power that photos can have. If something seems valid enough and appeals to people’s emotions, most they will tend to accept it, even if it is far from the actual truth. There are so many ways to twist reality in a photograph: the lighting, camera angle, position of the subject, and additional props used in the scene. They can vividly convey emotions, taking advantage of the viewer’s sentiments. Photos have the capacity to have one meaning to one viewer, and a completely different meaning to another viewer. As Stuart Hall said, “representation is an essential part of the process by which meaning is produced and exchanged between members of a culture” (Libby 45).

The Abu Ghraib photos caused a great upheaval in America, but this anger was not necessarily caused by the actual content of the photos. Many were more upset that these photos were publicized for thousands of people to see. The publication of the photos caught the US government off-guard, and the President and his advisors immediately tried to dissociate themselves from the incidents. When asked about the torture pictures, President Bush said, “Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people…I didn’t like it one bit” (Wallis 2). He later gave a speech concerning the Abu Ghraib photos, saying that he was “sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families,” but then continued to say that he was “equally sorry that people seeing these pictures didn’t understand the true nature and heart of America” (Sontag 2). As Sontag later said, these images were “representative of the fundamental corruptions of any foreign occupation together with the Bush administration’s distinctive policies” (Sontag 2). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield testified that these photographs damaged “the reputation of the honorable men and women of the armed forces who are courageously and responsibly and professionally defending our freedom across the globe,” instigating that the government was more worried about the damage to its reputation, image, and success, rather than the actual events going on (Sontag 7). Rumsfield later said that the pictures never should have been published and banned the use of cameras by the U.S. military in Iraq (Wallis 2). This illustrates their belief that it was the “the media’s” fault, which was provoking further violence. However, Malcolm X was once quoted as saying, "You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face the reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it."

However, American investigate reporter Seymour Hersh saw the photos to be a way in which the illegal and immoral practices could be brought to light for public knowledge. By giving them this role, he placed all of the blame on the subjects in the photos, the soldiers inflicting the torture. In his opinion, the photos were neutral records of the occurrences (Libby 44). Contrary to this belief, photos do not merely play a neutral role in society. As Libby stated, “Images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond, but constructed cultural objects whose intelligibility is made possible only within a larger matrix of other signifying practices and the social relations in which they are a part” (Libby 44). The reactions to the photos proved that they were not merely a form of neutral representation, but were instead a means meant to provoke and instigate some form of action. Many interpretations of the actions committed in the photos looked beyond the surface and revealed innate beliefs and attitudes about gender, race, and nation. W. J. T. Mitchell wrote, “If we want to understand the power of images, we need to look at their internal relations of domination and resistance, as well as their external relations with spectators and with the world” (Libby 45). These beliefs of dominance over the prisoners are clearly seen in photographs that depict naked prisoners being forced to commit sexual acts, prisoners cowering away from guard dogs, and most especially, the photograph that shows a hooded prisoner standing on a box with electrodes connected to his hands. "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" (Oscar Wilde).

Both the content of the photos and the fact that they were exploited are reasons for concern. However, the most important issue of these photos is the thinking behind them. The prisoners were tortured, embarrassed, and degraded, while American soldiers posed next to them with smiles on their faces and hands forming the thumbs-up sign at the camera. From the looks of glee on their faces, these soldiers believed that they had done nothing wrong. It is this mindset that should be examined. America has prospered on ideals of patriotism and national unity. However, this mindset has lead to the idea that this country is superior to others. Sontag wrote, “Looking at these photographs, you ask yourself, ‘How can someone grin at the sufferings and humiliation of another human being?’…And you feel naïve for asking, since the answer is, self-evidently, people do these things to other people…Americans too have done them and do them when they are told, or made to feel, that those over whom they have absolute power deserve to be humiliated, tormented. They do them when they are led to believe that the people they are torturing belong to an inferior race or religion. For the meaning of these pictures is not just that these acts were performed, but that their perpetrators apparently had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show” (Sontag 4). When asked why the soldiers took the photographs, Lynddie England replied, “We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken” (Libby 47).

Despite these disturbing pictures and their implications, war images should not be kept from public view during wartime. The government has attempted to censor what pictures are available for mass viewing by putting emphasis on pictures that display ideas of patriotism, nationality, and unity. However, war is not always glorious and clean. Images that contain negative war scenes bring evidence of the documented events into the public sphere and call for action in response to the events they record (Libby 44). They invoke a desire to uncover the real truth, the real problem. When both positive and negative images of war are displayed, people are able to come to their own conclusions and develop their own views on the war. This was the original purpose of a democracy (Power Point). Butler stated, “The task at hand is to establish modes of public seeing and hearing that might well respond to the cry of the human within the sphere of appearances…We might consider this as one of the implications of war, because politics – and power – work in part through regulating what can appear, what can be heard” (Libby 48). The public needs to know what war is truly about. The negative images give them the opportunity to see the other side of the spectrum. As Stuart Hall said, “Representation is an essential part of the process by which meaning is produced and exchanged between members of a culture” (Libby 45).

On the subject of the Abu Ghraib photos, though it was despicable that they were passed along as humorous material, they did alert the public to the idea that war is not clear-cut; during a war, the line between right and wrong, between black and white, is blurred and often crossed. These photos contradicted the “studied heroics of twentieth-century war photography that has been updated to the current conflict. Away from the photojournalistic flourishes designed to make war palatable – the heroic flag-raisings, the dogged foot soldiers close to the action, the sense of shared humanity among combatants, and the search for visual evidence that war is universal and inevitable – the often-banal JPEGs from Iraq proffer a very different picture; war is systematic cruelty enforced at the level of everyday torture” (Wallis 2). They opened people’s eyes to the reality that they were facing: people were suffering at the hands of American soldiers. This contradicted everything that the government has been telling the public. However, most importantly, the images forced the public to think about what they believed in, and made them choose for themselves what to support or be against. The pictures also showed the repercussions of ideas of dominance and superiority. Many of the photos were similar to American lynching photos. The soldiers in them looked very happy and pleased with themselves (Sontag 2). However, appreciation of the severity of one’s actions can prevent a repeat of those occurrences. When people see what effect the war and ideas of national superiority have on people, they can choose to either support or not support the continuation of the war. Moreover, the photos also forced the government to acknowledge that the war that America was waging was not pure and simple. As Sontag wrote, “It was the photographs that made all of this ‘real’ to Bush and his associates. Up to then, there had been only words, which are easier to cover up in our age of infinite digital self-reproduction and self-dissemination, and so much easier to forget” (Sontag 5).

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words; in this case, the pictures from Abu Ghraib made others say those words. The government could not hide behind their ideas of patriotism and “good versus evil” and had to instead acknowledge that war is not always positive and beneficial. The photos also displayed the power that images have on the public – on their actions, thoughts, and ideologies.

Ariane R., post 11

2007-11-14T18:00:00.000-05:00

Ariane Rosen

1. Images of war are all around us. These images, though, are not equally as trustworthy or “official.” For example, while Picasso’s famous piece Guernica is an iconic depiction of war and death, it is not an “official” one. It is not a genuine portrayal nor can it be mistaken for one. It is also not available to enough people to make it truly a universal symbol of the war it depicts. There are several factors that make something “official.” First of all, it must be available to most people. It also has to be seen repeatedly and in seemingly credible places such as the news and news oriented magazines such as Time. These are the images that people see and trust and talk about. These are the images that get drilled into people’s heads so many times that the event and the image become synonymous.

There are many interests involved in getting images out to the public. There are the profit motives of news venues who want to get viewers or readers by giving them something shocking and new. There are also specific private organizations that try to use images to get their point across and gain supporters. The biggest interest involved, however, is the government. The US government works very hard to make sure that the images the American sees are the ones that the government wants.

This manipulation and regulation of media images was very apparent during the first Iraq war. For example, after “millions of viewers watche[d] as the network television screens were split: Bush [Sr.] bantering with the press while flag-draped coffers were carried off Air Force planes by honor guards” (*Sloyan) Bush ordered a ban on media coverage for these honor guard ceremonies that has continued to today. Regulations were not only in place to stop the president from being made to look insensitive to the deaths. They were also made to “mask the reality of warfare that causes voters to recoil” (Sloyan). The government wanted support from its people and thus needed to regulate what they saw. For Cheney, who would later become Vice President, “that meant controlling the press, which he saw as a collective voice that portrayed the Pentagon as a can’t do agency” (Sloyan). These active efforts of the first Bush administration to control the media and the “official” portrayal of war foreshadow the policies of the later Bush administration, with its countless ties to the first.

The pictures below are both “homecoming” photos from war. The one on the left is an image of military coffins, the same type of image the government tried to suppress. It highlights the death the American deaths caused by war, which is not something that looks favorably on the government. The picture on the right is the famous V-J Day photo of a WWII soldier’s homecoming in Time Square. While it is from a previous war, it still shows the themes of happiness, celebration, and triumph that portray American wars in a favorable and successful light. Images such as the kiss would be ones the government would try to popularize while the images of coffins they would, and have, work hard to suppress.

The current Bush administration has used carefully contrived rhetoric to advance their interests, specifically in the war. When trying to promote and use images the government tries to find images that support the rhetoric that it is already spouting. They have used phrases such as “Operation Enduring Freedom” for the first phase of the war on terror, and "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world” to describe the enemy in order to foster support. All together President Bush, specifically in his call to arms speech, tried to proffer support through “an appeal to a legitimate power source external to the speaker, and appeal to the importance of the national culture under attack, the construction of an evil enemy, and an appeal to unification” (*Kellner). He used these techniques to perform a type of Orwellian doublespeak, which Kellner named “Bushspeak” in order to turn any bad into something good and thus get undying support for Bush and his war. Because photographs could be much more telling than words and much harder to forget, in order to prevent people from questioning this “Bushspeak” the images too would have to be monitored and molded wherever they could to line up with the verbal propaganda.

The “official” images of the Iraq War that fit with the government’s views specifically can be found on whitehouse.gov. The categories of photos that have to do with the Iraq War are called things like, “The Road to Freedom,” “Response to Terrorism,” and “Saluting Service.” These titles suggest the pro-government themes that the pictures represent.

This first photo is of Marines who are happy and patriotic. It makes the viewer feel a part of the picture and of the patriotic duty. It strives for unification and American pride which could then ideally be transferred into acceptance and support for not just the individuals pictured but for the war as a whole.

This is a photo of President Bush having lunch with soldiers. It puts the President amongst the troops making it seem as if he and the troops are going through the war together. It portrays the President as empathetic and caring and as simply an American, with the same values and concerns as the rest of America.

This last photo is of President Bush visiting a soldier in a hospital. He is talking on the phone to the soldier’s family. This picture does a few things. It shows that President Bush does not forget the soldiers who fought hard. It also shows that the soldier, and the soldier’s family, is pleased with the attention Bush is giving him and harbors no ill will about the war or the injury.

2. The acts of war that images portray can not be overlooked. It is true that “Americans are dying not because of the photographs but because of what the photographs reveal to be happening” (Sontag). Photographs, however, are not limited by the events they define, and the events they define are not limited to the photograph. This idea can be further explained by looking at the nature of photos themselves. “Images are not transparent screens through which the viewers can see some truth beyond, but constructed cultural objects” (Libby, 44) and are thus in many ways separate from the event itself.

When looking at a photo you can’t overlook who took it, who is showing it, and who the audience is. You also can’t overlook the fact that many things can be cut out of the picture, changed before hand, or not pictured at all. Because of the fleeting look that photos give of an event as well as their ability to be manipulated and constructed to show a certain person’s point of view, considering that the nature of photography involves the “process of selecting and deselecting [which] determines, literally, what is in and out of the field of vision” (Libby, 46), photos have their own story to tell that may or may not be in line with the whole truth of what happened.

Images can be ideological and even harmful, if only to the freedom of unbiased knowledge, because “media are not neutral forms of conveying messages” (Cartwright, 157). This can be seen in many ways such as how then angle of certain shots change the view to make a more intense impact. An example of this which is not related to war would be Dorothea Lange photo entitled “Migrant Mother” (1936). This specific pose and the cropping and lighting changes enacted by the photographer make the cause of the mother seem a lot more depressing and heart wrenching, specifically when compared to other photos of the same family. This image was thus picked and edited in order to convey the message that the view that the photographer wanted to portray.

Other than selecting the shots and angles and lightings that are most effective, special interests also choose the specific topic of photo that best displays a certain point of view. The pictures below, for example, are all of WWII, specifically the battles against Japan. The three top photos all show death and destruction involved with the war. The first one shows the USS Bunker Hill after being hit by two Kamikazes (372 Americans dead). The second is a grim and dark picture of Iwo Jima. The third is a dead coastguardsman in the USS Menges. These photos all show the horrors and death of war.

When thinking about Iwo Jima and the other on water parts of WWII, however, these pictures don’t even come to mind. What is immediately thought of is the fourth picture, that of the second flag raising at Iwo Jima. This picture shows a team of people struggling to lift the large American flag into the ground at Iwo Jima. It is an image of patriotism, triumph, and teamwork, as well as an image of hope. It was this picture that circulated around the US in every venue imaginable. Because this was the photo everyone saw and was made to remember they saw Iwo Jima as a triumph and a sign of triumph to come instead of as the death in the other pictures. If only the event that the picture showed was regarded as important as Sontag would have it then it is simply a photo of a flag being raised at Iwo Jima. If the picture itself is studied and the “visual structuring that can reveal as much as the content” (Libby) is analyzed you can begin to understand how this photo became the symbol of the war against Japan and the implications that this might have. These implications include limiting and molding the American perspective of the war to the patriotism and hope displayed in this one photo.

Another way the content of photos can be harmful and manipulative is if the subject was transformed and altered prior to the photo. The photo below represents Desert Storm. In it there are no people, just a vast expanse of sand with a lone American vehicle. This makes it look like the American troops met with little opposition and also harmed very few people. The facts of this photo, which are not known at the time of its release, tell a very different story. The war photographers weren’t allowed to be on the battle field at the neutral zone between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. After the fighting had been over for some time they were finally allowed to see. What they saw was very surprising, “there were no bodies, not stench of feces that hovers on a battlefield, no blood stains, no bits of human beings” (Sloyan). It wasn’t until much later that it was found out that the trenches of the opposition had been buried, with Iraqi soldiers still alive and shooting, and then bombarded with gun shots. Armored Combat Earth movers were then brought in to “level the ground and smooth away projecting Iraqi arms, legs and equipment” (Sloyan). All of a sudden there were no casualties, only prisoners, at least that’s what was there for the photographers to catalogue and take back to the US thus aiding in the manipulation and blinding of the American populous to the true tragedies of war.

3. Images of war should not be kept from the public view during war time. In addition to that, all types of images should have equal representation in important and influential news outlets. This would help to prevent a one sided look at the events going on that certain interest groups might want. As free citizens Americans should be able to decide for themselves whether they should give more weight to the patriotic or the demoralizing images. There should also, however, be some explanation of what the photos are showing, who took them, and for what purpose, as to prevent an uninformed look at them.

Certain people might prefer that certain images not be shown, such as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld who said that “the pictures [of Abu Ghraib] never should have been published and banned the use of cameras by the US military in Iraq” (Wallis, 4). While this would serve the agenda and interests of specific groups it would not serve the interest of American freedom of expression and of choice. Also, hiding the pictures, does not stop the acts. When the government decides to “suppress all unpleasant or unplanned images…and on the other hand to promulgate highly theatrical and carefully scripted photographs of good news” (Wallis, 4) the bad things don’t stop happening. All it does is prevent the American people from having the information from which they would be able to assert their democratic right to ask for change.

Showing pictures as information sources such as news venues is very different than exhibiting them with other artistic photographs. The Abu Ghraib photos in no way meet the same standards as the other photos at the International Center of Photography. The website for their museum describes the collections exhibited. There is a “collection of work by one of the greatest photojournalists,” a famous “photographer's estate,” a collection from “one of the founders of Magnum Photos,” and other such prestigious and artistically and critically acclaimed sources. The Abu Ghraib photos in no way fit in with these.

Below is one of the Abu Ghraib photo. This photo is only one of many like it, with soldiers posing smiling, often with thumbs up, in front of torture victims. These all “position viewers as participants in a familiar social practice of spontaneously photographing amusing and enjoyable events and remembering and sharing them with others” (Libby, 45). While this does make the photos more gut wrenching and vile, it also solidifies their amateurish quality. They are snap shots that were likely taken with the purpose of personal nostalgia and of sharing with friends to tell their story, not the story of the war itself. Snap shots in general are not seen as artistic photographs.

If you compare the first picture with the ones below the next two paragraphs, both taken by acclaimed photojournalist Robert Capa who is a permanent feature in the International Center of Photography, you can see clearly the lack in artistic quality of this first picture. The photo of the soldiers on the train doesn’t look staged. It shows the emotion and actions of the soldiers in a candid way, notice not all the soldiers are even looking at the camera. The way they are positioned in the train, with the little child, helps the viewer relate to them. They represent all soldiers leaving and can be related to by everyone. The photo of Abu Ghraib, while it invites you to join in the fun, still separates the viewer as does every snap shot in photo albums do. While posed snap shots try to show that the event was fun, they don’t show the fun as it unfolds and thus still separates the viewer from the photo.

Most photos in the collections aren’t even as posed as the soldiers on the train. A lot of them are more like this next one. It is an action shot of the war that doesn’t show specific people in the slightest. It does, however, bring the viewer right into the action. The viewer faces the same direction of the soldiers and is thus brought directly action. The formation of the men themselves, is a very artistic and aesthetically pleasing triangle.

While the Abu Ghraib photos due not show very artistic qualities, there are circumstances that might excuse their being included in the Center even though my personal opinions and preferences would leave them out. It must be remembered that the photos were taken by participants in the acts and not outsiders. This very much changes the dynamics of the photographs and gives them a less ‘photojournalist’ and more ‘family snap shot’ quality.

It is also very important to note that there aren’t countless photos of Americans torturing prisoners to choose from. This might not seem important at first but after looking at the many flag photos below you will see that it is. There are many different photos of flags being raised during war (three of them actually all took place in Iwo Jima). It is only the last one that is recognized and has become so recognizable that a statue has even been made of it. This was not the first flag picture taken, actually it wasn’t even the first flag raising at Iwo Jima. It is simply the more impacting and artistic of the photos.

Without such a variety of images to choose from, news sources, and even photography centers, are forced to settle for less artistic alternatives if they want to show the subject at all. While showing the subject might no be necessary at the International Center of Photography it is necessary in the news. The amateur nature of the photos and the relation to family photos can even be more effective in a news setting in some ways because in a sense the “horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken” (Sontag). This is important for awareness and information even if it might not be important, and can even hinder, the artistic and aesthetic qualities of the photos.

*Outside Sources

By Patrick J. Sloyan. Bodies? What Bodies, http://www.alternet.org/story/14633/

By Douglas Kellner. Bushspeak and the Politics of Lying: Presidential Phetoric in the ‘War on Terror’ http://proquest.com

http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.871855/k.BB9C/Robert_Capa_Archive.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gallery/photoessay/wh-war.html

Images

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bluejacket.com/usmc/images/w2_iwo-jima2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bluejacket.com/ww2_images.html&h=600&w=742&sz=76&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=e4DlBeVHSb0zfM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Diwo%2Bjima%2Bwwii%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG

transfossil.blogspot.com/2007/01/contrast.html

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/capa_r.html

http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-bs/ww2vol1.asp

http://carol_fus.tripod.com/jacobs13a.JPEG

http://www.forties.net/Guam_19944_First_Flag.jpg

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gallery/photoessay/wh-war.html

Ashley C. Post 11

2007-11-14T16:22:00.001-05:00

Ashley Cannaday

1) War images do not become official by someone declaring them so. Unlike Hitler’s regime in pre-war Germany, America does not have a department of the government that constantly tells us what good art is and what is bad, what is endorsed and what is disregarded. Rather, the process is more subtle. Images become “official” by their prevalence in the mass media. “Official” war images appear everywhere from television, newspapers, and magazines. Most of these images are very emotional and have a certain shock value. We also believe that these “official” images are one hundred percent authentic, and in no way staged or doctored. These images that are termed as official become a form of propaganda. Most could be classified as pro-war, depicting America in general in a positive light. They show the good guys (America) triumphing over the bad (a recent example would be Saddam Hussein). These images have an immense persuasive power, usually promoting the idea that war is in the national interest. They have become symbolic of the war, almost synonymous. The images above from the Iraq War are examples of those that would be classified as “official”.

Source

The first photograph depicts Iraqi children reaching after a U.S. soldier who is on top of a convoy. It depicts the children longing after to soldier, almost begging them not to leave. The message being conveyed is that the Iraqi children look up to the soldier, and therefore look up to America. It makes the viewer believe that war is the right because it is helping these poor, defenseless children. It is creating a better world for them to live in.

Source

The second image is of the fallen Saddam Hussein statue in Iraq. Iraqi Men have crowded around it and are destroying it with sledgehammers. The look on their faces is of total disgust and hatred. This photograph attempts to convince the viewer of the Iraqi people’s dislike of their tyrant ruler, Hussein. It makes us believe that the Iraqis want the Americans in their country to help them, that they are on our side and more than willing to cooperate.

Source

The third image is of three firefighters during 9/11 raising a flag on Ground Zero. This image serves the interest that war is a national endeavor. This photograph from the attack of the Twin Towers by terrorists, along with many like it, became the fuel for uniting America under a single cause. Images like this convinced Americans that the “War Against Terror” was the right path.

Source

The last image is a still frame from the leaked video of Saddam Hussein’s hanging. This image represents a huge step for an American victory in Iraq. We brought a tyrant down, and are that much closer to creating a democracy because of it. This image serves the interest that winning is everything.

2) I agree with the “Culture/War” article in that images can be ideological and harmful. I do not believe, as Sontag does, that you should ignore the actual image and only focus your attention on what they depict. Libby states that “much of the fault and horror does in fact lie in the images,” and I tend to agree (Libby 44). Yes, the events being depicted are horrendous crimes against humanity, no one can deny that (even though the Bush Administration may try to). But a good portion of disguist comes from the fact that someone actually took a photograph of these events. Someone decided that they wanted to remember these moments, and wanted them to be shown to others. The actual act of taking the pictures also seems inhuman. They way these pictures were taken seems inhuman. In her article, Libby references “images’ enormous power” (Libby 44). While the actual events are fleeting moments in time, ones that can only be seen again in one’s mind as memories that slowly fade, a photograph is tangible, and it is forever. It never goes away, and therein lies the horror. You cannot escape it. Another characteristic of the images themselves, and not the events, that is harmful and completely horrific is the fact that the soldiers are posing for the camera. They are smiling, pointing, and giving thumbs up, knowing full well that they are being watching, being recorded, and that the whole world knows what they’re up to.

It is very difficult to decide whether images of war should be censored during wartime. On one hand, images of war can cause great dissent in a country that needs unity more than ever during wartime. Plato would agree that in order to preserve a nation, certain harmful images need to be repressed. Wartime images can convince citizens that the war they are fighting is wrong, immoral, and not worth all the dead bodies and the torture that is being inflicted. How can soldiers overseas not be discouraged when they know that a large portion of the country they are fighting for does not believe in their cause? If images were censored during war, our nation would be more cohesive, increasing morale. On the other hand, I do not believe that images of war should be kept from the public during wartime. I believe that the American people should know what their country is doing. They have the right to be informed. I think this right outweighs Plato’s belief that a nation must be preserved by any means necessary, including censorship. As citizens of a democratic nation, we have the right to not be kept in the dark about our nation’s foreign affairs. We have the right to know what kind of decisions our government and our president is making so that we can decide if this is effective or not. Come election time, we need to know how our government is conducting themselves so that we know whether to keep them in power, or usher in a new party with new political ideas. We cannot be an effective democracy if our people are uninformed, and in order to make sure that these atrocities are never repeated, they must first be known about.

However, I do not agree with the decision to exhibit the Abu Ghraib photographs. By exhibiting the images, you are in a sense calling them art, and to some degree glorifying them. I cannot see the rationale behind displaying them in a gallery. One might argue that the purpose behind this is to inform the public of the atrocities of war, to expose them to the dark side of it all so that they can be educated citizens. I do not believe that this is a good justification. The Abu Ghraib images were circulated very quickly across all forms of mass media. Americans had plenty of exposure to what was going on, whether it be through the newspaper, magazines, or various forms of television news programs. The photographs were in no way being pushed under the rug. By putting them on display, you are only raising the photographs to a level that they do not deserve. By nature, images in museums and galleries are those that have some artistic value and credentials. I think most people can agree that there is nothing artistic about the Abu Ghraib photographs.

Aaron Post 11

2007-11-14T15:54:00.001-05:00

Aaron Childree

There is an old proverb that says, “All is fair in love and war.” While there are laws such as those set out in the Geneva Conventions that are supposed to set regulations in theory, this statement is for the most part still true today. War is a time when killing other human beings is somehow justifiable and moral boundaries are crossed on an everyday basis. In war the decision lies not in choosing between good and evil but in choosing the lesser of two evils. Soldiers are greatly affected by being in such a harsh situation in which almost nothing is black and white. In order to kill your enemy and not consider the guilt and remorse that killing makes you feel, you must dehumanize your enemy. If the thing that you are shooting at is not a human, then maybe you can sleep at night.

Not to absolve the soldiers who took the disturbing pictures at Abu Ghraib of blame, because everyone should be held responsible for their actions no matter what the circumstance, but the reason that these photos were taken is because of the nature of war as described above. The photos are more evidence of what war does to the human mind than anything else. The pictures are a record of an actual event, but they are also a commentary on human nature and how it is affected by war and violence.

Part 1

The issue of what is an “official” image has become increasingly complicated with all the advances in technology that have taken place over the past few decades. There used to not be any photographs taken during a war that weren’t official because the only way that photos could be seen was through the “official” media (such as television, magazines, newspapers). Another reason for this was that photography used to be much more time consuming and expensive. But with the rise of the internet and the affordability and ease of use of digital cameras, photos can be taken by anyone and distributed over the internet with virtually no restrictions and regulations. The government is no longer able to censor what people see. This can have a huge affect on how people view an overseas conflict. While in the past the government could censor images in order to put a positive spin on everything, and because the war was far away, people wouldn’t know that they were being fooled. Now that anyone can take pictures and post them on the internet, you can see what the war is really like, for better or for worse. The way war is covered and photographed today, there is really no difference between official photos distributed by the government and personal photos distributed over the internet.

The first image is from proggiemuslima.files.wordpress.com

The second image is from informedvoters.wordpress.com

The first image above takes an official image and then puts a twist on it. The image shows George W. Bush suited up in some sort of fighter pilot’s outfit with the words “mission accomplished” above him. This image was used by the government to show that the President was a part of the war and understood what the soldiers were going through, and also to show that our mission in Iraq was accomplished. The interesting twist in this image is that the background shows the coffins of soldiers that died in Iraq. This change of background completely alters the meaning of the photograph. While still showing the familiar “mission accomplished” photo, this image is clearly against the war and the deaths that it caused.

The second image is of soldiers in Iraq in the midst of a battle. It is meant to show the daily struggles the soldiers must go through. This is much different from the photos seen from the Civil War in which photos of the aftermath of battles were all that was available. Photography is now much quicker and more efficient and pictures of actual battles can be taken. This has a great effect on how people view war because now they can see what actually goes on during a battle.

Part 2

I think that images can be ideological. There are two basic levels to any image. There is the literal level, which is what you actually see, and then there is the figurative level, which includes the message that the picture is trying to get across. Every image has both of these levels. Even if the photographer was not trying to make an ideological statement with the picture, his subconscious thoughts and ideas will still inevitably be visible in his art. I am not saying that the literal aspect of a photograph isn’t important, we still must realize that the photo is depicting (or is often assumed to be depicting) an actual event, but the ideological statement that the photo makes is often more powerful. Sontag warns against the adverse effects of only considering photographs on an ideological level. She criticizes the Bush administration for this mistake: “The Bush administration and its defenders have chiefly sought to limit a public-relations disaster- the dissemination of the photographs- rather than deal with the complex crimes of leadership and of policy revealed by the pictures” (Sontag, p.1). Images, especially photographs, are very powerful and we must be careful to examine them at both the literal and ideological levels.

Part 3

While Plato would surely disagree, I would say that war-time images should not be kept from the public, no matter what the adverse effects may be. While Plato’s ideas on censorship only allow for the public to view things that would strengthen their trust in the state, I would argue that the public has a right to know what is going on. I just don’t think that knowledge of any kind should be purposefully held back from anyone. It is better to know the truth then to live in ignorance, even if the truth is not what you want to hear. Even though the photos that were taken at Abu Ghraib are very disturbing, the public has a right to know what is going on in the war that is being funded by their taxes. Even though the photos may “produce disgust and fear in the viewer”(Libby,p.47) they still have the right to see them. The government shouldn’t focus on censoring things that they think are inappropriate from the public, they should be worried about preventing inappropriate behavior in the first place. The shock doesn’t come from the fact that these photographs were being hidden from us, it comes from the fact that the scenes depicted in the photos are things that no human being should ever be put through and we are appalled at the actions we see in the photographs. In this sense it is not the photographs themselves that are disturbing but the idea that they depict something that really happened.

I will leave you with a very disturbing quote from Lynddie England, one of the soldiers involved in the taking of the Abu Ghraib photographs. England was asked why the photos were taken and replied, “We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken” (Libby, p.47).

Joe Post 11

2007-11-14T14:49:00.000-05:00

Joe Kelly

1) Images of war become "official" when they are put forth by a credible source and are then widely circulated. When an image becomes part of the mainstream media's portrayal of a war, from any side of it, it has become official. Probably the majority of these official images promote the cause of the war through normal ideological communications. For instance, the world is littered with images that promote war by implying that it is a patriotic undertaking, or that we are attempting to help those who need it. These images are widespread, but it is rare that any of them stick with us generations later. Less widespread, though perhaps more powerful, are the official images that protest war. There are certainly a great many unofficial images that take an anti-war stance, though for such an image to become official despite its contentions against governmental agenda, it must be very powerful, the kind that remains in the national consciousness for generations. Images of rows upon rows of Civil War soldiers lying dead in an open field, of a girl crying over the dead body of a college student who had been shot by the National Guard for protesting, and of Vietnamese children running naked from the horrors of wall, all have and will remain with us.

The above image portrays the war effort as an attempt to help the people of Iraq. This is exactly the type of image we wish to portray. The government wants the military to be seen as a positive, liberating force. While it is a very positive image, there are many others like it, from this war and previous wars. Because it is fairly generic, it likely will not endure when history looks back on the controversy surrounding this war.

On the other hand, this photo from Abu Ghraib prison helped create an international scandal. Instead of liberators, we appear to be bullies. This image was widely circulated as soon as the scandal broke, and has continued to be ever since. It is likely that this symbol will endure into the future as a symbol of American transgressions.

2) It is difficult to take a position between the two opposing contentions that images themselves can have harmful consequences or that it is the events they portray, not the images themselves, that are harmful. In the case of Abu Ghraib, I would have to argue that latter is true. The taking of the photos certainly had consequences after the fact that hurt our national image; however, the photos themselves were consequences of the events that took place. While in today's visual culture, the images that we see are capable of profoundly affecting our behavior, this particular incident shows that the behavior was already there. It was not a commercial portrayal of behavior that its purveyors wished the audience to adapt. It was a behavior that other forces had already brought into existence. While an image may serve to perpetuate this ideology of abuse and degradation, it also set in motion a wave of indignation. In this particular case, it seems that the events in question are the harmful forces at work, though this does not dispute the power that images have in our culture in many other cases.

3) In a democratic society, images of war should not be kept from the public during wartime. Images often serve as simplified arguments that make a point implicitly through appeals to emotions. In most arguments, such appeals are weak. However, war is not an argument. War is a fight, into which a nation carries principles concerning humanity and justice. These principles are not facts, and we cannot pretend them to be such. We cannot see how they are being carried out by reading text. However, when we see images such as those from Abu Ghraib, we can decide for ourselves whether or not we feel that the principles we consider to be American are being upheld. Since the ultimate power of American government rests with the people, it is important that they have every grain of truth at their disposal so that they may make the most well-informed decisions in regards to the path that the nation shall take.

Maxine R. Post 11

2007-11-14T14:22:00.001-05:00

Maxine Rivera

Part I

War images become "official" through repeated exposure. When an image becomes something that we instantly associate with a particular war, or war in general, it begins to officially represent war. The repeated exposure occurs through the media, television, magazines, newspapers, billboards, etc. will show the same image to the public over and over until the public cannot help but call a specific image to mind when they hear the word "war." Depending on the image used, the people may have positive, supportive notions about the war, or negative, dissenting feelings. This is perhaps why politicians and people in power work so hard to control what images become official images of war. It would be desirable that the official images be images that champion the cause, that put our side in the best possible light, and make us look not only victorious, but righteous. In controlling what images become official, these influential people must also carefully censor what images must not become official, images that show the gruesome, inhumane, and dangerous side of war are not desired to be in the public eye, such images would not rally support of the masses.

http://www.tiger-tail.org/images/statue1.jpg

This is one image from our current war that has become official. One way of knowing that an image is official is that just about everyone (from a given audience, for instance, a country involved in the war) can identify the image; they have seen it before and they know what is going on. This particular image is of a statue of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. There is a crowd of Iraqis around the base of the statue. This image is considered a point of pride, it is symbolically and literally knocking/ pulling Saddam Hussein off his pedestal with the support of the people. America is shown as (a) successful, (b) loved by the natives and (c) doer of good, bringer of democracy and stability. There was later controversy over the picture, apparently the crowd is just what is seen in the photograph, not a huge crowd as the audience would assume. Either way it serves the purposes of the government by putting America in a positive light, we are efficiently achieving our goals with the support of Iraqi people; job well done. It also serves to soothe Americans who might have felt doubtful about our presence in Iraq, it answers questions like "are we doing the right thing... are we accomplishing anything at all... do the people even want us there..." with a resounding yes.

This next image has also become an official image of the Iraq War. It is an image of President Bush in uniform on a visit to the troops. Again, the image is official due to its notoriety, it has been displayed on every television channel, in many magazines and newspapers, it can easily be found anywhere on the internet, and if you were to say to an American "that picture of President Bush in the flight suit" they would know exactly what you were talking about. The image once again serves the purposes of the government, the commander-in-chief is hands on. He addresses the troops in person, and is clearly involved in the war, not just sitting on a cushy chair in the Oval Office giving orders. He is smiling and waving, giving the impression that everything is fine. He is dresses as "one of the boys" to show the people that he is just that, the photo is very effective propaganda. The leader of the nation is involved and supportive, his calm manner relates a sense of control to the viewers telling them that everything is fine, going according to plan. This is the type of image that politicians would want to become official. Yet again there was controversy surrounding this image, several people took offense tot he attire of the president.
http://homepage.mac.com/brianflemming/iblog/images/bush_flight_suit325x385.jpg
These two images exemplify some of the "photojournalistic flourishes designed to make war palatable" such as the freeing of oppressed, miserable people, and the fully invested leader. (Gogan & Sokolowski, Inconvenient Evidence 3)

Part II
Photographs have amazing power in our society today, with great power comes the capacity for great danger. The often feel that photographs have the power to tell us the truth, something we value as absolute, above all else, "the distinction between photograph and reality... can easily evaporate." (Sontag, "Regarding the Torture of Others" 8) With the public trusting that photographs are "neutral signs that passively provide visual records of what is recognizable in the image" and the current ability to easily alter images, I definitely believe that images can be not only ideological but also harmful. (Libby, Culture/ War: The Visual Politics of Representation in the Abu GhraibPhotographs, 43) "Words add, words alter, words subtract." (Sontag 1) Today's technology also makes this true of photographs, with simple photoshop one can crop a picture, therefore subtracting, superimpose other images or bits of other images, adding, and change colors (for example, deepening the blue of the sky can make a day time picture appear to have been taken at night) and distort faces, sizes, etc., altering. Not to mention the power held by the photographer, he/she "chooses what to photograph, the vantage point, the proximity to or distance from the objects on the photograph, and therefore also chooses what is not int he picture... thus controlling our knowledge." (Libby 46) However, we still place an immense amount of trust in photography, for this reason I agree with Sontag's opinion that we should ignore images and focus on the events depicted in them. Yet, with this new distrust of images, and our already in place distrust of words, it becomes very difficult to understand the events and what actually took place unless you were a witness.

Part III

I believe some images of war should be kept from the public during wartime. I know that this position sounds tremendously undemocratic, but my reason behind my opinion is more personal that political. We discussed in class that photographs were extremely powerful because the figures in them are real, recognizable, people. "Photographs are us." (Sontag 2) But not only are they us, they are our brothers, our cousins, our husbands and wives, daughters and sons, nieces and nephews. Coming from a family with four cousins, and two uncles in the military, all of whom have been to (or are currently in) Iraq, pictures of mangled bodies, and bloodied soldiers disturb and frighten me, the effect they have on my mother and aunts is far worse. Luckily for my family, none of the photographs have been of our boys, but I do not think that any mother or father, sister or brother, or little cousin should have to find out about the fate of their loved one through something as impersonal as a photograph on the nightly news. Out of respect for the families of soldiers, I think some images should be at the very least censored (not allowed on magazine covers or the news, perhaps restricted to websites that one visits by choice.)

The guards at the Abu Ghraib prison, used this super personal aspect of photography as a black mail of sorts. The claimed that the pictures of the abhorrent acts were going to be used to keep the imprisoned individuals in check once they were released, that the men would follow American orders to keep the pictures from being circulated. (Gogan & Sokolowski 6)

I do not think that the Abu Ghraib photos should have been exhibited at the International Center of Photography. These photographs were under no circumstance art, nor were they intended to be, they were simply vulgar and I do not think vulgarity is proper justification for displaying something in a prominent public place. I also feel that displaying such photos to all Americans and the world opens up an opportunity not only for American dissent but for loss of support among other nations. Under no circumstances do I feel that the actions taken by the guards were alright, nor should they be covered up and ignored, but I think that circulating them and forcing them on the global community over and over only serves to hurt our nation, like the war or not we are involved, and destroying what support we have left is only going to jeopardize the safety of our soldiers, the ones who are not psychotically deranged and are just doing their job and serving their country.

Brynne post 11

2007-11-14T13:26:00.000-05:00

Brynne Piotrowski

1. War images become “official” through sanction and recognition. In the strictest sense of the word, only those images specifically taken and/or released by the party at war (i.e. the military or government of a nation) can be considered “official.” This is the method by which war images achieve “official” status by means of sanction. However, some of the most memorable photographs from conflicts do not fit this definition of authorized war images yet are still worthy to be characterized as “official.”

The images that are iconic of war in general or a specific war have become “official” without being explicitly designated so by an overseeing body through recognition, generally public recognition. Sometimes these images garner praise and sometimes they are condemned. Another possibility in the case of “official by recognition” pictures is that they will be also recognized and upheld by the government as great examples of war imagery. However, equally possible is denunciation of government, military, etc., sometimes with a criticism of not being “official” because they were not specifically sanctioned as such.

As for the interests serves by “official” images, they can vary. Government and military interests are obviously served by the “official” images that these bodies sanction as authorized representations of war. Both of these institutions have an understandable interest in preserving a healthy image of the war effort and the American soldier through pictures. However, sometimes the “official” images serve the interests of dissenters because they have become popular pictures that do not depict war in a favorable (or at least honorable) light. Just from personal recollection of seeing images of war, I would argue that the former instance (images that serve government/military interests) is more common than the latter. This is not a wholly good or completely bad occurrence, just a note of which case tends to predominate in reality.

“Official Images”

Soldier Hands Out Candy to Children
This image serves the interests of those for the war effort and support the image of American soldiers as caring and concerned.
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/week_2004_10_17.html

Fall of Saddam Hussein Statue
This is a good example of “official” imagery that serves government interests. Although I am not certain about this particular image, I know that pictures of the statue of Saddam Hussein falling were released by the government and thereby “official” by sanction.
http://theredhunter.com/images/Saddam%20Statue%201-thumb.jpg

Flag-draped coffins of fallen soldiers returning from Iraq.

This image is an interesting juxtaposition of two supported interests. On one hand, it could support the argument of dissenters who bemoan the cost of war. Alternatively, it could serve the interest of the government/military by evoking sympathy (aptly) for the soldiers who have fallen in the line of duty.
http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/flag_draped_coffins_2.jpg

2. Libby and Sontag both raise excellent points in regards to the Abu Ghraib images. I was especially impressed with Sontag’s discussion of the proliferation of images and how this trend is both a liability and unlikely to reverse course. (She notes how our world is a “digital hall of mirrors, [and] the pictures aren’t going to go away.”) However, I believe that “Culture/War” and “Mass Media and the Public Sphere” have the stronger position because the fact remains that the controversy arising from the Abu Ghraib images would not exist to the extent that it does had it not been for the actual, physical photographs.

Sontag is very justified in her concerns about the actual events depicted in the images: “the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken...” (Part II). Yet, perhaps the whole issue would be nonexistent had the images not been taken by the soldiers. Even if there were rumors of these events, they would not have such force without images to support them. Libby states that, “photographs tell us what and who can be looked at and by whom. This by itself is an exercise of power; power relations are visible in the mechanisms by which the pictures visually map systems of dominance and subjugation through the controlling and structuring function of the gaze” (Culture/War 46). This is precisely why “Culture/War” makes the stronger argument—the pictures exist and hold the power; without them, Sontag might not even have a basis for her condemnation other than rumors or whispers. Therefore, I agree with Libby that, “much of the fault and horror does in fact lie in the images, precisely because images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond” (Culture/War 44).

3. The question of keeping images from the public during wartime is one of the sharpest of double-edged swords. Ultimately, the answer is no, with caveats. American citizens deserve to see what happen in war—they are entitled to see both the good and the bad. As a whole, we need to be an informed public who understands that truly “war is hell,” it can invoke terrible costs upon our country, and at the same time it may be genuinely necessary. I argue that this is an acceptable position as long as the following two caveats remain true: First, seeing images of war—both good and bad—does not always have the ability to promote or condemn war in the eyes of the public. For example, most Americans understood that WWII was necessary and the effort must continue even after they saw pictures of the casualties on Omaha Beach from D-Day. There will always be individuals who decry war even when it is depicted in a favorable light, and there will always be those who support it after seeing negative imagery. The second stipulation is that images that compromise “mission-critical” information (i.e. images that show covert troop build-ups for an offensive drive) could be subject to censure, at least temporarily.

On the subject of the Abu Ghraib photographs in particular, I do not think exhibiting them was an especially wise or necessary decision. Americans should be able to view the good, bad and ugly of war, but public exhibition in a manner similar to artwork seems to go a step too far. It is detrimental to those seeking to raise awareness of the issues that arise from the photographs because some of the potential viewing public becomes disillusioned and gets tired of what they perceive as forcible overexposure. Honestly, I cannot see a reason why an exhibition was necessary, seeing as the photographs received plenty of press through various media outlets.

Jenn Post 11

2007-11-14T12:42:00.000-05:00

Jenn Shea

Everyday, the American public is exposed to countless photographs portraying the latest in Iraq through television, major newspapers, and major magazines. In these portrayals, we can see the difference in the intent of the media versus the intent of the government. By showing both negative and positive images of the war in Iraq, the media, despite its intent to mostly attract an audience, at least portrays both sides to the events in Iraq. Although the public is exposed to more negative news about the events in Iraq via the news and publications, the photographs that are repeatedly presented as official or iconic are those showing the positive nature of war efforts, including photos of President Bush shaking hands with soldiers and soldiers working together as “An Army of One” in US Army ads. Photographs should be looked at as critical representations that increase a viewer’s awareness of certain events that have taken place. In this sense, the photographs of Abu Ghraib not only serve to portray the atrocities that occur during wartime, but what it means to take a photograph and the effects of its circulation when it portrays a message contrary to what a viewer is used to seeing.

Question One

War images become official when they are published in magazines and newspapers as general representations of a war. These images show collectively a central message as to the purpose and effects of war, and oftentimes, as in the 20^th century, such images portray a uniting theme that makes war seem, like any national or international crisis, something that brings people together and something that can be understood and recognized universally. These images positively depict war efforts. Even if devastation of some area in Iraq is shown, a positive spin is added in saying that at least progress (what some consider it to be) is being made. As Brian Wallis notes in “Remember Abu Ghraib,” “Aside from the atrocities they depict, as photographs, the images from Abu Ghraib contradict the studied heroics of the twentieth-century war photography that have been updated to the current conflict.” Wallis notes that the Abu Ghraib photos stray from the “photojournalistic flourishes designed to make war palatable—the heroic flag-raisings, the dogged foot soldiers close to the action, the sense of shared humanity among combatants, and the search for visual evidence that war is universal and inevitable—” (Inconvenient Evidence 4). These types of images that serve only to promote the purpose of war can be identified as forms of political and war-time propaganda. This propaganda serves to unite individuals in the efforts and goals of the war by bringing in the general public to the sphere of the war with war scenes framed to help a viewer identify with what is going on without actually participating. As Susan Libby notes in “Culture/War,” “Vernacular photography also serves a bonding purpose in its ability to create a sense of community and group identity among participants in events and between the participants and the viewers. Sometimes these bonds cohere in depictions of power relations wherein the group with which the viewer identifies dominates or harms another group” (45). Thus, these images allow a sense of unity and increase the authority and power of the participants in the war, which can then be shared by viewers. Because of the idea of official war images serving to idealize and promote war efforts, many that do not encourage such unity and support are often not as publicized or are withheld through the efforts of an administration. Sontag, in discussing the discrepancy between the Bush administration’s reaction to the Abu Ghraib photos and the actual events, quotes Rumsfeld addressing the danger of the photographs: “ ‘There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist,’ Rumsfeld acknowledged in his testimony. ‘If these are released to the public, obviously, it’s going to make matters worse.’ Worse for the administration and its programs, presumably, not for those who are the actual—and potential?—victims of torture.” In addition, the Abu Ghraib photographs would not be considered official because they contradict the common representation of members of the U.S. army as a strong unit that serves honorably on behalf of the country.

informedvoters.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/
This image portrays soldiers in the line of duty in Iraq. This is considered an official war photograph in that it portrays a sense of strength and courage in the American soldiers in fighting for the American cause-to establish peace and democracy in Iraq. In portraying these soldiers supposedly actually in action, there is a uniting factor in the war. This photograph invokes a sense of pride by showing soldiers performing their duties. Unlike photographs portraying soldiers lying dead on the ground or mourning the loss of their comrades, this photograph shows soldiers working together and shows the struggle they are going through for the sake of the United States and its goals abroad. This is a photo for which the American public would feel a sense of pride in seeing the services and sacrifices of the American soldiers.

thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
This statue toppling was staged by the Army, which may have been for safety measures but is also coincidentally beneficial for a poignant snapshot. This image is an official war image because it attempts to evoke a sense of accomplishment and pride amongst the American people. It suggests a form of progress by portraying the removal of Saddam from power. The gathering of people in the foreground of the photo also shows a sense of unity as it appears they had come to support the fall of the dictator.

Question Two

While I agree with Sontag in “Regarding the Torture of Others” that images are not nearly as important as the events they portray, I do not believe that images should be wholly disregarded in the role that they play in raising awareness about occurrences in war. In addition, as discussed in the previous topic about abortion, images can at times have much stronger impact on an individual, as an individual is given everything at once in an image and upon seeing it once is forced to recognize its message. In simply portraying issues through words, individuals are more likely to stop listening when they disagree. With an image, there is much less opportunity to do this. An image disturbing or moving enough is likely to leave a lasting impression. While some images used as propaganda may only serve as forms of ideological promotion and thus may seem dangerous, the presentation of the Abu Ghraib photographs proves that eventually, the American public will see through the heroics of war and the hidden atrocities will be unveiled as long as censorship does not occur.

Sontag also addresses the fact that the administration, mainly Bush and Rumsfeld, were quicker to address and apologize for the photographs than for the actions they represented that took place at Abu Ghraib. Sontag notes, “The administration’s initial response was to say that the president was shocked and disgusted by the photographs—as if the fault of horror lay in the images, not in what they depict” (Sontag). Although I agree that the photographs are crucial to the depiction of the atrocities that took place, I must agree with Sontag with this point that the fact that the atrocities occurred and that they were photographs holds much more weight in the issue and says a great deal more about the war as a whole and the human rights violations involved than simple representations of the reality. The motives of the Bush administration also come into question, as Sontag notes, because it was not until the photographs were released that the issue of the atrocities was recognized. None of the reports compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by other journalists and humanitarian organizations were ever recognized. In this Sontag does recognize the importance of the photographs, but in doing so also addresses how unfortunate it is that they were the only medium that could attract the administration’s attention even after human rights violations were previously reported in writing: “The pictures will not go away. That is the nature of the digital world in which we live. Indeed, it seems they were necessary to get our leaders to acknowledge that they had a problem on their hands…it was photographs that made this all ‘real’ to Bush and his associates” (Sontag). Sontag additionally notes that the horrors portrayed in the photograph are equally if not less shameful than the act of taking the photographs: “…the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken—with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives.”

In the sense that the photographs portray not only the horror of the events but the horror behind the idea that the photographs were taken at all with soldiers posing with the dead bodies and proudly displaying the atrocious acts they forced upon the prisoners, I feel as though Sontag and Libby reach common ground. In “Culture/War,” Libby notes, “…I propose that much of the fault and horror does in fact lie in the images, precisely because images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond, but constructed cultural objects whose intelligibility is made possible only within a larger matrix of other signifying practices and the social relations of which they are a part” (44). In this, Libby is conceding that while images are quite powerful themselves, they also hold power in that they are a social construct, not simply something that exists. Someone must have created the images, and in doing so, there must have existed some intention in portraying events that occurred. Thus I agree with both views. I do not believe that photographs should be disregarded; I feel that they have an important role in uncovering what is kept from public sight especially in times of war. However, I also feel that the emphasis placed upon the photographs sometimes distracts from the events they portray and delays necessary actions to prevent the events from reoccurring, especially since the Bush administration seems so intent on covering them up.

Question Three

Images of war, whether positive or not, should not be kept from the viewing public. By limiting what Americans can see, a government only serves to make the masses more ignorant of the goings on of war. If this is the intention of a government, one can see a sense of Nazi and generally totalitarian censorship. If photographs portraying actual events, no matter how disturbing, are kept from the public eye, a government is keeping the truth from its people and is also revoking the photographer’s right to free speech. Although, as noted by Sontag, the Abu Ghraib images were meant to be circulated and thus seem to connote a perverse course of action and promote the abuse of prisoners as a sense of fun, this is all the more reason to allow the public access to them. These photographs raise awareness to the realities of war and reveal to the public that even those we think are serving a noble purpose can do things that are inhuman and monstrous in aspect. As Libby notes in “Culture/War,” “The investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh, for example, sees the photographs in terms of their role in exposing of inhuman and illegal practices that needed to be made public and punished. This view presupposes the neutral capacity to record actual events, but not, as with other commentators, to use images’ supposed neutrality to stand in for a social problem, but rather to bring evidence of the documented events into the public sphere and to call for action in response to the events they record” (44). This view of images focuses on the idea of the ability for photographs to call into question the actions of those in the Abu Ghraib photographs and those who took them and to call for action against such abuses that are unacceptable regardless of whether we are discussing times of war or peace and behaviors of Americans or the enemy. Finally, what is unacceptable is the denial of public display of photographs for the purpose of protecting the actions and decisions of the government. This kind of censorship is outlawed by the first amendment. Sedition against the government should be encouraged in a democratic society so long as there is evidence of the wrongdoings of a government. As noted by Wallis, “…the often-banal JPEGs from Iraq proffer a very different picture: war is systematic cruelty enforced at the level of everyday torture. In this regard, the Abu Ghraib images undercut both of the Bush administration’s high-minded visual strategies in selling the Iraqi War: on the one hand, to suppress all unpleasant or unplanned images…and, on the other hand, to promulgate highly theatrical and carefully scripted photographs of good news…” In order for the public to be well-informed about the actions its government takes, the positive and negative must be equally available. If the freedom to see the truth, regardless of whether or not it supports the government’s decisions, is surrendered, the United States mine as well be run under a totalitarian regime, which would be quite ironic in the context of the supposed intentions to promote democracy in Iraq.

etibbetts post 11

2007-11-13T22:39:00.000-05:00

Erica Tibbetts
1. War images become “official” the same way any element of culture becomes imbedded in the popular consciousness, through repetition, acceptance, interest, consumption and/or a support for some accepted value. A picture of Michael Jordan slam-dunking, or a space shuttle taking off, or of Marilyn Monroe having her dress blown up; all are iconic and instantly recognizable to the American public. They have been viewed repeatedly; they support the American ideals of hard work, beauty, advancement, domination; they are all aesthetically pleasing to an extent. We accept them as a culture because they do not challenge us or our beliefs.

There is, of course, a whole different set of images that have been ingrained in the American psyche due to their abrasive subject matter. Images from the depression, pictures of 9/11, of bombings or other events that have shocked the American public still become part of the accepted culture, even if they do not represent an ideal.

In the case of war photos, both reasons for acceptance can be drawn upon. War is a great economic stimulator, a great unifier, a means of glorifying a people and nation, a way of building patriotism, a means of gaining power and respect, but also a gory, often vilified, act that never occurs without controversy, death, and suffering. Yet, the images created from war still enter and become a part of the pubic consciousness.

From the war in Iraq the images that seem to have become official are

a) the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue http://www.cbc.ca/news/photogalleries/saddam_timeline/pages/13.html

b) soldiers in camouflage outside a building in Baghdad

http://www.iraqi-dinar-exchange.com/news/older-iraqi-dinar/1559.html

c) tanks on the way to Baghdad

http://middleeast2.blogs.bftf.org/files/2007/07/iraq_war_topix2.jpg

d) President Bush on an aircraft carrier

http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/may2003/index/ii050103j.jpg

There are two main purposes served by these images. The first is the purpose of unification, patriotism, and strength. This applies to the picture of the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and to the picture of Bush on an aircraft carrier. The former shows the downfall of a dictator, a man thought to be evil and representative of everything the United States is fighting against. By pulling down his statue, the U.S. is showing that they are stronger, they have taken control, and they are in power.

The picture of Bush on an aircraft carrier is symbolic of the President as leader, as the first line of defense, as the most powerful man in the world. He is ready to fight for his country, to take up arms with the “common soldier”. This image is meant to show that the President cares, that he is not above or removed from the struggles of the soldiers.

The other two images are slightly more ambiguous in their purpose. The soldiers on a city street, with civilians in the background could be read negatively. They are intruding upon a foreign setting, and imposing themselves upon people who may or may not need their help. They could be seen as a liberating force, who are there to help the onlookers. They could be seen as a disruptive, destructive force. They could also be indifferent. The soldiers and the people behind them are from two totally different worlds and probably have opposing outlooks on life. This type of image shows the invasive nature of war.

So, in a sense it can serve two different purposes. It could unite, but it could also divide.

The picture of the tanks is also ambiguous in nature. It shows force, power, technology and progress. However, it also shows the violent, invasive nature of war. The picture could serve to rally people to the cause, to feel patriotic, to be unified. However, again it could also serve to show the problems created by war. It depends a lot on the context in which the image is displayed, and the viewer. The viewer’s beliefs will probably change how he or she views this image.

2. I do agree that images can be ideological, yet I think the word “harmful” is too loaded to be applied universally and without any other sort of tweaking. In her article, Dr. Libby sets out to prove that “the Abu Ghraib pictures (and by extension any photographs) can be theorized as examples of visual culture and positioned in relation to culture wars fought over images” (Libby). Essentially, images can create a powerful argument and an opinion of the world that is not inherent in the actual thing captured, but in the way the subject matter is captured.

Libby points out, “much of the fault and horror does in fact lie in the images, precisely because images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond, but constructed cultural objects whose intelligibility is made possible only within a larger matrix of other signifying practices and the social relations of which they are a part” (Libby). We are a visual culture, especially the current generation. We watch television, play games, surf the internet on computers and cell phones, see billboards, and even demand that our music be set to video in order to visualize the lyrics. We think through images in a way that no previous generation has. So, when we see pictures of Abu Ghraib we see more than just a prisoner tied up, or performing a sex act, or being “punished”. We see a commentary on the American spirit, on the American desire to be in control, on the American desire to have “fun”. Libby describes how the act of taking pictures implies the quotidian and enjoyable, “[there is a] jovial nonchalance with which the pictures depict such horrific acts and the ways in which the viewer’s memory simultaneously draws on the production and circulation of our own everyday pictures” (Libby). Americans take pictures at family gatherings, at sporting events, in places and during activities that are fun, wholesome, memorable. When the soldiers in these pictures smile, or give a thumbs up, they are extending this enjoyment to the activites in which they are partaking. The viewer identifies with this, whether consciously or not. The image is relate to enjoyment, and at this point the viewer can either be repulsed by what he or she sees, and denounce the American military, the war, and the spirit behind it. Or, he or she can look at this image and embrace the retribution that is being dealt to so called “terrorists”. Either way, the image is not merely an image, it makes the viewer take a stand, it shows the flaws in the American approach to enjoyment, power, and gender or is reveals in the viewer an indignant sense of hatred towards the unknown and the “other”.

In relation to the problem of gender and power, Libby says, “the pictures and the acts they depict employ gender as a weapon of torture and how this strategy is effective only within belief systems that construct binaries of “masculine” and “feminine” in terms, respectively, of “strong” and ‘‘weak,” valorizing the masculine over the feminine” (Libby). The only reason the soldiers use this form of “torture”- that of subjugating a man’s will and power to a woman’s, is because they believe that any man will be ashamed of this, thus creating a preconception that the man is and should always be more powerful. The image is not merely capturing the act, but showing a belief system, creating a support for a male dominated culture.

In the “Inconvenient Evidence” article, the following accusation is made, “The photographing of prisoners, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, seems to have been not random but, rather, part of the dehumanizing interrogation process” (Hersh). In this sense, then, the photograph itself is almost not as important as the act of taking it. The constant flashing, the knowledge that one is being examined and recorded is almost as terrifying (to someone in a compromised position/situation) as actually seeing the physical product.

The same article discusses the actual product, the photograph itself, and the mixed implications this product can have, Away from the photojournalistic flourishes designed to make war palatable— the heroic flag-raisings, the dogged foot soldiers close to the action, the sense of shared humanity among combatants, and the search for visual evidence that war is universal and inevitable— the often-banal JPEGs from Iraq proffer a ver y different picture: war is systematic cruelty enforced at the level of everyday torture” (Wallis). The photographs show the cruelty, the overarching problems with war, the underlying cruelty of the American desire to control and command. They cease to be just images of what happened, and instead become accusations.

Susan Sontag, in her article about the events that took place ace at the Abu Ghraib prison has a slightly different take. She says, “So, then, is the real issue not the photographs themselves but what the photographs reveal to have happened to ''suspects'' in American custody? No: the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken -- with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives” (Sontag). She makes no effort to separate the method, the act, the context of the picture from the actual event it is capturing. The only horror of the scene is what is actually taking place, not what the picture stands for. I have trouble believeing this, because any image needs some sort of framework. NO image can be read purely for what it is, without some understanding of something that is not inherent in the picture itself. A viewer must know where the different people are from, why they are where they are, what is occurring, under what circumstances these people were brought together, etc. Without this information, the picture cannot be read. With this information, the picture cannot be viewed solely on what it depicts.

Later, Sontag says something along the same lines as Libby, in that pictures are no longer just the physical object: “The pictures taken by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, however, reflect a shift in the use made of pictures -- less objects to be saved than messages to be disseminated, circulated” (SOntag).

Pictures are not just records of an event, they are ideas, they are art, they are an ideological weapon. Pictures can change the way people think about an event, about a person, about themselves. Images are so important in this culture that we cannot escape the supreme power of any permanent, or semi-permanent imagery.

3. People have the right to know what they are a part of. The American public has a right to know what their tax dollar is supporting, what their name, their country, their fellow citizen is being involved with. However, no depiction of events is ever unbiased. There is always some sort of political spin involved when an image of war, or prison, or soldiers, or detainees is displayed. So, the public can never receive the truth they deserve. In this case it is hard to say whether or not images should be censored. I don’t believe in censorship. I believe images have the power to show people the evil or the beneficence of their actions, or the actions they are supporting or protesting. I think that images have the ability to form ideology, but I believe a viewer should be allowed to make these choices for him or herself. And, with the way images are produced and disseminated, I don’t think this will ever be possible.

So, while I disagree with censorship, I don’t know how I feel about images of war being spun to an all too gullible audience. Viewer’s can be manipulated too easily to understand what an image actually does or does not mean, and in the case fo the Abu Ghraib pictures, a viewer could probably be convinced either that the “torture” being dished out was worthy of the crimes committed, or that it was totally unwarranted.

So, I guess in reality I don’t want censorship or a lack thereof, I want an unbiased media and an educated public… good luck with that.

post 11

2007-11-13T22:37:00.001-05:00

Kelly Gordon Post 11
1.Images become official images of war when they are captured or obtained by the mass media and dispersed to the public audience to be interpreted as a form of propaganda. They tend to provide the audience with the opportunity to choose whether or not they support the war. Concerning war, images impact the public so much more than words. One could hear that 1,000 soldiers died, or 5,000, or 50,000, and still it might not register to the reader exactly how catastrophic the conflict is. If there were an image featured that depicted that number of people lying dead in the street or on barren land, most people would immediately become disgusted with the violence of war. Official war images exist to exploit what is occurring during wars. They also exist to either persuade the viewer to become pro-war or anti-war. All images during wartime are used as propaganda by the media and the government. 2. I agree with the "Culture/War" article when it states that "images can be ideological and even harmful" because images are so persuasive. War images can contribute to the loss of support of a war that might better both countries' economies and social dispositions. It is a fact that people in wars die. Innocent people, soldiers, and "evil" people in wars are all killed at one point or another. By capturing that image on a camera, the photographer is exposing a gruesome image to the public and therefore often aiding an anti-war sentiment. This is harmful and dangerous when wars should or must be fought for a moral or obligated purpose. No one wants to see bloody children, but they are a fact of war. Likewise, people don't want to support a war if they see images of children dying gruesome and pitiful deaths. This isn't good for a country or a country's campaign for war if people are persuaded by the affectation of an image. If the image speaks to a person's emotions they are unable to take a rational side concerning the war. People are persuaded by their emotions to become anti-war because these images are pushed into their faces. If a country is making the world a better place by participating in that war, then the depreciating support by its people because of images portrayed by the media does not expedite the war process.
Also, images are easy to manipulate in order to convey the message that the photographer is attempting to send. It is more difficult for an individual to affect another individual through articles or news broadcasts because its easy for the reader or listener to keep in mind that it is the writer/broadcaster's opinion. With images, people tend to take them as solid fact. What they often forget is that photographers tamper with images until they appear just as they want them to. There isn't as much truth in images as people might believe.
Sontag suggests that we should "ignore the images as such and focus ont he events depicted in them." The predicament with this theory first arises when we question whether or not the image is a mimesis of an event or a photograph that has been tampered with in order to incite a certain emotion in the viewer. Images cannot be trusted to depict the events that they capture. They are just like words -- easy for the artists to manipulate only more deviously affective.
3. Images of war should not be hidden from the public during war time. One of the most valued things concerning the United States is its media coverage. Our media might not be unbiased, but it is open and free compared to that of Russia, China, and North Korea. United States citizens have a right to know what is going on in the war regardless whether or not the images depict the exact truth or if they persuade an individual against supporting the war. The Abu Ghraid photos most certainly should have been shown to the public so that the citizens of the United States might learn that they aren't as holy as they think they are. Some people who are United States citizens are just as evil as those Iraqis guilty of oppressing their country's people. We need to know that if there are people in the military who are abusing their position, they are being held responsible for their actions and being punished for them. They also need to serve as an example for any other wrongdoers in Iraq who are "interrogating" their prisoners illegally. Those individuals must learn from those who were caught. That type of behavior must not be tolerated by the American government and both the public and the military must hear, see, and accept that.
Still, the pictures should not be celebrated. As an American, I am ashamed to believe that those so-called heroes fighting in Iraq might be committing human rights violations in line with those of Saddam Hussein. If they are depicted in an exhibit, they should not be shown as art, but rather as evidence of those members of the 320th Battalion who committed such acts not only against the Iraqi prisoners but also against all the Americans supporting them from home.

Amanda D. Post # 11

2007-11-13T10:19:00.000-05:00

Amanda Dhillon

It seems that the most recognized images of a war are those that have been granted an unofficial title of being an “official” war image. Accordingly, then, those images that either become the center of a culture war/ conflict or are displays or a great patriotic victory are the ones that become a war’s “official” images. The progression of a culture war over an image or an image’s iconic status stemming from its patriotic nature causes overexposure of the image to the public, which then begins to recognize it as a symbol of the war, helping it achieve an “official” status. Thus, when the image is seen repeatedly by multitudes of people, in the news, on propaganda, in advertisements, etc., it becomes a figurehead and an “official” image of the war during which it was created. Images from the Iraq war that have reached such a status must be ones which have been everywhere in the public eye, ones which the people can directly connect to the war, and there are three excellent examples of these: the photograph of an Iraqi prisoner standing blindfolded on a box at Abu Ghraib, the photograph of the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue, and President Bush arriving on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Each of these images also is used to serve the interests of certain groups or parties, thus enhancing their status as “official” images by thrusting them further into public gaze. The Hussein and Bush photographs are generally used in support of the war effort to show US victories to the people and make it appear that everything happening in Iraq is positive and going according to plan. The photo of the prisoner at Abu Ghraib contradicts the message sent by the previously mentioned images, showing that there are atrocities being committed in this war, and it is not as black and white as is made to seem. The line between “good guys” and “bad guys” is blurred for the American public viewing this image because no longer are the US soldiers glorified “liberators” of the Iraqi people; they are also torturing the very people they supposedly protect.

Saddam Hussein statue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42397000/jpg/_42397683_saddam1_ap.jpg

Prisoner on box: http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris/elements_of_ecology/images/abu_ghraib.jpg

President Bush on aircraft carrier: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/images/2007/05/01/bush_in_flight_suit_at_air_base.jpg

While it can be understood that images are not merely “transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond” (Libby 44) because in many cases they are captured after deliberate staging and other manipulations or purposeful biases, more attention should be focused on the events depicted rather than the images themselves, as these images are representative of deeper conflicts and problems, particularly in the case of the Abu Ghraib photographs. As Sontag explains in her article “Regarding the Torture of Others,” too much emphasis is placed on the photos as a way to avoid dealing with the greater issue at hand, the nationally embarrassing and outrageous conduct of the military at Abu Ghraib. She explains how the presidential administration found itself “shocked” (Sontag 1) at the images and berated and banned them from publication instead of dealing with the military leaders and soldiers in the photographs who committed these torturous acts against the Iraqi prisoners and who received far lesser of negative repercussions than the images themselves. Here in is the primary issue that should be focused on, as the images do represent something much worse than what they physically are (as was stated earlier, they are not simply “screens”). They represent a prejudice and hatred toward the Iraqis and perhaps even their religion as they establish a social/ethnic hierarchy that, unfortunately, some Americans feel is the truth of the world order. In this, the photos do carry a harmful ideology, as others could view them and interpret this possibly implied message as truth, especially since the culture industry has conditioned white people of privilege to view others in this way through various means of visual representations (film, images, etc.), but this is not quite as important as that issue which lies beyond this. As Sontag states throughout her article, people take the images too far and they become a kind of scapegoat, diverting the blame and attention from addressing (no less fixing) the real problems. Thus, the image itself as a physical entity should fall into the background when uncovering the true issues at play—the events depicted in them. Images, as can be seen in the case of the Abu Ghraib photos and the subsequent treatment of and reaction toward the photos versus the people and events within them, can often get in the way of discovering and correcting the real social problems that they depict.

It is very difficult to determine whether or not images of war should be kept from the public during wartime, and arguments can be made to justify both cases. It would seem, though, that citizens, particularly in nations that consider themselves democratic, should be given the ability (and probably the right) to view such images despite the negative reactions that will undoubtedly result. For instance, photographs such as some of those taken during the Vietnam War of seemingly helpless villagers and children being attacked or displaced by US soldiers would be enough to convince some that war is not right and should be abruptly brought to a close before there is any more damage to civilians and other innocent bystanders. Obviously, displaying images like these to the American public would demolish domestic support for the war, making it harder for the government and the military to continue on. Such a hindrance to the war effort and lack of support can be enough, sometimes, to cause a disastrous end to a war. However, despite the problems from and vicious outcry of the public against a war because of exposure to war images, the people should have the ability to know what actions and policies their country is really executing halfway around the world, and what their military, their national defense, is truly acting out and how they are fairing in battle. They should be spared neither atrocities nor losses and victories as long as they are the true events of the war. As far as the Abu Ghraib photographs are concerned, they should not have been or be “exhibited.” They are not photographic art and thus should not be treated as such, as it implies a sort of glorification. However, they should be circulated in other media, such as in the newspaper or on the television news broadcasts, as the people of the US should have the right to know what kinds of “criminal behavior” (Sontag 3) their military are engaging in. This is especially important because when actions such as those depicted in the photos are carried out, they should be punished just as severely, and the photographs can work as visual evidence and reveal this truth to the people and the administration, who should take appropriate action to stop, to prevent, and, to the extent possible, amend the horrible deeds of the soldiers involved. Photographs of war can be very effective records of the events and progress of war, and the people should be able to have access to this information since war concerns all of a nation’s citizens.

Jessica D., Post 11

2007-11-11T21:36:00.000-05:00

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." -Ernest Hemingway

The war images that ultimately receive “official” status are those that help serve national and/or governmental interests in relation to war. They are chosen because they propagate a certain belief or incite a particular emotion(s) from the public concerning war. They are utilized to help to persuade and influence the public’s opinion and ultimately conform it to match the views of that nation’s government concerning war and their involvement (or avoidance) in it. War images that are distributed throughout the media and are allowed to be viewed by the public are normally those which the government has sanctioned and approved for public consumption. They are the images the public sees repeatedly on TV, in the newspapers, and in magazines; these are the images that ultimately become permanently ingrained into the public’s mind. The images that were first circulated at the beginning of the war in Iraq were extremely censored, strategically sanitized, and carefully chosen to be very patriotic. The first picture I chose was one of the many depicting the events of the 9/11 attacks. September 11, 2001 was a day that will forever be ingrained in the hearts and minds of all Americans. That fateful day when terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger airliners and crashed two of them directly into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City the safety and freedom of all Americans was violently breeched and violated and their lives turned upside down. Following the attacks, the Bush administration declared an official War on Terrorism. The plan was to capture Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, prevent future terrorist attacks, and stop the insurgence of other terrorist networks. This image graphically captures the chaotic disaster of the 9/11 attacks. The violent explosions and smoke streaming out of the Twin Towers will forever be an image associated with that fateful day. In the case of the image above, it powerfully incites a strong sense of patriotism and unity for Americans and became an image that “silently” proposed that the war in Iraq was truly a unified American endeavor and a justifiable cause. This graphic image touched and continues to touch the raw nerves of Americans whose freedom and safety had been so viciously violated and taken away from them on American soil. It instilled in Americans a belief that whoever committed these inhumanely disastrous attacks must be stopped at all costs; even if they were not exactly sure who or where the “bad guys” were. It was this image and many others depicting the catastrophic events of 9/11 that were constantly on the news and papers for months following 9/11. It was impossible to turn on the TV or read a paper without seeing one of these images. This image (and others depicting the attacks of 9/11) became propaganda for America’s invasion of Iraq; a visual justification for the War on Terrorism. Many of the “unofficial” images (aka images that the Bush administration did not approve of) of the war in Iraq like the Abu Ghraib photographs and the images of the coffins of dead soldiers that had fought in Iraq were censored and concealed from public view because they had the power to make people question the Bush administration, America's involvement in the war, and would ultimately allow people to see the cruel reality, immorality, and inhumanity of war; in essence they were inconvenient evidence.

The photograph to the left is of Iraqis in Baghdad, assisted by U.S. Marines, toppling down a statue of Iraq President, Saddam Hussein, on April 9, 2003. This photo has become one of the most pervasive images presented to the American public by the media depicting the Iraq war. This image helped Americans feel justified in fighting the war in Iraq because they were successfully preserving the freedom and justice not only of American citizens, but also of people all over the world. It helped calm people’s uncertainty about the war and shed a positive light on American war efforts. We had “successfully” ended a tyrant’s rule, liberated oppressed people, and were winning the fight against terrorism; this image was able to capture the spirit of the moment. It glorified American military achievements and helped to unite America through a common cause; the worldwide preservation of freedom and justice. This image would ultimately come to represent the unspoken propositions that war was a national endeavor, it was American, it was manly, and it was all about winning. Both the images of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Hussein image are images that I believe Plato would approve of because they inspire patriotism and help to bring a nation towards unity. These images (and many others) were utilized by the Bush administration to increase and encourage the public’s support of the war.

Images are means through which ideologies can be produced and onto which ideologies can be projected (Practices of Looking 21). They can be utilized and even exploited in order to instill and affirm beliefs in their target audience. They are powerful “tools of mass persuasion” that help to forge and maintain a mass ideology (Practices of Looking 164). Their powerful capability to influence and even change the views and beliefs of individuals is mainly the reason they have the potential at times to be harmful. Leni Riefenstahl’s infamous film, Triumph of the Will, a film that documents the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, is a prime example of how images can be saturated with ideologies and utilized to produce a national ideology. This impressive visual spectacle was utilized by the Nazi Party to convert and instill the Nazi ideology into the German masses and is considered to be the best Nazi propaganda ever created. In the article, “Regarding the Torture of Others”, Sontag argues that the inhumane and horrific treatment that Iraqi prisoners received while under American custody was underscored by the Bush administration’s extreme preoccupation with the effects these images would have on America’s reputation (Sontag 2). She relates how the Bush administration mainly focused on trying to prevent and limit the dissemination of the photographs rather than addressing “the complex crimes of leadership and of policy revealed by the pictures”; in essence ignoring the real issues at hand (Sontag 1). After the photos surfaced, they were openly criticized, blamed, and condemned “as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict”; the fact that the photos existed became a distraction from the real issues in question (Libby 44). These images are just factual “representatives of the fundamental corruptions of any foreign occupation together with Bush administration’s distinctive policies” (Sontag 2). These were horrific images of prisoners that had been tortured, dehumanized, and stripped of the “rights accorded by international law and the laws of all civilized countries” by American soldiers; images that had the power to visually “assault” viewers (Sontag 3). Sontag argues that it is critical to stay focused on the events that are depicted in these photos not on the photos themselves in order for any justice to be served and the individuals responsible for these horrific crimes made to pay (Sontag 1). In the case of the Abu Ghraib photos, I also believe that it is crucial to “bring evidence of the documented evidence into the public sphere and to call for action in response to the events they record” instead of blaming and condemning the photos themselves; in essence focusing on, addressing, and correcting the real social, political, and/or cultural problems that are depicted by the images (Libby 44).

Just as the images of napalmed children and horrifically slaughtered innocent civilians in Vietnam played a critical role in transforming American public opinion about the Vietnam War; the disturbing images of Abu Ghraib had an immense impact on the way Americans viewed the war in Iraq and our involvement in it. The Bush administration had so long tried to paint a rosy picture that despite a few minor setbacks; things were going well in Iraq and the War on Terrorism was going strong. However, it was not till the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced and were circulated throughout the media that “the magnitude of the abuses and their international ramifications started to become clear” and the Bush administration found themselves in hot water (Gogan and Sokolowski 3). These disturbing photos made it difficult for the administration to continue to claim that everything in Iraq was going according to plan; horrific images of beaten, bruised, and abused Iraqi prisoners at the hands of American soldiers are not exactly easy images to have to explain to the American public. These images ultimately had a huge global impact on the public's opinion of the war in Iraq that words could never come close to. I believe that Plato would view the photos of the Abu Ghraib prison as harmful and condemn them because they have the power to evoke a passionate emotional response instead of a rational response in their audience. Also, they do not glorify or function to bring a nation towards unity and harmony, but instead blatantly reveal “inconvenient evidence” and have the power to incite people to actively question the actions of their government

Governments all over the world have always been concerned with the public’s political opinion concerning war and have actively pursued to suppress images that contradict their own interests. During World War I, the U.S. Army would execute any soldier who took a photograph; fearing that any photograph taken might contain some “unofficial evidence” that might negatively sway public opinion about the war. The surfacing of the scandalous photos of the Abu Ghraib prison incited quite a response from the Bush Administration who had fiercely tried to suppress and conceal this “inconvenient evidence” (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld stated that the pictures “never should have been published” and quickly banned the use of all cameras by the U.S. military in Iraq and President Bush stated, “their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people…I didn’t like it one bit.” (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). The Bush administration had utilized images to sell the war in Iraq to the American public by showcasing images that justified the war in Iraq (such as the images of the 9/11 attacks) and concealing images of Iraqi civilian deaths and flag draped coffins; images that would evoke an emotional response from the American public against the war in Iraq; emotions that would ultimately be evoked by the Abu Ghraib photos (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). These horrific images did not help to make war more palatable or even justifiable as had the images of the 9/11 attacks, firefighters, Saddam Hussein, or terrorists. They did not promote the message that war is universal and a normal part of life, but instead painted the harsh reality of war. They were visual evidence of the brutality, inhumanity, and immorality of war; images that were in essence a clear violation of the Geneva conventions (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). They crudely exposed to the whole world the cruel and evil nature that war brings out in humans.

Sadly, war is often romanticized in order to be made more palatable to people. It is more often than not showcased as being a glorious, honorable, and justifiable event; a normal part of everyday life. However, in portraying war in this positive light another part of the multifaceted reality of war is overlooked and concealed; the images that depict the horrific reality of war and highlight the imminent danger that the “winning is everything” mentality can have on humanity. Many feared (mainly the Bush administration) that the iconic images coming out of the war in Iraq were not gloriously patriotic photos that promoted the war, but instead amateur photographs of Iraqi prisoners tortured at the hands of American soldiers; images of war that the public normally was not allowed to see (Sontag 1). They also believed that it was “unfair” that the American effort in Iraq would come to be summed up by these horrific images (Sontag 2). The Abu Ghraib photographs depict dehumanizing “interrogation practices” that were supposedly utilized to create an “army of informants”, but ultimately were “intended to assert cultural dominance locally and to restore racial and political hierarchies globally” (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). Not only did these posed photographs graphically depict the inhumane atrocities that were done to the prisoners by American soldiers; they also served to further humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize the prisoners (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). I do not believe that images of war should be concealed and/or censored from public view during wartime. Living in a democratic nation, I believe that all Americans should be given the respect that they deserve and allowed to see any type of war image they so choose to; even if this means that public support and/or approval of the war will decrease. What does the American government have to hide from the American public that they are not allowed to see what is going on in Iraq? As American citizens, we have the right to know what our government is doing especially in times of war. People should not only be allowed to be shown images of war that highlight its necessity and benefits (like the images of the 9/11 attacks or the image of Saddam Hussein), but also be allowed to view the inhumane and horrific aspects of war and then form an educated opinion based on the variety of information they have been presented with. It was feared that these images would have the power to taint America’s reputation, image, and success as the lone superpower, and turn the tide against the war (Sontag 2). However, the real issue at hand is the horrific events and crimes these images depict that yearn for justice to be served; not the effects they will have on tainting “America’s claim to moral superiority” (Sontag 2). It is important to remember that these images act as a mirror to the horrific events that occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison and “the only thing worse than the photos themselves would be if they never came to public light" and justice could not be served (Marks 1).

The fact that the disturbing photographs of American soldiers torturing and abusing Iraqi prisoners at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison were exhibited at the International Center of Photography and the Andy Warhol museum attracted much controversy. The propriety of displaying these horrific images was heatedly debated. The exhibit titled "Inconvenient Evidence: Iraqi Prison Photographs from Abu Ghraib.", allowed viewers to see the amateur digital photographs that had the power to negatively influence the public's opinion of the war in Iraq, and be exposed to the human rights that had been violently and horrifically violated by American soldiers. I am not sure whether or not the photos should or should not have been exhibited as they were. There are many questions that need to be answered in order for me to be able to form an educated opinion whether or not these photos should have been exhibited. Firstly, who owns these images? How did the International center of Photography obtain these images? Did they receive permission to exhibit them? Are they really art? Are they still art if they were not originally created to be “artistic”? On the other hand, it could be argued that though the images lack “artistic” qualities they still function as art because they serve to be a social/political commentary on the war in Iraq and horrific events that occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison. The issues as to whether or not these images should have been exhibited are as controversial and complicated as the images themselves.

Sources:

Marks , Alexandra. "How the Images of Prison Abuse Shape Perceptions of the War." 11 May 2004. Poynter On The Record. 14 Nov 2007 .

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/B/2/3/Geneva-Conventions-e.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/AttackImages.htm
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rwqjwUQDEoQ/Rt9mlZc529I/AAAAAAAAABM/3gWIDf5Hn2A/s1600-h/db_SaddamHusseinStatue61.jpg

Justin Wright Post 10

2007-11-07T23:51:00.000-05:00

Part 1: As soon as Justice Blackmun made the ruling in favor of abortion in Roe vs. Wade, legal abortions were being performed almost immediately. Some doctors were performing them the afternoon after the Court’s decision was announced. However, anti-abortion protests were only sporadic at first.

The Catholic church banned abortion over a hundred years prior to Roe vs. Wade. It was not treated as important news that it was now legalized, as its establishment as a sin was well entrenched. But the number of abortions performed in the United States became so large that Catholic John O’Keefe could not ignore it, so he began to stage sit-ins as a method of civil disobedience. O’Keefe pledged to follow in the traditions of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, and swore to use nonviolent tactics to fight abortion.

Groups of Protestants gradually allied with O’Keefe’s movement. But a few individuals began to become frustrated with the lack of results, so they resorted to more violent tactics on their own. Michael Bray, Thomas Spinks, Matthew Goldsby, and James Simmons, among others, began late night bombing raids on abortion clinics in 1984. All of them were captured, and the anti-abortion movement began to be portrayed as a few radical and violent people through the media. For those who bombed the clinics, any attention was good attention, but non-violent leaders such as O’Keefe were appalled. Support for the anti-abortion movement began to decline.

In Pensacola in 1986, Joan Andrews, John Burt, and two others stormed an abortion clinic during a protest and damaged equipment. Andrews refused to comply in any way with the prison system, and was given a five year sentence for a minor crime. Andrews became a martyr for her defiance, and an icon of the movement.

In 1988, Randall Terry led the rise of the fundamentalist Protestants in the anti-abortion movement. Catholics began to join his movement as well. Terry used similar tactics to O’Keefe, but wanted to create a national anti-abortion movement called “Operation Rescue.” While he did manage to assemble larger and larger protests, setting records for numbers of participants and arrests, he never generated a truly national following.

In 1993 there still had been almost no progress in the movement, and an outraged Michael Griffin shot Pensacola’s only abortion doctor, David Gunn, to death. This began a string of debates over whether murdering abortion doctors was justified, a debate that ultimately led to the increasing unpopularity and subsequent collapse of the movement. The federal government began conspiracy investigations to try to uncover a ring of anti-abortion protestors committed to the use of violence. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was passed and signed into law, which pushed protestors even further away from clinics and carried federal penalties for protestors who blocked anyone from entering an abortion clinics. The remaining activists transformed into extremists, and supported the use of violence to stop abortion. Those committed to more peaceful tactics began to give up, as abortion protests had been totally ineffective, and some even argued counterproductive, as they created a public perception of pro-life activists as backward and violent people.

Paul Hill emerged as a radical in favor of the new doctrine of “justifiable homicide.” He wrote a paper after Gunn’s death on the topic, and not long afterward shot Doctor John Britton, who came from Jacksonville to perform Pensacola’s abortions, to death, along with James Barrett who drove him from the airport.

At this point, O’Keefe said: “The direction of the [anti-abortion] movement?...I think it is a disaster.” (Risen and Thomas, “Wrath of Angels,” p. 371)

Part 2: McVeigh and Sikkink cite four factors that correlate with support for more radical protest movements: “volunteering for church organizations, a perception that religious values are being threatened, a belief that individuals should not have a right to deviate from Christian moral standards, and a belief that humans are inherently sinful.” (McVeigh and Sikkink, “God, Politics, and Protest: Religious Beliefs and the Legitimation of Contentious Tactics,” p. 1425)

During the time of anti-abortion protests, most Evangelicals stayed uninvolved in the issue of abortion due to a belief in rapture theology – “the belief that the Second Coming of Christ was close at hand – the End Times – so that there was no point in worrying about events on Earth.” (Risen and Thomas, p. 81) But the young Michael Bray began to read the writings of conservative minister Francis Schaeffer, which encouraged a return to old Reformation teachings by John Calvin. Bray began to incorporate Calvinist doctrine to his beliefs. “Bray came to see the rapture as a distraction, and he was anxious to find an alternate version of Evangelicalism.” (p. 81) Calvin argued for the doctrine of predestination, which declared that good works could get no one into heaven, only God’s chosen “elect” could gain entrance, and they were obligated to do His work. Since God expected his followers to carry out his will, “Calvin and his followers believed that God wanted them to run things on Earth.” (p. 82) This is clearly one of the four factors mentioned by McVeigh and Sikkink, a belief that individuals should be forced to follow Christian moral standards, as God authorized such force in Calvinist theology.

Bray took a job offer at Grace Lutheran Church in Bowie, Maryland, where he became deeply involved in church organizations, another of the factors that correlates with support for contentious actions. He joined the local right-to-life organization, spoke at a rally, and “prodded his church to help the Bowie Right to Life Committee to establish a local ‘crisis pregnancy center.’” (p. 84) When Bray was later forced out of Grace Lutheran for trying to take over the church, he founded a new one, Reformation Lutheran Church. Bray’s involvement with church activities kept him around like-minded individuals, and also provided him with an opportunity to meet future accomplice Thomas Spinks.

Bray also felt that his religious values were under attack from within his own church when he served at Grace Lutheran, which is another factor mentioned in McVeigh and Sikkink’s article. Bray “chafed under the liberal Lutheran theology preached at Grace Lutheran. He believed that the Lutheran denomination to which Grace Lutheran belonged indulged in excessive modernism and, worse, adhered to a revisionist interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.” (p. 84) One “excessively modern” doctrine was abortion rights, which had strong support at Grace Lutheran, enough to cause controversy over his establishment of the crisis pregnancy center.

Part 3: Interestingly, there were no articles in the New York Times about Paul Hill shooting Doctor John Britton, yet the incident is mentioned in articles the very next day as if it was already widely known. The article

A Cause Worth Killing For? Debate Splits Abortion Foes

By TAMAR LEWIN

New York Times (1857-Current file); Jul 30, 1994; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)

pg. 1

is the first to mention the incident, and barely describes it at all compared to the length devoted to it in Wrath of Angels. This is most likely due to information not being known only a day after the crime. But generally, everything mentioned about Hill in the book is mentioned in this lone article as well, including Hill’s former priesthood, his paper on justifiable homicide, his appearance on Donahue, and his speech on justifiable homicide at a Chicago pro-life convention. Hill is portrayed a lone extremist who has tainted the anti-abortion movement, which is consistent with Risen and Thomas’s observations. Most activists were indeed distancing themselves from the extremism of the criminals in their midst.

Another article,

Suspect in Abortion Clinic Killings Is Charged

By RONALD SMOTHERSSpecial to The New York Times

New York Times (1857-Current file); Jul 31, 1994; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)

pg. 26

mentions Hill being indicted, what happened at the crime scene, and community reactions to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the failure of local police to uphold it when Hill violated it. Of note is the opening of the article which states that Hill had “long advocated violence against abortion doctors,” but in Wrath of Angels, Risen and Thomas show that Hill only became involved with the doctrine of justifiable homicide after David Gunn’s murder, which had only been a year before Hill killed Britton and Burnett. This seems to be due to a perception soon after the murders that Hill was someone who had a long history of hate, even though it actually began at a definable point not too far into the past.

The image to the left shows Hill being led from jail soon after the killings, while he shouts, “Now it's time to defend the unborn in the same way we should defend slaves about to be murdered.” (www.christiangallery.com/DogsPartTwo.html) The second picture shows Paul Hill on death row for the murders. Hill appears happy in both photographs, since he went to the grave believing that he did God’s work. The images confirm what was stated by Risen and Thomas and in the newspaper articles – Hill killed out of religious fervor and had no remorse. He truly believed that he died a martyr.

Ruth D. Post 10

2007-11-07T23:46:00.000-05:00

Ruth E. Day

The pro-life movement started out as a relatively peaceful endeavor during and for a while after the pro-life decision. Roy O’Keefe was very adamant about remaining peaceful. He did not want to fight violence with violence. He led protests outside abortion clinics, organized sit-ins, and tried to show women that to get an abortion means to murder your child. Such tactics may not have made headlines but they gave the pro-life movement a rather respected and pacifistic reputation. This is the kind of reputation that O’Keefe wanted. He wanted the abortionists to look like the violent murderers and the pro-lifers to represent the peaceful good guys. However, this reputation did not last for ever. Eventually, a few people involved in the pro-life felt the need to take more drastic measures to get their message across. The first of these people were Michael Bray and Thomas Spinks. These people became so frustrated with the existence and legalization of something as fundamentally evil as abortion that they felt the only to get their point across was to blow up abortion clinics. In this way, they ended up committing sin to combat sin. One this trend of violence started, there was no stopping it. Why is that? Because no leader involved in the pro-life movement was willing to condemn such violent tactics. Exploding clinics got them press coverage. Many of them were faced with a moral dilemma. Was it okay to blow up buildings with no one in them if it prevented babies from being murdered? The fact that no pro-life leader came out and said that no, it isn’t okay to fight violence with more violence made their followers believe that such tactics were justifiable. Even though O’Keefe believed in peaceful protest, he also could not speak out against the bombings. “‘Yes, it [the bombing] is just,’ O’Keefe told the Washington Post hours after the bombing. ‘Is it prudent? No. [But] it is just to respond to violence against people by destroying property. Human life is far more valuable than property. Pro-lifers are going to act… The question is what shape the action will take.’” (Risen & Thomas, 94). O’Keefe is right, human life is more valuable than property, but the justification of the destruction of the buildings where abortions will eventually lead to the justification of the murder of the doctors who perform them. The mind set that led to the Christmas bombings in Pensacola also led to David Griffin’s murder of David Gunn and other violent acts against doctors. These tactics of fighting violence with violence also led to the down fall of the pro-life movement. “Griffin’s murder of Gunn in March 1993 ended all hope that the movement could regain credibility or influence through nonviolent civil disobedience,” (Risen & Thomas, 344).

Randall Terry is a good example of a protestant who refused to use violent tactics to spread his pro-life message. However, he also did not condemn the bombing of abortion clinics but he did speak out against the murder of abortionists and made his followers swear an oath to non violence. He did agree with other types of contentious tactics to spread the pro-life message. He started out by waiting in the parking lot of an abortion clinic with his wife trying to convince women on their way to the clinic to change their minds and allow their child to live. Eventually, he became the head of peaceful pro-life organization and organized many successful sit-ins. Many of these sit-ins took the clinics by surprise and caused them to shut down for the day. He and his followers were repeatedly arrested but always released quickly because his tactics were fundamentally peaceful. He organized and huge series of sit-ins in New York and Philadelphia. According to McVeigh’s and Sikkink’s article, there are three beliefs that make Protestants approve of “contentious actions”. “Perceptions that religious beliefs and values are being threatened, a belief that individuals should not have a right to live by their own moral standards if they are not Christians standards, and a belief that humans are basically sinful will each increase the likelihood that Protestants will approve the use of contentious tactics to change society,” (McVeigh and Sikkink, 1448 – 1449). The factor that most influences Terry’s approval of contentious actions is that he perceives his religious beliefs and values as being threatened. He sees abortion as the murder of an innocent human being and according to Christian beliefs, murder is a mortal sin. The fact that such a horrible crime against humanity is legal could be perceived as a huge threat to his beliefs and values. Another factor contributing to Terry’s used of contentious actions is the fact that he and his wife could not conceive a child of their own. For this reason, neither of them could understand why a woman who did have the gift of fertility would want to abuse that gift by murdering her unborn child. Because of this, abortion was not only a threat to Randall and Cindy Terry’s religious beliefs and values but also their desire to adopt a child.

I used The New York Times to find articles on the arrest of Joan Andrews after she destroyed some equipment in The Ladies Center clinic of Pensacola, FL. The main difference between how the article describes the event and how Rise and Thomas’ book describes it is the amount of knowledge about the event. Obviously, the article was written very soon after the event took place so they only had time to get one side of the story. According to the article, “… a local anti-abortionist activist, John Burt, knocked down the manager of the Ladies Center clinic and a clinic volunteer when they tried to block his path into the building,” (NYT, March 27, 1986 pg. A18). According to Wrath of Angels, “Abortion-rights activists who were at the clinic supported the charges by Taggart and Wilde [the manager and the volunteer], but Burt and Andrew deny anyone touched either woman,” (Risen & Thomas, 201). In this way, the New York Times skews the event in favor of the pro-choice movement while Wrath of Angels provides a more objective account. I could not find many images surrounding this event. This is an image of abortion protestors outside of the clinic on that day. The images surrounding events such as this tends to let on more of the chaos that surrounds them than just text does. Text gives the facts one at a time. Images can show a million different things happening at once. Text can give the impression that everything went smoothly without much interruption whereas pictures can let on a little more about the true nature of events.

Image Source: http://www.prolife.org.au/nletters/15n1au.htm

Ally, Post 10

2007-11-07T23:43:00.000-05:00

Ally Best
Post 10

1. Few debates in American history have been as heated and widespread as the one centered on abortion. Members of the anti-abortion movement have generally always held very passionate beliefs. Their methods of acting on these beliefs, however, have changed drastically over the years. Following Roe vs. Wade, most anti-abortion protests were relatively peaceful. John O’Keefe led several sit-ins at abortion clinics in an attempt to disrupt their daily schedules and show his discontent with the system (Risen, 88). While these demonstrations did not create violence or uproar, neither did they create much attention. They passed fairly quietly and without incident, therefore slipping under the radar of the media and public attention, which were apt to focus on more dramatic incidents. This calm would not last for long. Protestors quickly turned to more drastic methods. These more violent acts can be explained by the desire of protestors to attract media attention. Clinics were bombed and turmoil broke out. Joan Andrews led the way with new tactics for vandalizing clinics and fighting the anti-abortion war, such as pouring repellent from hunting stores on the floor and spray painting the walls of clinics (193). In fact, she soon became heralded as a martyr (186-187). Her courage and stoicism throughout her long prison stays were particularly admired by her growing number of fans. As a martyr, she was able to inspire many more people to join in the protests. The protests continued to evolve and much more emphasis was placed on the power of the visual. Many of the anti-abortion protestors had, at some point, viewed a disturbing image of an abortion, fetus, etc., at some point in their lives. For example, Andrews and her siblings viewed and held the fetus of what would have been their brother after their mother’s miscarriage (190). Remembering the powerful impact images had had on them, many protestors began integrating images into their protests. At one point, John Burt actually walks around a courthouse holding a jar containing a dead fetus that he has named “Baby Charlie” (199). As courts still appeared to be making no effort to change the legislation, protestors increased their efforts on the clinics themselves. Doing everything from chaining themselves to procedure tables to creating 17-vehicle blockades, their tactics became increasingly imaginative. For a while, the violence seemed like it might have been ebbing. Randall Terry decided to focus on less violent methods of protesting, not simply for the decrease in arrests or destruction, but also because of the media attention such an action would generate (260). The sight of many people standing and praying together “would be a great visual to capture people’s hearts” (260). However, the peace would not last for long. The final wave of tactics was the most violent yet as protestors turned to murder. Abortion doctors began quitting right and left and several that did stay lost their lives. This drastic final step was a sort of last-chance effort to bring about change in the system. Who would have believed that just years earlier the protests had involved a few dozen people gathered around an abortion clinic, saying prayers. The increase in violence and intensity took place because the more calm methods were not effective. It also took place because protestors had begun to grow in dedication to their cause as a result of the dedication of the people around them. Passion was contagious and, pretty soon, people across the country were jumping on board.

2. In the Wrath of Angels, Risen describes Paul Hill as a “national symbol of anti-abortion extremism” (346). By first attempting to validate the murder of abortion doctors, then providing encouragement to individuals considering such a murder, and finally actually committing a murder of an abortion doctor (as well as an innocent escort), Hill has certainly earned this notorious title. Abortion stirs up strong emotions in many people. Yet, thankfully, not all these people run out and attempt to shoot up abortionists. So what, then, prompts some people to behave in such abominable ways? In their article “God, Politics, and Protest,” McVeigh and Sikkink explain that several factors of religion (and, more specifically, Protestant religion) can affect a person’s actions, causing them to act in argumentative, uncommon ways. By examining Paul Hill through their analysis, we can begin to at least see, even if we can never truly understand, some of the reasons Hill behaved the way he did. The first issue to consider is Hill’s religious identity. Hill first attended a Presbyterian college and then went on to study at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where his professor was a “leader in a radical new Reconstructionist movement” (347). This reconstructionist approach to religion would have been much more supportive of protesting and public displays than some of the more traditional religions. Next we must consider how his beliefs may have led him to believe he was acting out of defense. In McVeigh and Sikkink’s article, they explain how, “religions can provide a ‘cultural toolkit’ of collectively held meanings and symbols that can be used by movement activists to legitimate the contentious tactics of protest” (1429). In other words, religions oftentimes attempt to validate their actions by claiming they are for the “common good.” In a reasoning that occasionally comes off as arrogance, religions assume that what they believe is right is ultimately right and that people, regardless of whether they share the same beliefs or religious views, should be forced to follow what is “right.” Paul Hill saw abortion as morally wrong. Therefore, he took it upon himself to make sure that other people stayed away from this “wrong.” After viewing “Whatever happened to the Human Race,” Hill began picketing in an attempt to show the world the evils of abortion. Finally, it is important to consider his role in an organization. Mob mentality is a very powerful tool and, when it affects certain people, it can have disastrous effects. After Hill’s 15 minutes of fame on Donahue, he began to friend other extremists like himself. Their hunger for revenge on these murderous abortionists fueled his own desire for retaliation and he was soon being swept away by the big ideas and influence of others.

3. After reading about Shelley Shannon’s attempted murder of an abortion doctor, I looked up articles that appeared in the New York Times on the same topic. I was actually surprised to find the NY Times article more objective, or at least more two-sided, than the Wrath of Angels. The Times article presented the story with the basic facts and offered commentary from other anti-abortion protestors. This portrayal allowed the viewer to reach their own conclusions, as well as view the attempted murder as a singular incident, as opposed to a part of the anti-abortion movement. While the Times presented the facts, Wrath of Angels gave a somewhat more biased view, making the doctor seem almost heroic in his chase after Shannon and making Shannon seem like a monster as opposed to a person. However, the images that I found of the incident appeared to reflect more of the book’s biases. One image of Shelley makes her appear insane, or at least more than a little crazy. Her eyes are slightly out of focus and her smile appears somewhat crooked, giving her a somewhat “possessed” appearance. In another image of Shannon (her mug shot), she looks downright evil. Her angry glare at the camera sends chills down the spine makes the viewer glad that she will be locked behind bars for quite a few years. Finally, in the picture of the doctor lying on the ground, the paramedics have cleverly been cut out of the picture by angry red flames and protest signs so that the seemingly lifeless head of the doctor is all that is visible to the viewer. These techniques aim to target the public's emotional appeal by creating a sense of deepest sympathy for the doctor and hatred for the woman who caused him so much pain.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=116513706&sid=1&Fmt=10&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=HNP

Ted Post 10

2007-11-07T23:42:00.000-05:00

1.)

The anti-abortion movement went through a very definite and very extreme change from the time of the Roe vs. Wade trial to the massive amount of protests and pro-life action that took place in Pensacola during the late 1980s. This change was not only constant, but was continuously exponential, and as anti-abortion activists built up more and more steam and drew further attention to their cause throughout the 1980s, so their seeming craving for heightening levels of media/public attention and dominance in their ongoing “war” against pro-choice activists correspondingly inflated. In this period of ever-increasing funding/group members, and public (as well as clandestine) action taken by pro-life activists, many specific changes can be noted both in the confidence of and group commitment to anti-abortion protest on the part of these activists, as well as the overall severity of action taken by those with more extremist views on the subject of abortion.

These changes include the continuous growth of particular pro-life groups who frequently protested at abortion clinics across America-groups such as those headed by Randall Terry, John Burt, and John O’keefe. The fact became increasingly clear during the few years following the Roe vs. Wade court ruling that these devoutly religious and, at least in their religious circles, highly convincing men were not going to allow abortion clinics to go smoothly about their business, and had plans to recruit the help of as many church-members and anti-abortionists to further the volume of their cause as possible.

As well as the general growth of anti-abortionist groups, and the subsequent “noise” they were able to make through their protest due simply to increased size, well-known extremists of the anti-abortion movement during the 1980s took to increasingly hostile and even violent methods in their fight against abortion doctors/clinics/supporters. What started as midnight vandalizing of abortion clinics (i.e. jamming door-locks with superglue, spray-painting pro-life maxims on walls, etc.) turned into frequent destruction of entire facilities through carefully calculated methods of arson ,bombing, and gaseous poisoning, many of which were outlined in an underground extremist manual entitled Army of God. Eventually, even these methods of stalling the actions of abortion doctors and clinics proved to be too tame for the most hardcore and adventurous of the anti-abortion movement. Soon to follow the use of the aforementioned tactics of force used against abortion clinics was the direct targeting of the murderers themselves-abortion doctors. Harassment of abortion doctors ranged from threatening letters sent to their homes, to verbal intimidation utilized in brief parking lot trips from car to clinic, to the eventual (rare as it may have been) occurrence of attempted as well as successful murder of a few unfortunate doctors on the part of activists who took solace in the thought that they were killing to save lives.

Certainly, during this decade in which the actions of anti-abortionists increased monumentally both in amount and severity, many were baffled as to why these groups were willing to go to such extremes in their discourse, and perhaps an even more puzzling quandary, why were they able to do so for as long as they did? To address the inquiry as to why these activists found such seeming excitement in using increasingly exaggerated tactics, one might make note of a thought that was frequently suggested in Risen and Thomas’ Wrath of Angels. This is the assertion that a good number of few prominent anti-abortionists in the 1980s were, previous to their activist ventures, somewhat lost souls searching for some cause or movement in which to pour all of their otherwise dormant efforts and time. The authors’ description of Joan Andrews, one of the most recognizable martyrs of the anti-abortionist movement, includes statements such as, “Single and unattached, permanently unemployed, and with no money and almost no need for any except to pay for food and bus fare, she was free to become the movement’s first full-time itinerant protestor.” In the case of anti-abortion activist Michael Bray, Risen and Thomas first establish the fundamentalist’s seeming need to latch onto some cause or belief system, “…In Orlando, (Bray) attended a Baptist tent revival and, still piecing together a new direction, began to think seriously about the role religion should play in his life,” and soon follow up with an explanation as to how abortion came to fill this void of Bray’s, “…by the time he was settling into Bowie, the election of President Ronald Reagan and the conservative flood tide in Washington put abortion back into the headlines. Abortion soon became Bray’s main focus.” There are many other similar descriptions of those pro-life activist leaders of the 1980s most blatantly vehement in their dedication to their cause that can be found within Wrath of Angels. This seeming parallel found in the possible need for these anti-abortion extremists to commit unconditionally to a cause can offer some explanation as to why the anti-abortionist movement escalated, both in amount and conduct, so notably during the years following Roe vs. Wade. If Risen and Thomas’ assertions concerning the reasons for these men and women’s commitment to pro-life activism hold some truth, then one could easily argue that these specific anti-abortionists were responsible for leading their groups to committing increasingly hostile acts of protest. These few but dominating members of the movement, because of their need for absolute commitment to their cause (to any cause), needed to believe that, at what ever cost, any and all action should be taken that would further their victory over legalized abortion in America. They had an inner need to believe that their fight was a righteous one, and therefore called for any necessary measures of insuring its being publicly recognized, and eventually, its overthrow of the opposition.

A possible explanation as to why such progressively severe methodology on the part of anti-abortionists was allowed following the Roe vs. Wade court battle is that, frankly, many Americans (including government and law enforcement officials) were “one the fence” concerning the abortion issue, and were therefore uncertain as to how much of these protests should be prohibited by law/force. Certainly, if those members of the pro-life movement were vandalizing, bombing, and publicly protesting local fast-food chains for the distribution of food products that could lead to health problems in their consumer, their actions would have been curbed far sooner. The fact of the matter is, these activists were fighting for a cause that did, in many ways, appear just, despite the often unnecessarily hostile manner in which they fought for it. Abortion deals with the killing of the defenseless; be its victims actual “people” or not (a topic that incites infinite debate), the large amount of propaganda, including disturbing images and video, utilized by pro-life activists did shed the light of a fight for justice on their cause, and therefore granted them the ability to go to drastic, and in many cases (ironically) inhumane methods of protest.

2.)

Certainly, there are many reasons to argue that Michael Griffin’s actions comprise one of history’s most extreme (if not the most extreme) cases of anti-abortion activism. The obvious reason for viewing the religious extremist in such a manner is that he was, in fact, admittedly guilty of murdering abortion doctor David Gunn by firing three gunshots directly into the doctor’s back in the midst of his walk from automobile to office. Most

useful in application to an explanation of Griffin’s actions are two of the four factors said to “increase the likelihood that Protestants approve of contentious actions” by writers Mcveigh and Sikkink, these being, “…a perception that religious values are being threatened,” and most importantly, “…a belief that individuals should not have the right do deviate from Christian moral standards.” Obviously, Michael Griffin, along with countless other American Christians of numerous denominations, felt that the legalization and carrying out of abortion was a direct threat to his religious values. There are many passages within the Bible that form the base for the basic Christian belief that God values all of his creation and creatures, and that for any man to take it upon himself to destroy any number of these creatures is to commit a mortal sin, punishable by death. A favorite of these Biblical passages of Griffin’s, and in fact that which he deemed Gunn’s well deserved sentence was Genesis 9:6: “Whosoever Sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” Griffin found Dr. Gunn to be blatantly going against a fundamental Christian moral standard, and thus felt it perfectly justifiable, if not by man’s law than by the law of a higher being, to take it upon himself to see that Gunn was properly punished. In Griffin’s own mind, as well as the mind’s of his supporters, he was carrying out the work of God, and was thus ever more right in his murderous actions because of a seeming command of God’s (Genesis 9:6) than any man-made law might find him to be.

3.)

When browsing through some past New York Times articles concerning Michael Griffin’s murder of David Gunn, one will certainly come across a fair share of mere expository articles on the case-writings that display little or no personal opinions of the author’s on abortion. Along with these “just the facts” type of articles about the event, for example Larry Rohter’s Doctor is Slain During Protest Over Abortions, one will also find articles that voice a clear-cut opinion concerning the extremist actions of Michael Griffin. An excellent example of this latter type of article is Anthony Lewis’ Right to Life. In stark contrast to Risen and Thomas’ chapter concerning this murder case, which seem to display an honest attempt of the authors’ to explicate the happening with little bias, Lewis’ piece uses Griffin’s contentious act as a means of painting a picture of anti-abortion activists as a group that is less than flattering, to say the least. In fact, in the article’s very opening paragraph, the reader will come across the following statements: “The murder of a doctor in Pensacola, Fla., tells us the essential truth about most anti-abortion activists. They are religious fanatics, who want to impose their version of God’s word on the rest of us. For them, the end justifies any means, including violence.” Obviously, the authors’ opinion on abortion-activists previous to David Gunn’s murder was a negative one, and he merely utilized Michael Griffin as a prime example of what he believed to be the general character found in pro-life activists. In actuality, one can be fairly certain that very few abortion-activists would be willing to go to measures in the fight for their cause as extreme as those used by Griffin. Thus, this over-generalized portrait of abortion-activists painted by Lewis is of a decidedly different tone than the more objective views found in Risen and Thomas’ writing on the subject.

Some very distinct and curious differences can be noted between Risen and Thomas’ description of abortion clinic protests led by Randall Terry and available images depicting these protests. Again, Risen and Thomas seem to maintain an at least somewhat objective outlook in their description of anti-abortion activism, and in doing so, provide their reader with some insight into reasons why people such as Terry made decisions to stage such massive and disruptive protests. On the other hand, if one were to view images of these abortion protests led by Terry in the late 1980s without much previous knowledge of the nature of and reasons for these protests’ having taken place, they would undoubtedly come to the conclusion that those activists depicted in such images are clinically insane. The men and women that are shown in these images are taking part in acts such blocking the doors to a regularly functioning office building in which no acts of inhumanity can be seen as taking place (at least not within the confines of the image), laying on the pavement of a parking lot in the path of a moving car, hurriedly climbing over fences so as to block the entrance of a clinic just before its presiding doctor is able to gain entrance into it, and even images of Terry himself placed on a high pedestal and outstretching has arm over his followers as he preaches to them (an image not unlike countless depictions of notorious dictators caught in speeches aimed at the masses under their control). Again, when seen only within these images, Terry and his followers appear to be out of their minds, a clear testament to the thought that images cannot be trusted to admit every truth of a situation, and in fact rarely, if ever, do. Though the actions of Randall Terry and his followers during their numerous protests, even when described in more objective texts, can appear as rather extreme by nature, certainly when they are depicted in photographic images, a certain side of the story is taken out of the picture (no pun intended), and thus any real objective grasp on or understanding of the situation is lost.

Images:

1.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy17.jpg

2.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy15.jpg

3.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy31.jpg

4.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy26.jpg

5.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy27.jpg

Sources:

1.) James Risen, Judy L. Thomas, Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion WAR, Perseus Publishing, February 1999

2.) Rory Mcveigh, David Sikkink, God, Politics, and Protest: Religious Beliefs and the Legitimation of Contentious Tactics, The University of North Carolina Press, Social Forces, June 2001

3.) Anthony Lewis, Right to Life, New York Times, Mar. 12, 1993

Kelly blog 10

2007-11-07T23:41:00.001-05:00

Blog Critical Reflection # 10

Kelly Gordon

Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision that made it illegal to refuse a woman an abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy in every state in the United States. This, of course, caused Christians and Catholics to respond with sit-ins and protests at abortion clinics: “Michael Bray came to believe that John Knox was speaking to him across the centuries, telling him that it was his duty as a Christian to fight abortion by any means necessary.” (Wrath of Angels p 82) As Ronald Reagan reached office, his conservative viewpoints made abortion more public in the media. Bray and his partner in crime, Spinks, took the protests and sit-ins one step further by planning clinic bombings that wouldn’t harm anyone but would disable that clinic’s ability to perform abortions. This, they though, was God’s will: “ ‘Before God, we both felt committed that we had to do all we could to save as many of these children as we could, short of destroying the human lives who took human lives,’ Spinks said later, when he testified against Bray in federal court as part of his own plea agreement. ‘In other words, it would be okay to destroy buildings…we viewed them as death camps. So we came to the agreement that it was okay to destroy these places as long as it was carefully carried out so that no human life would be lost in the process.’” (Wrath of Angels, p 86) A bombing that finally made anti-abortion bombings reach the ten o’clock news was the Wheaton blast performed and planned by Spinks and Bray. A sit-in that was held by different activists a few days before was wrongly connected with those who committed the bombing. This disabled a lot of the peaceful progress that the activists made during the nonviolent sit-in. Eventually Spinks and Bray were caught as were their lemmings. They were all tried in court and sent to prison. Bray’s wife participated in an anti-abortion case where she was the lead plantiff. Bray v. Alexandria Health Services supported the right to clinic sit-ins. Mr. and Mrs. Bray continued violent anti-abortion acts even after Bray was released from prison. When asked about his legacy Bray replied, “Upholding truth. And clarifying what it is.” (Wrath of Angels p 100)

Joan Andrews was one woman who changed the face of anti-abortion activism. She broke into The Ladies Center Clinic in Pensacola in March of 1986 in order to damage the abortion equipment and superglue the locks shut. She was arrested and her lack of cooperation earned her a sentence of 20 months solitary confinement. She became a martyr for the anti-abortion activists for her willingness to sacrifice her freedom to save unborn babies’ lives.

The escalation of activism since Roe v. Wade was due to the publicity that sit-ins and protests gained and the minimal progress that they achieved. People began turning toward more violent acts in order to make the news, truly prevent abortions from taking place by destructing instruments and buildings, and have a physically outlet for their anger. Certain Christians felt personally guilty for the abortions that were taking place: “If the church failed to act, then the church would be guilty of sin as well.” (Wrath of Angels, p 83) This inspired more and more extreme and radical protests and actions among activists.

“Acceptance of the appropriateness and feasibility of disruptive collective action are critical components of actual protest participation” (God, Politics, and Protest, 1429) There are two types of Christians who are against abortion: one individual expresses their opposition by voting against laws that enable abortion to take place more consistently or through a wider spectrum, and the second person also votes in that favor, but additionally participates actively in the protests or sit-ins that contribute to the exploitation of abortion. If one were greatly involved with a church and the activities within that parish and felt strongly about a certain issue, it would be common for that person to vote and also actively take part in any protests concerning that issue.

For example, Michael Bray’s employment as a minister explains his approval and support of contentious tactics. Contentious tactics are more controversial forms of expressing your opinion in line with your religion. For example, sit-ins or protests at abortion clinics are a more contentious tactic than simply voting. Acceptance of contentious tactics is consistently affiliated with religion and a view that there in conflict between God and the world. If a Christian believes that all non-Christians are sinners and against Christ, they are more likely to participate in contentious tactics. Also, being strongly involved in church activities makes it more likely that individuals will interact with fellow parishioners who engage in contentious tactics; church activities, in a sense, act as a recruitment process for potential protestors.

Michael Bray was a minister who felt strongly about abortion as did his wife. He believed that bombing buildings was God’s will and not a sinful act; he though that he was right in running contentious tactics. Michael Bray even went to the extent to go on a Christian radio show and speak out to the Christian community. He condemned those ministers who were not actively taking part in the anti-abortion sit-ins and protests: “If the church failed to act, then the church would be guilty of sin as well.” (Wrath of Angels, p 83) In result, ministers gathered up parishioners who were interested in contentious tactics and joins Michael Bray’s regime.

3. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=119132733&sid=1&Fmt=10&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=HNP

The Christmas Bombings in Pensacola –

The New York Times article discussed many more aspects of the Christmas bombings in Pensacola. It talked about the different dispositions of each group of people that was affected – the clinic owner, the community, the bombers, the wives, and ministers within the area. Risen and Thomas concentrated a lot more on the facts of the events and what the repercussions where. They also discussed how these bombings changed the face of the anti-abortion activists. The most interesting thing that The New York Times touched on that Risen and Thomas missed was the response of Burt: “He said he believes more clinic bombings are inevitable. Asked if he felt responsible in any way for the bombings, he said: ‘I can’t be responsible for everyone. It’s like blaming the President for deaths in a war just because he’s Commander in Chief.’” (Nordheimers, “Bombing Case Offers a Stark Look at Abortion Conflicts”) Risen and Thomas almost avoid the subject of less radical Christians. They don’t mention how religious, yet not those involved with contentious tactics, people respond to these bombings. In a way, if you weren’t educated about the Christian religion, you’d think all Christians were as radical as the individuals discussed in Wrath of Angels. I think it gives a skewed perspective of Christians who are pro-life.

[I can’t find any images of the Pensacola abortion clinic bombings. Google isn’t being helpful]

Rob H, Post 10

2007-11-07T23:36:00.001-05:00

Rob Hoffman

The changing goals, values, and tactics of the anti-abortion movement followed what is a fairly standard progression for protest movements. The initial event that caused widespread discontent was the decision in Roe v. Wade and the change in legal status of abortions caused by it. Although there were certainly those who applauded this decision, there was also a considerable number of people, especially religious individuals, who felt that the decision was extremely disturbing. Many felt the need to demonstrate their opposition; members of the Catholic church took the lead in organizing against the practice of abortions.

John O’Keefe is described by Risen and Thomas as being one of the (if not the) first devoted abortion protestors. Like many similar movements, he made sure to conduct his protests in a nonviolent manner. In the early days of the anti-abortion protesting he never advocated or supported violence or destruction of any kind. Others, such as Sam Lee, held comparable ideologies. They organized sit-ins and other forms of civil disobedience, but never violence.

Also like many other movements, however, the anti-abortion movement did not stay nonviolent for long. On the one hand, there were individuals who, from the moment they heard of the Roe v. Wade decision, were immediately incised to react more violently. One such example was Joan Andrews. Her initial reaction to the news was a desire to go and destroy equipment at abortion facilities. Other members of the anti-abortion movement, such as Randall Terry, were also naturally inclined toward violent behavior, but they took longer to become a part of the movement. Once they did join it, they brought an increased willingness to commit destructive behavior to the group as a whole.

Another cause of the increase in violence was the disappointment of certain members of the anti-abortion movement with the pace, effectiveness, and success of the tactics being used by peaceful protestors, such as O’Keefe. Michael Bray and Thomas Spinks are perhaps the best examples of this group. While they were initially just a part of the mainstream anti-abortion movement, they became increasingly radical as time went by and the small-scale sit-ins were not very successful. Joan Andrews had taken things into her own hands by entering abortion clinics and destroying their equipment, but that was not a large enough scale.

To truly make an impact, Bray and Spinks began bombing abortion clinics. Their reasoning can be seen as two-fold. The first reason, as we have already discussed, was their disillusionment and their desire to actually get something done. The second reason that the pair began bombing the clinics was for the added publicity and therefore recognition that such an act would generate. The issue of abortion, which was going too unnoticed for anti-abortionists’ tastes, needed to be brought to focus, and the bombing of the clinics seemed like the perfect way to accomplish this.

When Bray and Spinks were found out and imprisoned, the movement had the chance to denounce them, distance itself from them, and salvage something of its reputation. However, the movement did a poor job of doing any of those things. Instead, leaders such as O’Keefe who would normally have condemned violence under any circumstances were not sure what to say.

The story does not end here, however. Violence decreased shortly, but soon it was back with a vengeance. After an increased focus by people such as Randall Terry on the organization of the movement and how best to proceed, the violence soon returned. In this case, though, bombing and burning buildings was simply not enough. Rallying under the Bible and Genesis 9:6, certain members of the anti-abortion movement began to feel that their best hope for a change of policy and increased publicity was to be even more extreme than the bombings. What could fill that role? Why, the killing of abortion doctors, for instance.

The murder of the doctors themselves by individuals such as Michael Griffin and Paul Hill is never something that the early leaders of the anti-abortion movement would never have condoned. Unfortunately, these more pacifistic leaders had been marginalized and pushed out of the spot light. There was no one to denounce the killings with the kind of intensity and fervor as there ought to have been.

McVeigh and Sikkink examine the idea that certain beliefs, specifically religious beliefs, could incline one to be more likely to engage in protests and other “contentious actions.” Their main focus is on Protestants and whether or not the views commonly attributed to Protestantism would cause more contentious behavior in those who held these views. In many ways, this makes sense. They give examples of how groups as diverse as the Klu Klux Klan and the Civil Rights Movement both relied heavily on the support of Protestant Christians.

Protestantism especially contains within it the potential to be an extremely disruptive religious force. Not only is there a great amount of history in Protestantism to support this idea, but some of the core beliefs of this type of Christianity also lend support. Many fundamentalist and evangelical, Protestant Christians feel as though they are outnumbered in a hostile world. They take it as a personal mission to spread the word of God however possible to as many of the heathen masses as they can.

Michael Bray clearly shared some of these feelings. After coming to Christianity late, he took to it with an extreme degree of fervor and devotion. He was ousted out of Grace Lutheran for his radical beliefs and his contentious behavior. When he clashed with the minister, he raised his own group of supporters and challenged his authority. This alone could have served as clear enough evidence of what the future would hold for Michael Bray.

His refusal to listen to O’Keefe also singled Bray out as a potentially contentious figure. While he pretended to be an abiding member of O’Keefe’s movement, he was really planning bombings with Spinks. He clearly saw these actions through the lens of his Protestant Christianity; he believed that what he was doing was justified because he was doing the will of God.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&did=116298510&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1194501952&clientId=394

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&did=116706604&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1194502167&clientId=394

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=5&did=116835167&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1194502167&clientId=394

These three articles are all related to the shooting of Dr. George Tiller by Rachelle Shannon on August 19, 1993. The picture they create of the events surrounding and following the shooting is interesting; in many ways it seems identical to the story presented in the Risen and Thomas’ book, but in some ways the two seem quite different. The most obvious difference is how the events are told. In the Times articles, the events are told in a general, brief overview. The book, on the other hand, goes into a great degree of detail. The reason for this is actually very obvious: Risen and Thomas are attempting to create a compelling narrative. The reader of Wrath of Angels has to be interested in order to stick with it, and so the authors face the added difficulties of telling a good story.

This does highlight another important difference, however. The newspaper articles are all very short. They are more than likely little side notes that would go widely overlooked by the casual reader of the newspaper. While the story is important enough to make it into the Times in the first place, it is clearly not considered important enough to waste or take up unnecessary space. This is substantially different than the book. Risen and Thomas devote quite a bit of effort to recounting exactly what Shannon does and how she came to shoot George Tiller. Motive is much more important for the authors of the book than for the author of the article.

The images (the first of Tiller, the second of Shannon, and the third of the Wichita abortion clinic where the shooting took place) do not shed much light upon the situation. They do nothing particularly to reinforce or to damage the picture created by the text. In some ways they are more in keeping with the newspaper article, given that they seem equally straightforward and strictly factual. Given that there are no specific images of the shooting or images of aborted fetuses specifically related to this one event (or at least, none that I could find on Google), it is hard to say that images have the kind of power here that we would ordinarily expect of them.

http://billykess.com/ablog3/photos/2006-11/tillerkiller.jpg

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/kopp/inside/offlede/shannon200w190h_insidesmall_031103.jpg

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/images/2007b/Wichita.jpg

Shea Post 10

2007-11-07T23:29:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 was met with both outrage and celebration from different sphere’s within the American public. Until that point, the federal government was equipped to prohibit the practice of abortion medicine within certain states, Texas in particular. On both sides of the controversy, violation of constitutional rights was named as the source of injustice. The matter of whose rights were being violated, however, separated the pro-lifers from the pro-choicers. Women’s rights activists were prevalent among many who saw the verdict as a triumph for their cause. In their eyes it reclaimed the female’s right to control her body along with her right to privacy.

The outrage was not limited to religious groups, although McVeigh and Sikkink found that members of an established religious faith were more likely to disapprove of laws favoring abortion. It came from the belief that life begins at the time of conception which was advocated in 1869 by Pius IX (abortion power point). Abortion was seen as murder, a violation of the unborn child’s right to life.

The progression of the anti-abortion movement towards Pensacola over the next two decades is well exemplified by the actions of Joan Andrews, excluding her years spent in jail. Her mother’s heavy emphasis on Catholicism throughout her upbringing certainly influenced Andrews’s position on abortion. After the Roe v. Wade case, she was strongly moved to fight the new policy and began doing so by participating in sit-ins throughout the country. Sit-ins were the first popular step taken by the anti-abortion movement and so organizers were encouraged to take caution when conducting them. Small groups, rarely exceeding 100 people would block the entrance to abortion clinics holding signs and chanting either slogans or hymns, depending on religious affiliation. These signs were probably text-based to begin with so as not to overly agitate the police who would eventually be called to break up the protest.

These first organized efforts were not always enough to satisfy activists like Joan Andrews who longed to leave more lasting impressions on abortion providers. She represents one of the many individuals who took matters into their own hands by secretly performing illegal acts of protest. “I knew right away I had to go bust up the equipment.” (190) Her acts of personal vandalism include graffiti, equipment destruction, circulation of noxious and often airborne chemicals, and interestingly enough, gluing doors shut (193). Others, like Michael Bray, Thomas Spinks and Rachelle Shannon behaved more radically and recklessly by choosing arson as their weapon against abortion (86, 351).

Such extreme behavior was not initially advocated by organized groups like PLAN or Project Rescue although they did eventually begin to take more drastic measures over time. Andrews participated in sit-ins while simultaneously performing acts of vandalism on her own time (191). What had been pleading with ingoing patients for a change of heart became shouting accusations of murder. The pickets took on images of aborted fetuses in addition to their textual messages in an effort to alarm patients into turning back. This behavior often brought about physical violence from harassed patients and restraining orders against leaders like Randall Terry who practiced “sidewalk preaching”.

Legal action was taken in 1985 when the Northeast Women’s Center in Philadelphia charged a group of protesters led by Michael McMonagle with conspiring to run the center out of business. This charge fell under violation of the federal racketeering laws and marked the transition from disturbing the peace to breaking the law (193). Protests only gained speed after the judge ruled against them. “A sense of betrayal by Regan’s Washington was sending mainstream abortion foes into the arms of the militants.” (241) With abortion rates doubling each year and their sit-in efforts getting them nowhere crowds enlarged to reach numbers of 600 and the goal became getting arrested rather than closing clinics. Joan Andrews became very accomplished at offending the law not only by violating trespassing laws and the like, but by violating her parole with complete abandon. Like the desperate movement Andrews turned to figures whose tactics held a higher level of shock value. John Burt was a “former Marine, former Klansman, former alcoholic, former speed abuser and divorced father as well as a born again Christian…who ran “a home for wayward girls, called Our Father’s House.” (195) His methods were extremely visual, utilizing anti-abortion propaganda films like The Hard Truth and Who Will Cry for Me – David as well as an aborted fetus which he carried around in a jar and called “Baby Charlie” (341, 199).

It was with John Burt that Joan Andrews broke into The Ladies Center clinic in Pensacola in 1986 and destroyed medical equipment (186). This act landed her in prison for three years where, ironically, her activism was much more effective than it had been outside bars due to her newfound position as a “martyr” or a “prisoner of consciousness”. By taking on the system through total non-cooperation “she was forcing others to reevaluate their limits.” (210)

As it turns out, many of their limits extended much beyond the realm of property damage as even more vehement figures took hold of the movement, encouraging violence against abortion doctors. “With pacifists like John Okeefe and Sam Lee long gone from the leadership ranks there were no counterbalancing forces within the movement pushing for peace.” (344) Of course, and thankfully, the entire anti-abortion movement did not take this course. Only extremists of the highest caliber took the words of Paul Hill’s Should We defend Born and Unborn Children with Force? and Michael Bray’s A Time to Kill to heart. As Proverbs 24:11 were lost in the wake of Genesis 9:6 and more doctors began wearing bullet proof vests to work the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993 popped up as well as the Justice Department’s conspiracy investigation on the anti-abortion movement. No conspiracy was uncovered and the department stated that “there is a difference between having a common purpose and having an actual criminal conspiracy.” (369) This suggests, although they were advocated, no murders were actually planned in advance by any pro-life organizations.

“Biblical literalism and religious participation had a strong impact on the likelihood of participating in protest movements” (McVeigh, 1426). Michael Bray’s life was at all times steeped in religion. Throughout the course of his life he practiced as a Baptist, a Protestant, a sort of Calvinist Puritan and a Premellenial Dispensationalist. Ultimately his beliefs centered on predestination and the writings of Calvin and John Knox. These advocated the “rebellion against idolatrous and tyrannical sovereigns” with the justification that “if God is for us who can be against us?” (Risen, Thomas, 82). His powerful belief in the superiority of the ‘elect’ and their responsibility to God was certainly the driving force behind the bombings which he performed with Thomas Spinks but McVeigh and Sikkink offer a more multidimensional view of the contributing forces that lead Bray down this path.

The concepts of moral absolutism as well as that of personal threat, though not wholly consistent, provide more insight to the question of why certain members of religious groups take such drastic measures in opposition to practices like abortion. “Participants in a moral reform movement are acting defensively in an effort to preserve a moral order that provides meaning for their lives.” (McVeigh, 1431) Abortion is perceived not only as murder, but as attack on the religious doctrines which deem it to be immoral. These rulebooks are not meant only to apply to their followers, but to the entire human race. Everyone is accountable to a single, inflexible moral code which “promotes definitions of issues as conflictual that from another perspective might be defined otherwise.” (McVeigh, 1432) In this way, the violation of a universal moral code by anyone, weakens the code and threatens both the faith and well being of those who live by it. Michael Bray saw himself as the defender of such a moral code. “It was appropriate for the Godly man to take the law into his own hands because his hands were the tools of God.” (Risen, Thomas, 82)

The belief that humans are sinful by their very nature also contributes to the enactment of contentious tactics, particularly those used against abortion. The inherent instinct towards wrongdoing deprives what Michael Bray would have considered to be the ‘damned’ of the capacity to choose the moral path. For this reason, people must either be denied access to abortion medicine by means of the law, or they must be destroyed. This mentality was obviously in action when Bray wrote A Time to Kill.

On September 18^th, 1988, the New York Times printed an article entitled 250 Arrested at Jersey Anti-Abortion Protest. The facts were these: Operation Rescue, under the leadership of Randal Terry, organized a protest outside the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Shrewsbury, NJ, blocking the entrance with linked arms. When arrests began, the protesters went limp and broke into song making the police to carry them away from the site. The Wrath of Angels presents a relatively less biased portrayal of these anti-abortionists than does the NYT. This is not due to the language employed by the author, but to the organization of the article. First the facts are relayed and the members of Operation Rescue are represented by a quotation defending their position. Then the patient reaction is described, a matter that was hardly ever touched by Risen and Thomas. The patients’ responses along with the sturdy words of the clinic employee leave the reader with a sense of triumph by the Planned Parenthood. “None of them are shaken up.” The book of course had more room to develop the actions of Operation Rescue with an extensive background on Randal Terry and his methods. The detail, however, is mostly one-sided and works to construct an image of the man as obsessive and power-hungry.

These images of Randal Terry, the leader of Operation Rescue, as he protests and preaches make him out to be both a powerful figure and a lunatic. The first depicts a righteous man preaching down from on high with the nation’s capital behind and below him. The text discusses this event with a much different tone. That is because terry takes this moment to praise Christmas morning clinic bombings as “a birthday gift for Jesus.”

The second image shows a freak with a dead baby in a box. This characterization is immediately much harsher than the one given by the book. Terry is accused of wielding graphic pamphlets against abortion patients but never of utilizing an actual fetus. Such tactics seemed to be reserved for John Burt. (this image was unable to load but can be located on page 218 of the Risen book)

The New York Times article Judge Won’t Let Accused in Clinic Attack Argue that Killing was Justified remains impartial and factual, adhering strictly to court proceedings until its final paragraphs which shed a more sinister light on Paul Hill’s behavior throughout his murder trial. Once the witnesses’ testimony is approached, the man’s reserved composure becomes disturbing due to graphic descriptions of “brains” and Mrs. Barrett’s reaction to her husband’s death. The Wrath of Angels takes this portrayal to an even higher degree by describing the entire shooting scene in detail after a thorough development of Hill’s religious and activist progression up to that point. The scene in which he screams “Mommy mommy please don’t kill me!” outside the same abortion clinic along with the one in which he practices shooting the murder weapon in his own home bring the reader to see him as mentally unstable and downright scary.

These men’s support of Paul Hill’s unthinkable deed is just as scary. The image’s disturbing quality, however, comes from the name’s connotation and so it is mostly attributed to textual rather than visual power. The book too depends almost entirely on textual power aside from a few photos at the center. Both the image and the book’s discussion on Paul Hill supporters are about equally effective at delivering their message.

Here, Paul Hill stands behind bars, awaiting his death sentence. Again, if it were not for his name’s societal weight, this image would be likely to invoke sympathy from viewers. But since Paul Hill is the infamous abortion murderer, we are able to take solace, even celebration in his defeated and hopeless position. The Wrath of Angels allowed the reader to feel nothing but awe and disgust at the character of Paul Hill. After his arrest, his role in the piece was finished.

Theresa C, Post 10

2007-11-07T23:10:00.000-05:00

Theresa Chu

Part I

After the decision about Roe vs. Wade had been established, the reaction on the part of the conservative groups was one of rage without violence. Protests were held, but they consisted of peaceful acts such as prayer vigils and singing; however, as time went on, many protesters became restless because they felt as if the movement towards saving babies was not making enough progress if any at all. As the statistics revealed that more and more abortions were being conducted each year, the radical protesters became even more desperate for change; thus, they turned to violence in hopes of making headlines and bringing attention to their cause. Initially, John O’Keefe led peaceful protests outside abortion clinics and complied with authorities when asked to leave the premises.

Despite his efforts to keep these protests peaceful, participants in this cause became hungry for more action that would make a bigger impact on abortion. Bray and Spinks were two of these people. They began to secretly bomb abortion clinics and were able to avoid capture. The actions taken by these men soon inspired more anti-abortionists to take the same route of violence. Michael Griffin eventually murdered David Gunn, an abortionist, which sparked people like Paul Hill and Rachelle Shannon to follow in his footsteps.

An important aspect of this evolution in protests is the use of images in place of text. Reading about an aborted fetus creates a vastly different reaction than seeing an image of a mangled/dismembered dead fetus with red blood surrounding it. Films such as The Silent Scream also served to further the anti-abortion movement, for they showed images of fetuses being suctioned out of the uterus as well as containers full of aborted fetuses.

Part II

Paul Hill is described by Risen and Thomas to be “a fundamentalist preacher with a fixed and eerie smile” (345). He praised Griffin’s actions in the killing of an abortionist and continually sought to make headlines with “outrageous” statements and slogans such as “execute murderers, abortionists, accessories” (346). McVeigh and Sikkink assert in their article that “contentious actions” are often approved by Protestants in response to abortion. Factors that justify this approval are “volunteering for church organizations, a perception that religious values are being threatened, a belief that individuals should not have a right to deviate from Christian moral standards, and a belief that humans are inherently sinful.” Hill appears to fit all these descriptions, for he was active in church and held extremely radical ideals. He wrote a paper justifying the murder of abortionists in order to save the hundreds of babies that the doctor would have killed. In the article, the authors mention that religion provides a sort of “cultural toolkit” that permits contentious acts by harboring symbols and meanings to justify violence in places like the Bible which fundamentalists would take literally (Gen. 9:6). Scheidler even commented that Hill’s arguments were “strong and from a biblical perspective quite convincing” (346).

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Paul%20Hill-729741.jpg

Part III

By LARRY ROHTERSpecial to The New York Times (1994, March 6). Abortion Case Verdict :PROTESTER GUILTY OF KILLING DOCTOR Jury Convicts Man of Murder in 1993 Shooting Outside Florida Abortion Clinic. New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 1. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004) database. (Document ID: 116309424).

In this article, the sentencing of Michael Griffin is detailed. No significant difference exists between the Times and Wrath of Angels in the portrayal of this event. Both sources give religious reasons as to why Griffin would shoot Dr. Gunn; furthermore, both sources describe the scene of the crime without becoming too personal. One difference between the Times and the book is the fact that the newspaper quotes the family of Griffin while the book only quotes supporters of Griffin’s actions.
In this image of Michael Griffin, he is seen as unhappy and angry; however, in the book, he is described as being satisfied and content with his actions as well as his sentence.

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/kopp/inside/offlede/griffen162w190h_insidesmall_031103.jpg

By RONALD SMOTHERSSpecial to The New York Times (1994, October 6). Guilty in Clinic Attack :Abortion Protester Is Guilty Under Clinic Access Law Florida Case Is First Under a New Statute. New York Times (1857-Current file),p. A1. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004) database. (Document ID: 116530136).

Paul Hill’s trial and sentencing is described in this article in the same way as it is described in Wrath of Angels. Facts are presented without bias. In the newspaper article, though, more details about the trial are given. In these images of Paul Hill, the emotion described in the book matches the facial expression shown on Hill’s face. Hill did not regret murdering two men, and he felt that the violence he committed was justified.

http://www.fadp.org/news/MiamiHerald-20030903_files/44636154179.jpe

http://www.trosch.org/bra/hill-paul-interviewb.jpg

Morgan, Post 10

2007-11-07T23:08:00.000-05:00

Morgan Frost

1.) From the first reaction to Roe vs. Wade up until Pensacola, the anti-abortion movement escalated in its aggressiveness. The initial reaction was one of shock, where the already existing middle-aged anti-abortionists used “timid” and slow tactics of lobbying the state house; but younger people were incited to take immediate action. The type of action they took followed the “1960s traditions of social protest” and civil disobedience (Risen 39). John O’Keefe heralded in civil anti-abortion protest, emulating the peaceful styles of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He also made connections to the national debate of the Vietnam War, and saw that the successful “sit-ins, arrests, (and) building takeovers” could be used for the anti-abortion purpose as well.

Then violence was coming into the scene. “In the late 1970s, anti-abortion violence was limited to sporadic and amateurish fires that did little damage” (Risen 74). But even peace advocates could not deny the success the more violent protests were having (Risen 75). As the number of protestors being recruited rose, screening of these people declined, and those who supported violence were becoming integrated within the mass with those who didn’t. The movement began to be led by “newly militant Christian fundamentalists,” and “a new, religious-based social protest movement was born” (Risen 39). Soon bombings broke out in abortion clinics—executed at night so ass not to harm anyone. Finally the idea of violence crossed the line of destruction on to murder, with the murder of abortionist John Britton by anti-abortion radical Paul Hill in 1994 in Pensacola, FL (Risen 362-3).

As we can see, there were four major causes of these changes: religious motives, information dissemination by the media, successful results, and a lack of negative consequences. Religious motives caused such an escalation as fundamentalists began to take center stage, and (as seen in section 2) they used their adherence to religion as justification for more violent methods of protest. The media constantly depicted protests both non-violent and violent. One pivotal moment was the coinciding civil sit-in and the bombing at the same place on the same weekend. Bray’s bombing partner, Spinks, bombed the Wheaton clinic the day after O’Keefe and Hand led a sit-in. The two were immediately connected, and “it was becoming harder for the public and the media to tell the difference between leaders like O’Keefe…and the bombers themselves” (Risen 94). Hand-in-hand with media portrayal was the success of the violence. As these stories reached broader audiences through the media, others were motivated to mimic the actions of others that worked successfully toward their cause. All of this was done without much fear of consequences. The security on the anti-abortion movement was below par, as the problems were deemed “not serious enough to trigger...an investigation by the FBI,” and instead the responsibility was placed on ATF. This security proved to be less powerful, and investigations reached conclusions more slowly than would have been possible with FBI involvement (Risen 93).

2.) McVeigh and Sikkink’s article argues that certain factors make Protestants approve of “contentious actions.” Apply their analysis to one of the individuals you have reads about in Risen and Thomas: Michael Bray, Joan Andrews, Randall Terry, Michael Griffin, or Paul Hill.

Michael Bray is a prime example of the conclusion made by McVeigh and Skikkink in “God, Politics, and Protest” concerning Protestants’ approval of “contentious actions” serving as a means to reach a political goal. For Bray, this goal was a pro-life America, free of abortion clinics. With his religious background, he possessed all the “tools” necessary for justifying the actions he took toward achieving his goal. McVeigh and Sikkink recognize what Smith says about religion, that it provides people with “an independent and privileged position to act…back upon the mundane world.” This means religious people can believe their religion gives them the right to impose their beliefs upon society; Michael Bray used his beliefs specifically to “legitimate the contentious tactics of protest” against abortion (McVeigh 1429-30).

Michael Bray was deeply influenced by the Calvinist work of Knox, who held the conviction “that it was appropriate for the godly man to take the law into his own hands, because his hands were the tools of the Lord.” This encompassed the utilization of “tools of politics as well as weapons of war” to be used by “members of the ‘elect’—anyone saved by God through faith—…to ‘(rebel) against idolatrous and tyrannical sovereigns’” (Risen 82). For Bray this meant not only attending protests, but expressing his dissent in such ways as performing and conducting secret bombings of abortion clinics. He believed that “abortion was murder; a sin against God” (Risen 83).

Here we see Michael Bray as an illustration of the cultural defense theory, where protesting was a “response to a challenge to deeply held beliefs and values that are rooted in the participants’ religion.” Since Bray believed abortion was a sin, anyone and anything in support of abortion was a sinner, and threatened his beliefs. McVeigh and Sikkink identify with this in their argument “that those who do perceive that their religious values are being threatened are likely to view the use of contentious tactics as a legitimate defensive strategy” (McVeigh 1431). Bray’s defensiveness even extends beyond his religious motives. This is evident when he chose the Hillcrest Clinic as the next bombing target on the grounds that “its owner had just filed a lawsuit against local picketers” (Risen 87). Under Bray’s religious stance other opinions have developed in his oppositional binary of religion against any contradictions, as shown by picketers against their target.

With such conceptual conflicts breeding under the umbrella of his fundamentalism, Bray also defines the case McVeigh and Sikkinks offer on moral absolutism. These authors recognize the “schema of God vs. world” produced by religion, where those who follow God can carry out his work onto the world. This idea “becomes for the moral absolutist a frame for contentious action” when the “behavior of other groups or individuals (are) in opposition to their own values” (McVeigh 1432). Bray holds his own beliefs to be the absolute morals which he should enforce upon the world in the name of God. He even regards his beliefs so highly that other people of his religion who do not agree in his “’high’ view of Scriptures” possess a “’low’ view,” and are thus below the absolute frame of morals. Bray even accuses the Reverend Ericksen of his own church of sinning because he does not teach fundamentalist “high” views on the Scripture (Mcveigh 84).

As Michael Bray demonstrates these analyses on Protestants and their conduciveness to “contentious acts,” he also receives the benefits McVeigh and Sikkinks highlight as being the benefit of a person’s organizational affiliation. These authors note that “participation in religious activities can also increase an individual’s exposure to social movement activists and recruiters. Organized religion provides a ripe target for activists practicing bloc recruitment” (McVeigh 1433). Once Michael Bray joined up with O’Keefe and Hand in the Pro-Life Nonviolent Action Project, he “took full advantage of his new ties…to aid Spinks in his bombings, through both intelligence gathering and the recruitment of potential accomplices” (Risen 89). As a result of being involved with this religiously driven organization, Bray was able to acquire the resources available for further participation in “contentious acts.”

3.) Risen and Thomas’s account of the Pensacola bombings is imbued with a disapproving tone. It is clear that these authors do not support the bombings as an ideal method of fighting abortion. In their description they frequently use words with more or less obviously negative connotations such as “propaganda,” “convinced,” “conconspirators,” and “exploit” (Risen 198-199). They even ridicule Goldsby and Simmons, saying “they might as well have taken out an advertisement” (Risen 199). This display gives the audience a look at the bombers as criminals, and the conclusion that their actions are not justified.

Source

The New York Times presents this story in an objective surface tone, but with a subjective perspective latent in the structure. Taking a neutral position as what is expected of a piece of news, the author presents both sides with equal amounts of information and quoted advocates. Actual subjectivity can be drawn from the order that the cases are presented and from the final sentence of the story. Since the opinion of those in support of the bombings was presented first, those opposed come across as having a rebuttal to shut down the original argument. This structure favors non-supporters as they have the last word and the chance to remark on the contents of the first comment. Also, the last sentence stating that the men “had constructed the bomb on Mr. Goldsby’s kitchen table” is belittling to the bombers (NYT). This statement leaves readers with the image of two ignorant people creating the destructive item in their own home like some kind of cartoon comedy where sticks of dynamite are held together with bubble gum. The statement may be true, but the information is not necessary. Instead it serves to make a point about the bombers; a point from a condescending and disapproving perspective.

(Due to lack of visual resources of this particular abortion clinic bombing, pictures are from a different bombing, but still represent the anti-abortionist motive as the building bombed was an abortion clinic)

Source 1

Source 2

The pictures of the bombing are also objective in that they display the actual damage done to the clinic after the explosion. Anti-abortionists, however, can argue that these pictures support the abortionist’s side because it sends a negative portrayal. They may claim that by only showing the negative affects of destroying an abortion clinic, the positive side is unaccounted for but not nonexistent. The argument in support of the bombing would need a visual that illustrates the point that the result of this building’s destruction is a decrease in murders (abortions) performed. More complicated images or textual evidence would be necessary to communicate this, though; and so whether the images hold an opinion or not, they are still the most readily available visual in depicting the direct consequence of damage to the building.