Must brown people be martyred for Americans to be motivated?

by Guest Contributor Tami, originally published at What Tami Said

On May 13, 2008, I wrote:

Saturday night I was watching as CNN covered the tragedy in Myanmar (Burma). I was well aware of the devastation caused by Nagris, the cyclone that ripped the country apart. What shocked me was the graphic nature of CNN’s report. There were bodies and bodies and more bodies–Burmese men, women, even children, dead, bloated, discolored and rotting in the Southeast Asian sun; arms and legs akimbo as if their owners had been tossed like rag dolls. I know this is what death looks like, especially when it takes place in a poor country where the people have been colonized, militarized and rocked by ethnic strife and drug trafficking. But I watched the television and couldn’t help thinking that this video desecration of the already desecrated was another example of how American culture sees brown people as somehow less human. Read more…

I am thinking about this again because of Neda Agha Soltani, the young Iranian woman who was gunned down during political protests in Tehran. According to CNN, the martyred woman’s name, which reportedly means “voice” or “calling” in Persian, has become a rallying cry for those protesting fraudulent elections in Iran. This post isn’t about how Neda’s life and death have affected her people, though. It is how her death is being used in this country that is making me uncomfortable.

Neda’s horrific death was captured on video and is all over the Web, including several high-profile blogs and You Tube. Even CNN.com has linked to the unedited video, though the news outlet ran a pixilated version on air. The video shows the young woman, clad in jeans and bright, white tennis shoes, collapsing to the ground, seconds after being shot in the heart. As her father and others attend to her, Neda’s brown eyes seem to focus momentarily on the camera before shifting, glazing. Blood begins to pour from her mouth and nose, covering her face. Her life is gone. You can see it when it goes. It is shocking. If you do not care about what is going on now in Iran, you will after seeing Neda die in the street with her father’s screams growing louder and louder.

But why does the Western world (and here I refer mostly to the dominant culture, not marginalized groups) have to see these things to be shaken from its complacency?

We did not need to see bloodied bodies to understand the horror of Columbine. After the first live footage of people in the World Trade Center jumping to their deaths, those gruesome images disappeared. It was too much. We don’t need to see carnage to understand horror when the bodies involved are mostly white. To show brutal images of the dead is generally seen as unseemly and disrespectful. Consider the uproar when some newspapers published images of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in the early 90s. But deaths like Neda’s we feel we must see, need to see. What does it say when we feel squeamish and protective about the deaths of some, but not others?

On blog threads, commenters are thanking bloggers for posting the video of Neda’s death. A Jezebel commenter said:

…people need to see this. This is not some voyeuristic irrelevant video; it is wholly representative of the kind of brutality that the government is trying to stifle communication about right now. Her story needs to be told.

Another offered:

I showed it to my husband and he got really upset and said he didn’t need to see stuff like that. I told him that he did need to see it, and understand, and that everyone needs to see and know what is really going on over there. I can’t stop crying. Read more…

I understand these readers’ sentiments, but why? Why must we see an Iranian woman die on a city street in order to understand the gravity of the country’s political upheaval? Why must we see brown bodies bloated and floating to give a damn about the tsunami in Myanmar or the hurricane in New Orleans? Why did we have to see Oscar Grant killed in cold blood by police on a BART platform to talk about racism and the justice system? Why did it take the mangled body of 14-year-old Emmitt Till to give America an inkling of the tyranny and danger that black folks faced in the South every day?

I think Americans are fetishizing video of Neda Soltani’s death in a way they would not if she were a young, blonde, American college student shot down on an American street. We do not need to see the lifeless bodies of those women in order to care for them. But people like Neda owe access to their deaths so Americans can access their own humanity.

Isn’t there something wrong with this?

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Against Martyrdom - The Pursuit of Harpyness on 23 Jun 2009 at 10:20 am

[...] distributing it. Kate Harding sums my position up in this Broadsheet post quite beautifully. (Tami’s post at Racialicious is also great on this subject, pointing out that the way this video gets talked [...]

Comments

Abu Sinan wrote:

I see something further wrong with the whole issue. If it was white people killing these Iranians there would be NO issue.

I guess we could also say there wouldnt be as much issue here if it was Christians killing Muslims. Because it is Muslim on Muslim violence then somehow the massive coverage is okay?

Why is it that the Western media has gone absolutely crazy with brown people killing brown people, yet the same attention was not paid when white Israelis were killing hundreds of brown Palestinian Christians and Muslims, men women and children?

FAR more brown Muslim people in Afghanistan have been killed by white Christian American troops in blundered raids and air strikes, yet we dont see dedicated coverage on the hundreds of hundreds of poor brown Muslims on CNN.

A clear double standard.

Brown people’s deaths can only be covered sympathetically ONLY if they are killing each other. If it is white Westerners killing the brown people, it will be covered lightly and then forgotten.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 8:49 am ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:

I 100% agree with Abu Sinan. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it’s hypocritical of American media to show this video in order to highlight the violence occurring right now in Iran. At the same time they weren’t allowed until recently to show (limited) footage of dead soldiers’ caskets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. They never show dead images of Iraqis and Afghans (even though they too are floating around the web just like Neda’s video was before being picked up for public consumption).

POC on POC violence and deaths are ok to show and highlight because they involve those “barbaric non white savages”. However Westerners killing POC’s or being killed by POC’s cannot be shown because then the average American’s already threadbare support for the illegal “War on Terror” would be eliminated completely, giving the American elites no more room for justifying this mess.
They aren’t allowed to reveal more of the gruesome Abu Ghraib pics either because it shows Americans torturing and raping Iraqi detainees (with not just men but women and children being victimized as well). Isn’t that the lesson they took away from Vietnam (don’t show the public any graphic images of violence there so they stay ignorant of what’s really happening?)

It helps the media, corporate and government elites immensely that Americans are generally still hell bent on this anti intellectualist trend, so they don’t bother to study and understand in depth any government policies both domestic and foreign that affect both them and the world. Some of them even revel in their ignorance and stupidity!
It just goes to show how NOT free and fair corporate American media really is.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 9:22 am ¶
Kandeezie wrote:

There are people, and then there’s everyone else. Western culture says that people are white, and everyone else is…well, everyone else. Kinda human. Kinda.

I agree with Abu. Plus, if she were white, they would never have shown that on TV. I think it comes back to the white body as pure and sacred, something to be covered and spared from public consumption in death. Meanwhile, everyone else is like road kill – oh, look over there!

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 9:35 am ¶
Daniel wrote:

I’m not sure I agree with the assessment that people wouldn’t care if the person shot down was a blonde white woman. After all, look at Kent State.

I’m actually not sure how much this has to do with race (first time I’ve found myself saying that on this blog!). Re: Abu Sinan’s comment, around 40% of Israelis are people of color, although I’ll admit that’s not the image Americans have, but still, little outrage from white america.

I don’t really know what it is about, either. Power in general, I think.

If people of color getting martyred motivated Americans, surely the 15,000 killed in 3 decades of gang violence would have motivated people to find an end to the violence.

I think that most Americans believe in the myth of nonviolent resolution to all conflicts: that people should just appeal to their leaders, or if that doesn’t work, protest nonviolently to have their aims met. When that ends with people getting murdered in cold blood, it causes outrage. And, perhaps understandably, I think there’s more outrage when it’s impossible or at least harder to imagine the victim as having engaged in violence, even if only self-defense, against their oppressor/killer.

So Neda gets attention because she probably wasn’t armed, and she was a woman (not that I believe women are less likely/capable of armed struggle, but sexism is pretty widespread). Columbine gets attention because nobody thinks highschool kids, especially white ones, are combatants in any way.

Now, where I agree with you and think there may be a racial element, is when the media decides what images are appropriate and what images are inappropriate to share. It’s hard for me to see any rhyme or reason besides the race of the victims, but even that isn’t perfect.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 9:38 am ¶
shailen wrote:

excellent post.

couple of parrallels…i remember when katrina coverage was going on, the media was very careful not to show any pictures of dead bodies in new orleans.

similarly, we had a moratorium on showing flag covered caskets from the current war we’re in.

great point. why do we need to see brown people/minorities in those situations to “get it”?

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 9:47 am ¶
Sobia wrote:

@ Abu Sinan:

My thoughts/sentiments exactly.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 9:50 am ¶
mistersquid wrote:

But why does the Western world (and here I refer mostly to the dominant culture, not marginalized groups) have to see these things to be shaken from its complacency?

Where have you been for the past 10 days? The entire Western world has had its eyes on Iran and its elections well before there were even any protests let alone any of them killed. I agree the West is in many ways indifferent to the plight of people who are not of Anglo-European dissent, but this post is junk journalism.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 9:56 am ¶
Sobia wrote:

Sorry…just to add on.

@ Abu Sinan:

“Why is it that the Western media has gone absolutely crazy with brown people killing brown people, yet the same attention was not paid when white Israelis were killing hundreds of brown Palestinian Christians and Muslims, men women and children?”

Because this “proves” how barbaric we really are.

We need to see brown bodies being killed *by brown bodies* to care. If a brown body is killed by a white one, it does not matter.

Seeing a brown body being killed by another brown body just proves how barbaric we brown people really are and how we need to be saved from our own barbarism.

But a white body is not barbaric. A white body only kills out of “necessity” (white Israelis killing brown Palestinians, or white Americans killing brown Iraqis/Afghans/ Pakistanis). Therefore, that killing is justified. We do not need to care.

Brown peoples’ barbarism horrifies and captivates the innocent white eye.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 10:01 am ¶
Ben H. wrote:

amen. the mainstream coverage of the upheaval in iran has been really leering. i’m still following what’s happening there, but the nature of the coverage has really made me uncomfortable.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 10:08 am ¶
Ben H. wrote:

also, co-sign w/ abu sinan

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 10:11 am ¶
Chris Chambers wrote:

With Iran specifically, the only motivational voices are the false voices of right wing demogogues here who wish to pillory Barack obama. But the fact remains–what TO do? Declare the regime rogue or illegitimate? That plays into their hands, for they will say that’s all Bush and Cheney wanted? Risk the hardliners saying “ah-hah! Israel is trying to hijack Iran’s govt” But there are ways of making a bold statement without resort to the nonsense of the Bush Admin., and Obama’s the man to do so.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 10:56 am ¶
Joseph wrote:

@Tami
Yes.

@Abu Sinan
Cosign

@RCHOUDH
That is an excellent point re: the Abu Ghraib photos, which the Obama Administration refuses to release. It cannot be said enough.

Who wants to put money on the inevitability of a “Neda” movie starring a white girl in a brown wig?

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 11:16 am ¶
FCA wrote:

Iranians aren’t brown, they range from White to Tanned.

Check out South Asians (Indians), they range from light brown to dark brown. All darker than tan.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 11:16 am ¶
catherine wrote:

I don’t think the reaction to Neda’s death is divided on lines of brown and white. I think it is a response to a young beautiful educated woman being cut down in her prime in a senseless political act. For most tribes on this planet, the beautiful woman in the prime of her reproductive years is an icon–the symbol of the tribe’s future. Traditionally this type of woman was afforded more protection than the average tribe member. Apparently some factions in Iran have no regard for the future.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 11:36 am ¶
mk wrote:

I hadn’t (and still haven’t) watched the video because something about the whole thing makes me really uncomfortable. Thank you for this post. I’m sort of coming to the conclusion that Racialicious generally does a better job of articulating and expressing my opinions than I do.

@Abu Sinan – agree, agree, agree! But what if graphic videos from Gaza had made it into the mainstream media in January? I feel like it would still be disrespectful in that, to paraphrase the original post, the dominant powers in society don’t need to see violence happen to white americans to empathize or to think things need to change. But on the other hand, anything to make people wake up and care? I don’t know.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 11:36 am ¶
Jeremy Dean wrote:

In the eyes of the Americans you are talking about, the mainstream, all Iranians are religious zealots with beards and plans to get nukes and blow up Americans and Israelis. The video serves to introduce them to the idea that the population of Iran is varied in its political and religious leanings as well as in other attributes. It shows them graphically that there are people inside Iran who are like them, who are as innocent and earnest as they are, and that these people are under threat. They then feel inspired to back that group of Iranians.

Without the graphic images very few Americans would empathize and most would simply turn away muttering, “Crazy Arabs…” You’ve made a very good observation here, thanks for sharing.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶
lemonpiper wrote:

This kind of racism is classic and has been around for a long time. I am thinking back to, for example, paintings such as Ingre’s Odelisque. The sexuality that was taboo to project onto white women’s bodies was projected onto Oriental bodies instead. In the above example, it’s violence rather than sexuality, but it’s the same idea. The fetishes the West projects onto Others are those that are taboo in their own culture.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 12:09 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

regarding this post, it’s true, people need to see violent, shocking acts occur to people abroad in order to feel motivated.

however, on our own turf, we have become incredibly desensitized. every day on the news, we hear about some domestic, intra-racial/cultural crime and don’t blink.

however, in terms of this statement, “But why does the Western world (and here I refer mostly to the dominant culture, not marginalized groups) have to see these things to be shaken from its complacency?” i have a tiny bone to pick.

i don’t think it’s just the western world or dominant culture that don’t care about other groups of people until they see something super graphic. i think this can safely be used to refer to the majority of the public. people havea lot of things to worry about on a daily basis, and unfortunately, the problems in other countries, no matter how grave, don’t always end up on the worry plate. im not speaking for myself here, bc i give a shit, but i don’t know if it’s just the dominant culture that turns a blind eye. i know plenty of people who identify themselves as members of marginalized groups who have the opposite reaction. i hear things like, “look, i have enough problems to worry about on my own here than to focus on the shit people are going through in other countries.” in some way, i feel that those of the dominant culture, of privileged groups, if you will, are more at ease to even consider these issues and act.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 12:17 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

FYI:
In a Presidential News Conference just now President Obama just said re: Iran “Above all, we have seen courageous women standing up…” before talking about Neda.

Above all?

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
Evan wrote:

If I am not mistaken…it is the Iranian dissidents who are pimping Neda Soltani’s blood-ridden face all over the Internet. It is a certain political group of Iranians who are dying for attention from the Western corporate media. Posting a death image of young, attractive female protester carries weight in the media. The Iranians know how the Western media works.

Look, if there was a blood-spattered white, blonde American girl dying on a street, you better believe that the corporate media will play video and images to death of that girl. Why? Because the images get eyeballs on the TV screen. More eyeballs mean corporate advertising dollars for the likes of CNN or MSNBC. The death fetish by the media crosses all races and ethnic groups.

We Americans don’t have the time to follow every foreign policy issue. There are so many tragedies happening around world at one time. To call someone out as a racist for not responding to suffering in Burma, Iran, or Somalia is completely wrong. I recall that there was massive death and suffering during the ethnic wars in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s and most Americans didn’t give a shit then.

People are provincial by nature; they care about events happening in their village, city or country. This behavior crosses all races and national boundaries.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶
momo wrote:

I don’t know, I am of two minds on this. For one, the media will play whatever story they think will get them the most eyeballs in their target demographic — so a missing white toddler will *always* garner more attention than similarly missing POC. I wonder if the media attention to Iran now would be as extensive if Twitter didn’t exist, what with all the #CNNfail outrage.

On the other hand, it is easy to categorize things as “not your problem” when they don’t occur in your backyard, and thus not so immediate. Millions of white people were getting killed in WWII, but America didn’t step in until Americans themselves were attacked.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 1:03 pm ¶
Jehanzeb wrote:

I am deeply offended and very angry by the way the western media is covering the current situation in Iran right now. Please pardon me if I offend anyone here.

Tami is asking the right questions, but there’s more to it. The reason why there’s SO MUCH media coverage on the Iranian post-election protests is because the people are rebelling against a regime that the west has been VILIFYING and MISREPRESENTING during the Bush administration. I am no supporter of Ahmadinejad, but the man NEVER said “wipe Israel off the map,” and all the comparisons people make between him and Hitler are incredibly far-fetched.

When the U.S. and Israel commit violence and injustice against Muslims, then it’s presented as a “fight against terrorism.” You’ll NEVER see a “Breaking news” tab for Palestine or Afghanistan or Pakistan or any nation that the U.S. hates because those are considered “terrorist nations.”

Iran was on the axis of evil because of Bush’s attitudes towards Ahmadinejad. Now, the same people (including John McCain) who said “Bomb Iran,” are saying, “oh wait a minute, the majority of Iranians are freedom-loving people! Whoa, we need to support them, they’re fighting against Ahmadinejad and radical Islam.” The facts are misconstrued and there was recently a protest by British Iranians against the BBC media coverage on the current issue. Mousavi is not a secular reformist that many westerners think he is! Mousavi supporters have Muslims, clerics, and Ayatollahs on their side. They shout “Allahu akbar” (God is Great) in the streets.

It angers me that when over 1,400 people were murdered in Gaza in December and January, most of the media didn’t say ANYTHING about it. CNN and John Stewart were the only ones that actually spoke up for Palestine, but look at the media coverage on Iran now. We even know the victim’s name! And it’s because Muslims did it to Muslims. If a U.S. bomb landed on Iran and killed this woman, it wouldn’t be on the news or all over YouTube.

My friend was on the receiving end of racist, genocidal, and sexist statements from so-called “Jewish” demonstrators are a pro-Israel rally when Israel was bombing the hell out of Gaza, and we wrote tirelessly to newspapers and local TV stations to get our story out there. But no one cared. No one was bold enough. It’s like you care about my sister, but then don’t care about my cousin.

Now, all of sudden, these newspapers and TV stations care about us. Because they finally see Muslim fighting for their freedom. Muslims have been fighting their freedom EVERYWHERE. This is receiving attention now because the media doesn’t have to worry about pissing off right-wing Americans or being flagged as “terrorist sympathizers.” They only care about our blood when we’re doing it to our own people!

This all is very insulting, offensive, and hurtful.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 1:03 pm ¶
zipzap wrote:

@ catherine
“I don’t think the reaction to Neda’s death is divided on lines of brown and white. I think it is a response to a young beautiful educated woman being cut down in her prime in a senseless political act. For most tribes on this planet, the beautiful woman in the prime of her reproductive years is an icon–the symbol of the tribe’s future. Traditionally this type of woman was afforded more protection than the average tribe member.”

I agree. Nicole Brown Simpson’s battered face was shown over and over again on the news.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 1:44 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Daniel,

Having spent a lot of time in Israel and Palestine I know that a lot of Israelis (Jewish Israelis) are PoC, specifically Sephardic Jews from the Middle East and African Jews. However, the state of Israel is overwhelmingly run by Ashkenazi Jews and I think this European background of it’s leaders partially effects the way the West/USA views their actions.

@Sobia,

Good points that you made. It brings to mind the lie of the “Purity of Arms” theory espoused by Israel whenever it wishes to slaughter any of the Arabs around them.

@FCA,

I know many Iranians. As a matter of fact, I just had an Iranian friend in my office. He is brown. Iranians range anywhere from white to dark brown. Iranian is a nationality so there many many different ethnic groups that are included in this designation, Azeris, Arabs, Persians, Kurds and more. If you are talking about Persians, who are the dominate ethnicity in Iran, they also range from white to brown. Azeris, more white, Kurds, brown skinned to blond haired and blue eyed. By “non white” myself and others mainly mean non Europeans.

@Catherine,

If this was nothing more than a beautiful, educated young woman cut down in her prime you’d have to explain why, in similar circumstances, there has been different coverage?

@Joseph,

Obama, like others, doesn’t get the fact that there is a clear socio-economic element to this whole thing. The whole talk of “tweet revolution” and other stuff particularly points to the fact that this “revolution” is coming from the moneyed elite of Iran, not from the majority.

It is interesting that all of the far right sites you care to mention are latching onto this story as a way to justify the Bush doctrine. They all now want to support the “freedom fighters” in Iran, but otherwise have been on the wrong side of every freedom movement for the last 50 years.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 1:45 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

A couple quick notes:

1. No, the media generally does not show the bodies of other Americans. However, as Tami said in her original piece, it’s fine to show the images of people from other nations.

2. I do not recall seeing photos of Nicole Brown Simpson shown – her autopsy photos were leaked later. Most TV broadcasts defaulted to a handful of photos pre-death. The news did show Rihanna’s pictures recently, but Rihanna is still living.

3. Look, if there was a blood-spattered white, blonde American girl dying on a street, you better believe that the corporate media will play video and images to death of that girl. Why? Because the images get eyeballs on the TV screen.

When news outlets receive images like this, they normally decline to show it out of respect for the family. This respect is not extended to others, hence the reason for Tami’s piece.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 1:58 pm ¶
DaisyDeadhead wrote:

It’s interesting that the opposite question was asked about Kent State vs Jackson State: Why was it only when white kids were gunned down, did it make news?

Because it showed just how far they were willing to go to suppress the anti-war movement. Nice, middle-class, affluent white college kids? Holy shit.

In an Iranian context, this is similar: Look how far they are willing to go.

Unfortunately, certain clueless people will always believe that scruffy anarchist rabble-rousers demonstrating in the street, deserve what they get. But suddenly, there is someone who represents all that we strive for, all that we hold dear: beauty, love, caring, dedication, intelligence, etc… and when governments decide that person is also expendable, it seems to wake people up in a big way.

That is what “martyr” in my tradition, has always signified.

And I think if they’d had the video of the four kids at Kent State, they show it over and over, too. The TV networks certainly showed every home-movie ever made of them, frolicking in their middle class backyards. It seemed incredible; people actually started saying things like “Fascism has arrived in America!” The women in my family sobbed.

Suddenly (as I think Abbie Hoffman first said), The War was At Home.

And what Zipzap said: I think it is a response to a young beautiful educated woman being cut down in her prime in a senseless political act.

And as a result, everybody finally gets it.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 2:14 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:

Someone upthread mentioned how this isn’t so much about showing a non white person’s death but also a young beautiful woman’s death to spur some reaction from the American public. My question is why is American society reacting to a woman’s death only? There were 16 other deaths in Iran, which I presume were of men and maybe some more women. Why aren’t those deaths being highlighted? This is related to why images of young Iranian women have been predominantly covered by Western media. It’s a sexist notion that when a (young) woman is involved in an incident mainly associated with men (in this case riots and sudden death while demonstrating) then her story has to be publicized and symbolized.

Now we see American MSM highlighting those “barbaric” Iranians harming innocent women. Why doesn’t it highlight what its own military was doing to Abu Ghraib detainees? There were female detainees tortured, raped and humiliated just as much if not more than the male detainees. Again the sexism appears; American MSM knows that by bringing public attention to female detainees being harmed by American troops that this will evoke just as visceral (and embarrassing) reaction from the public as Neda’s videos have evoked. That’s why those other images of Abu Ghraib are being kept under wraps (at least for now). The media’s hypocrisy is so transparent in this case because it’s ok to highlight a young woman being harmed in Iran but not the countless young women who were harmed by American troops.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 2:21 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:

@Sobia, Jehanzeb: co-sign.

Is anyone else tired of hearing about how Iran’s election debacle has somehow ‘proven’ that Twitter is a democratic tool? Yeah, perhaps it is if we choose to ignore all but the tiny demographic of people who use the damn thing.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 2:26 pm ¶
mk wrote:

@DaisyDeadhead you said “The TV networks certainly showed every home-movie ever made of them, frolicking in their middle class backyards.”…it seems like that’s an important difference. We’ll show and look at home videos of white/privileged kids who were tragically killed…but at videos of them alive. Videos of them as living people, not just as tragedy or symbols. What do most people who watch the Neda video know about her other than that she was killed? What do people who watch home movies of the people killed at Kent State know about their lives at the end of it? More. I don’t know that I agree that the MSM would have shown video footage of them being shot if they had it. But that’s just speculation.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:

Regardless of her background, if she were ugly it would have been another casualty and would have never made the news.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶
method wrote:

Huh? Maybe I’m not looking at the same set of responses as the author, but this post and the agreeing comments seem totally out of wack. As someone else mentioned, this is the *Iranians’* “martyr”, the one *they* chose to gather around. Neda is on *their* signs and the Western media is just retelling the story that the Iranians are choosing to tell, yes, to the world but mainly to themselves. In fact, I’d make a cultural guess that the death of Neda is a particularly appealing symbol to Iranians and Muslims in general, because of the importance of martyrs in Islam. Look at Muhammad al-Durrah as a symbol of the Second Intifada.

As for the Western media, isn’t it like any group of outsiders trying to understand events in another culture? They’ll latch onto anything they can make sense of first and perhaps overamplify that part for their own interpretation. Reporters are trying to tell a story so that people will stay interested.

I think the thesis of this post needs to be made falsifiable. How about asking people in South Africa or Brazil if seeing the video helped them be “motivated”?

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 3:13 pm ¶
Matt wrote:

As Latoya said, US news generally avoids showing bodies, period. So it is something to note when they do show bodies. Not that I’ve seen them, personally (for odd reasons, I don’t watch tv). But, on the other hand, the idea that it’s just because brown people are killing brown people seems simplistic and wrong to me. There are wars going on in Africa that the media doesn’t even cover. Burma? No bodies being shown (that I know of; but, of course, I could be wrong about what’s being shown). Sri Lank, where 5,000 people were killed in about a week in a massive “anti-terrorist” action?? Were there bodies shown or hardly any coverage.

I do imagine it’s probably racism that allows the media to show the bodies of POC, but I also imagine it’s something else entirely that leads them to cover the protests. That is that Iran is relevant to American foreign policy. I’d love to see a less self-interested foreign policy, but I doubt that’s as much about the skin color of the bodies as this thread is portraying it.

(But, also, in the wake of all these conflicts, it’s strange and upsetting to me that so many people here feel the need to single out Israel.)

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶
Evan wrote:

@method

Bulls-eye! The Western media didn’t make Neda into a martyr; the pro-Mousavi demonstrators Tweeted, Flickered, You-Tubed, and Facebooked her death to the entire world. The mainstream corporate media in the West simply picked up the story and ran with it. They show graphic images for the shock value that would eventually lead to bigger ratings. But make no mistake, it was the Iranians who showcased her bloody corpse to the world.

End. of. fucking. story.

I mean if the Al Jazeera news network (owned and managed by Arabs) shows the video of Neda’s death over and over again, how could the original poster only call out the white-oriented Western media? How many news stations across Asia or Latin America are doing the same thing? I bet there are a few. There’s no white-domination conspiracy to fetishize dying or physically abused “brown” people on the TV.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 4:23 pm ¶
Matt wrote:

Evan, Method, I agree it was the Iranian protesters who chose Neda as a symbol – and that’s why the US media picked up on her as a symbol. But that doesn’t explain why the US media, which generally does not show bodies, chose to. Could it be as simple as a lack of other first-hand material to pass on? Maybe, but I think a lot of people here are partly right.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 5:11 pm ¶
Emily wrote:

Thank you, thank you, thank you. As an intern at a prominent feminist magazine, I spent a good chunk of my day yesterday finding all the currently available information on Neda and searching for a good quote to print. I obviously saw the images–and even those I found gratuitous–but I did not feel it necessary to view the video. A woman was murdered. Many other people have been murdered as well. I do not need to see it to believe it, and I do not need to see it to understand that it is wrong.

On our lunch break today, one of my coworkers told me she decided watch the video of Neda’s murder last night. Her justification was that she had to watch it and be outraged to prove to herself that she would be a good journalist, questing towards social justice. I do not know why she couldn’t be outraged anyway. She did watch the video, and she was horrified, as was to be expected.

Why do we need to view the graphic violence porn of an innocent nonwhite woman being murdered to motivate ourselves to act in favor of justice?

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 5:38 pm ¶
Ray wrote:

I never saw Neda’s death as someone who is Brown or White, but simply as someone who is innocent.

I can’t explain the issues with the Burmese, believe it was inappropriate. I also feel airing Neda’s death on television was inappriate, yet I didn’t feel it was racist.

Other’s have noted that others were killed to, yet these people have failed to elicit a reaction. What’s so striking about Neda’s death is that it was filmed. Tami’s right when she asks why do we need this video to make us care. It’s a big question.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 5:47 pm ¶
Tami wrote:

To me, this isn’t about who made Neda a martyr, it’s about why Americans, who are usually uncomfortable with death and avoid showing it in news communication, are embracing a very graphic video of a young woman’s death.

The consensus seems to be that while the video is awful it “needs” to be shown so that people understand “what is going on there.” But we don’t make these arguments during other tragedies. No one would have excused or advocated showing the bodies of 9/11 victims as a way to tell the story of that tragedy. The very idea would seem abhorrent and disrepectful to the dead and their families. I understand that this video is being embraced by Neda’s people, but I am talking about AMERICANS and AMERICAN culture.

Why are we comfortable watching the deaths of some people, but not others?

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 6:48 pm ¶
sandeep wrote:

“But I watched the television and couldn’t help thinking that this video desecration of the already desecrated was another example of how American culture sees brown people as somehow less human. ”

interesting stuff. i mean, yeah, its a well known & discussed fact that in america, “white” folk tend to view “non-white” folk as “outsiders” and “other people” that couldn’t possibly be their neighbor. we saw this with the Jasmine-terrorist photographs a few posts ago, and now again with this graphic airing of someones private final bloodcurdling moments. no dignity is afforded to this woman, whereas typically you’d expect in an American gang-related death the wounds to be dressed over, the viewing done in silence, perhaps wistful musings over the needless sacrifice of the child, the life lived well and the joy brought by such a life to others. Certainly not plastered photographs of the police crime scene where the body was found. To do such a thing is violently intrusive, not only does it severely injure those directly related, but it introduces you to the deceased, not as a person, not for her personality & the like, but as a corpse, a bloody casuality in some dramatic overseas war that isn’t quite understandable, perhaps overwhelmingly so, and just feeds shock factor.

seizing the viewer with shock-photography and videography, shamelessly exploiting the death of a woman, wreching any dignity she might have been afforded, and instead reveling in the blood. its disgusting, and its widespread, because the world of “other folk” is largely unpoliced in American media as of now. Why? because America is young. it wasn’t that long ago that the year was 1776. but it’s not that simple. given America is a country of immigrants perhaps you would have expected the understanding and acceptance of immigrants to be somewhat more advanced that perhaps other parts of the world. this isn’t the case, and it’s due to the savage nature of America’s takeover of native american lands, fought over by colonies representing other countries interests. America’s founding was a bloody one, where lines were drawn over allegiances, allegiance to places that were at that time bastions of largely homogenous populations. Race mattered more back then.

Things have changed, mass media, advanced transportation, communication. We’re better connected, physically, and socially through long distance communication. Trips to faraway countries happen. This once didn’t. This all serves to bring the worlds societies and races closer together. Race itself loses meaning as people who share ancestry no longer necessarily tend to associate with themselves in their present day. Other factors such as oppertunity, oppertunities made possible by plane tickets, and immigration laws, expanding economies and changing world views. As more folks share streets whose shared ancestry isn’t so overstated, we will continue to phase out Race as an important defining characteristic.

However, we’re not there yet. In the meantime, people will remember their parents, will remember their education-dominated by self-focused histories and insulated-points of view. We’re learning as a people to see people for what they are, flesh and blood upright-walkers with opposible thumbs. skin color becomes a fashion less than a grey-matter defining characteristic. But there’s no lieing to ourselves that there are still barriers that exist, barriers that are erected because of the silence that permeats the gaps between many great cultures. the communication is not enough to meet the needs of curiosities and to be able to allow people to see eye to eye, and until communication on a global scale ramps up to the point of enabling eye-to-eye relations, people will continue to grasp at straws, and use their imagination to fill the gaps. and as we do, those “other” people can develop their own mythologies in our minds, and can become distorted, larger than life, and in the end, nothing like what we feel we are. That “otherness” defining them is what makes them feel so distant, and you can’t help but appreciate in some sense the efforts of those journalism folks to try and get some sort of a rise out of otherwise silent “white” folk in the States. It shocked you, it shocks me, and it shocks a whole hell of alot of other people, so by displaying such a controversial and petulant image, they are in effect provoking discussion in a realm that has yet to be adaquately discussed.

You could say growing pains do hurt. But there’s no excusing the exploitation of death. Perhaps the video was used in bad taste, but perhaps some good is coming out of it’s misuse. Because this avenue of discussion is so thoroughly neglected, that even bad dialogue is better than the permeating silence that otherwise occupies the targeted space.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 6:57 pm ¶
Marianna wrote:

I have only one thing to add to this discussion. Intellectualize all you want, but you can’t change people’s fixation on death. Whether you want to call it “morbid fascination,” that’s different—but I agree with Daniel in that I don’t think Neda is giving white people a way to “access their humanity,” as the author says.

There’s nothing inherently worthy about feeling strongly unless you do something about it. The two are not one and the same. If some people need to see the video to “access their humanity,” that is, get sick, that is not necessarily an experience exclusive to their race. We are so desensitized by our media at present (read: sensationalism) that it’s no wonder some people need to watch these atrocities to grasp them. It’s not fair to accuse those people of dehumanizing the victims. They are, more likely, trying to understand death—and these are the only available images with which to do so.

Should the Times and CNN have linked to the video? I wouldn’t have. Should they be reporting more graphic accounts of white persons’ deaths, to balance their coverage of non-white deaths? I don’t think you would approve of that.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 7:54 pm ¶
Danny wrote:

My comment may sound contrary to other statements but I think most people do not have to watch such materials to understand or empathize what it takes to fight for a cause or access their humanity. We can do all that without “needing” to view things. I based my stance on intellectual reasons, empathy and common sense.

I understand how some people can be so desensitize and need a dosage of reality once in a while or the fact that it takes something dramatic to happen to catch attention from people with busy lives. Then there’s the fasciation with death among many individuals or beliefs. That’s reality.

However, people have been the same, with or without the long physcial distances, different superficial layers, or the busy and comfortable lifestyles. I sometimes question viewing videos because the screen is also another method of separation from yourself and the events going on. Like many others have mentioned, it is not just Americans but other peoples who have the same issue. I may find showing videos of gruesome death degrading to the dead but others may not feel the same way, and we all have our justified reasons.

This may sound cold but I’m being a little honest…the only ones you need to prove or project your cause to is your community. Internal affairs of the country and those fellow diaspora or foreign individuals who have a that special relationship with that community. Study the past, a lot of social-internal political movements progressed that way. Well, maybe some international actions had effect but it was complimentary not the main factor. If people want to they can, but there’s really not that big of a “need” to motivate a large population in another country regarding their own country’s issues.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 9:46 pm ¶
Danny wrote:

I should add on, I understand in our current world, no one country is an island. We are all interconnected, and there’s little room to escape from international relations. It’s just I think that lasting beneficial change needs to happen from within.
A sovereign entity needs to do that with as little external political pressure if possible for so many reasons.

I typed this comment in hoping people won’t misunderstand the last paragraph of my previous statement.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 9:56 pm ¶
Safiya Outlines wrote:

“Why are we comfortable watching the deaths of some people, but not others?”

Good question. During the long, bloody conflict in Northern Ireland corpses were almost never shown.

It was either photographs of the aftermath of bombings are pictures of the victims when they were alive, the latter being far more humanising (and showing the loss that that had taken place) then a dead body ever could be.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 10:26 pm ¶
method wrote:

Okay, I see the point the author is making more clearly now when I look at the Burma video. In the only news report I’ve seen of the Neda video they blurred her face and the pool of blood. The video itself is on YouTube, though. There are actually two videos from different perspectives. In the second video the camera holder is rushing up to stick the camera in her face. So I see the point about it being easier somehow to watch this video as white American and how sympathy can be a mask for permission to experience a thrill but I see that as being overridden by the way the video was disseminated.

Americans are squeamish about showing death *in public venues*, but the Internet makes it easy to access this video, so now many Americans have watched it. Many Americans have also watched the Kennedy assassination with the gory freeze frames because it is a death we are *allowed* to see it, over and over. They would watch a video of a proverbial blonde woman being harmed if there was a “noble” reason to watch it and they could get access to it. Access is the real issue here. Usually the police or the “responsible news media” control the access to images of the dead. In the YouTube era expect Americans to become much more comfortable with seeing death and dying.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 10:40 pm ¶
pilot wrote:

I saw a link to this video clip on youtube and literally felt sick. I refuse to watch live-action footage of somebody on their deathbed. It seems invasive and disrespectful. My first reaction was, ‘Why the hell did youtube not ban this?’ So many other things are banned. Maybe others aren’t as weak-hearted as me, but I think that the site WOULD ban similar videos of privilage white people. I guess this means only certain people are given the respect of a private death.

Maybe the media should be free to expose death in that way, but it really bothers me is that exposing certain people is taboo while for others, it’s not.

Posted 23 Jun 2009 at 11:02 pm ¶
Ray wrote:

@Tami

“we don’t make these arguments during other tragedies. No one would have excused or advocated showing the bodies of 9/11 victims as a way to tell the story of that tragedy. ”

I totally agree with you, but in the case on 9/11, the Towers were the story. In Iran’s case, the people are the story.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:08 am ¶
NancyP wrote:

I am repulsed by the idea of watching a video clip such as the one of Neda Sultan’s death, but consider a still photo to be potentially appropriate reportage. A few horrific still images (napalmed little girl running, execution of male prisoner) brought Vietnam War brutality across the ocean to American readers. I can’t help but think that the images helped the anti-war effort. Horrific images do need some context, though, for maximum effect – in the case of Neda Sultan, a few sentences of biography and a sentence about why she was present at that location where she was killed.

Humans are visually oriented, and “a picture is worth a thousand words”, as the old canard has it. Images have the ability to bypass denial and rationalism. Words on a page don’t have an impact on some people – individual levels of imagination vary widely.

Carefully selected images are also highly effective as propaganda, and I think that the discussion here is directed toward why Neda Sultan’s death image is being put forward by the non-Iranian press.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:22 am ¶
NancyP wrote:

Soltani. That’s what happens when you rely on lousy memory.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:23 am ¶
Tracey wrote:

Jehanzeb: cosign, cosign, cosign a thousand times. Especially, about John Stewart being one of the few people who ever criticizes Israel’s actions and calls them out for always using unneccesary force.
I have a huge question with the question being asked. I agree that the U.S. media is all too willing to show the dead bodies of POC, even though it would not treat the bodies of white people the same way. It is highly unlikely and unusual to have the bloated, disfigured, decaying bodies of a bunch of white westerners flashed on the screen. However, this question ignores the fact that Americans have been paying attention as well as the fact that often times the deaths of POC have no impact on the activism or motiation of Americans to take a stand on something.
The pictures following the Rwandan genocide were gruesome, but those images don’t seem to have a huge impact on action surounding Darfur (the people who are active around it seem to be mostly motivated around human rights not a shock to their sensitivities, and those who feel too concerned with their own problems will at least sign a post card to the POTUS from time to time w/o having to be shown pictures of mutilated bodies).
I think it comes down to POC often being devalued and dehumanized. Especially if that violence is between POC or from a disaster deemed natural. There is no problem depicting violence between POC as “barbaric”, routine, and ingrained. The truth is, that many, many POC can be marytred for a cause and people will do nothing, absolutely nothing. In situations like this, they may at most bemoan the taking of a young woman’s life by a “barbaric” regime that has no regard for human life but at the same time chalk it up to how “barbaric” those regimes over there just are.
That question is a complete insult to those Americans who engage in activism at all levels for human rights and ignores the fact that dead POC are often viewed as routine that such images have little galvanizing affect on those that aren’t motivated to take action ( I make a distinction between those people and those who are just trying to get by themselves).
Then there is the issue that if someone is killed fighting occupation in Iraq their death is ignored or they are painted as terrorists. How would the coverage of Iran be if we supported Ahmadinejad? Hell, if we supported him we might very well be sending in paramilitary troops, or at the very least letting Iran train “counter-insurgency” troops at the good old School of the Americas, which has been such a help to Latin American “counter-insurgency”.
Not to mention, the question suggests Americans should be getting involved to begin with. WTF? I am all for Americans showing support and solidarity in a completely non-governmental way, but the U.S. government really needs to stay out of this. If people want to send messages of solidarity and let the Iranian government know many people stand with the protestors, okay. But in no way should the U.S. government be lobbied to get involved or so much as even make a statement. I am for intervention in some cases (genocide is the only one I can think of and then not necessarily unitarily), but I think it has been completely borne out that the U.S. should really, really, stay out of other country’s affairs when it comes to elections, power shifts, and regime changes. Seriously, I don’t know how any country can mess up as badly as America has when it comes to suppoting or ousting leaders.
The media cares about some POC b/c they are depicted as pro-western or the victims of anti-U.S. governments. When hundreds of civilians were killed in Gaza, the MSM didn’t depict them as human beings deserving of compassion. No, they were collateral damage in Israel’s quest to “defend” itself. Their deaths were only useful in making Hamas look even more despicable for using them as human shields. So chances are the deaths of POC are displayed in a way that is useful to the position of certain western governments.
People who are really going to advocate for human rights generally do not need to see pictures of dead POC. For many people just learning that a genocide is taking place, that child soldiers are being used, that people are being denied freedom of speech, political association and religion is enough to galvanize them. They only need hear about the number of people displaced, or the number of people in slavery to be active. Many organizations try to use pictures of mutilated or dead POC to galvanize support and receive little success aside from a donation or two.
I will admit that sometimes this may work but it depends on identity as well as time and place. I am thinking of the way seeing people sprayed down with water-hoses and attacked by dogs weakened sympathy for Jim Crow, however those were Americans watching Americans treat other Americans less than human. While that behavior may be shocking coming from other Americans and happening to Americans, I don’t think it is depicted as shocking when all agents are POC.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 2:30 am ¶
Tracey wrote:

wow, I feel realy bad for that long post. I blame it on the time.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 2:33 am ¶
Ferawle wrote:

I think this is an excellent post – I’ve been thinking of the same issues in relation to different coverage.. It seems to me, too, that there is something about showing black or brown corpses that both humanizes and dehumanizes: one, it shows the Other in all its physicality; not as a construct but as a life-and-blood person, ultimately like us – on the other, however, there is something about the voyeurism with which these bodies are displayed that play into tropes about the barbarian Other, being closer to nature in all its brutality (as opposed to white civilization).

So I completely agree with your point; and, I do feel that the facts that Iran, being primarily known in the West as a potential nuclear threat and as a religious, Muslim regime, magnify some form of sensationalism in the way it’s covered…

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 7:11 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

Sobia~

We need to see brown bodies being killed *by brown bodies* to care. If a brown body is killed by a white one, it does not matter.

Seeing a brown body being killed by another brown body just proves how barbaric we brown people really are and how we need to be saved from our own barbarism.

yep!

SAVE DARFUR!!!

Jehanzeb-yes!

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 9:41 am ¶
Joseph wrote:

@NancyP
“Horrific images do need some context, though, for maximum effect…”

Yes, and the unspoken context(s) here–and I think this is what Tami is getting at–are the reasons that some images of mutilation and murder are permitted, while others are not. The skepticism/naiveté re: the racialized element of this dynamic (see: Matt #32, Evan #33, Ray#36 etc.) disregards the historical practice of displaying racially “other” bodies that we see in the United States in relation to slavery. (Which is why Evan’s comment re: Al Jazeera is nonsense: the context for showing murdered bodies on that network is wholly different. Nice try blaming “the Arabs” though)

In her excellent book Scenes of Subjection, Saidya Hartman interrogates the practice of displaying the tortured bodies of African slaves to incite moral outrage against the practice of slavery because it perpetuates the objectification of black bodies that made slavery possible in the first place. She writes, “(I want to) to call attention to the ease with which such scenes are usually reiterated, the casualness with which they are circulated, and the consequences of this routine display of the slave’s ravaged body. Rather than inciting indignation, too often they immure us to pain by virtue of their familiarity… because they reinforce the spectacular character of black suffering.” (Hartman, 3) The question for Hartman is, “Are we witnesses?…Or are we voyeurs?” (Hartman, 3)

As far as the image of Neda Sultan’s death is concerned, in Orientalist terms, gender is the other context we should note. The death and suffering of Middle Eastern/Muslim men does not inspire similar moral outrage in the West. That is because the narrative of Middle Eastern/Muslim women as “victims” who must be “saved” by the West is as prevalent on the US American Left as the Right. The suffering of Arab/Muslim men? Not so much… especially when the West/US/Israel are the cause of that suffering.

The relatively tepid response to the Abu Ghraib photos illustrates this.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 10:41 am ¶
Robin wrote:

I think this is out of context. The videos everybody is watching are videos Iranians on the street took and sent to American media to be shown. You would never have been so passionate in your article had you not seen these videos. Now I do believe seeing it once is enough, and the remote is in your hand to change the channel after the first time, or click another link. Stories must be told, the movement you are seeing globally regarding the Iran crisis is because of this media representation. In the end I think we can all agree its better than not knowing, or hearing about it word of mouth. As far as 9/11 and katrina, I think its not even comparable. There were tons of news videos, links, and articles, and lots were gruesome. But since in that sense we could help ourselves being a financially and politically powerful country, we do not feel the need to broadcast it globally pleading for help like the Iranians are doing now.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:25 pm ¶
sarah wrote:

FCA wrote:
Iranians aren’t brown, they range from White to Tanned. Check out South Asians (Indians), they range from light brown to dark brown. All darker than tan.

Not to threadjack, but hth do you know that “All south asians are darker than x?” or “All Iranians are lighter than y?” Did you travel to south asia and iran and complete a color survey of everyone there? This statement reeks of ignorance, not to mention undertones of skin color hierarchy.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶
Evan wrote:

Response to Joseph:

You and I would agree that Iranian women have legitimate concerns about their rights in society. Are Iranian females the bigger victims because of the theocracy ruling Iran? The answer is yes because the rules were promulgated by religious males. Furthermore, the killing of young women garners more sympathy around the world–not just in the West. However, I agree that many horrible images were excluded from Western media: the indiscriminate Israeli carpet bombing of Gaza and the American air bombing of innocent Afghan civilians.

I wasn’t blaming Arabs for showing footage of Soltani’s death. You and similar racialists hold a double standard. It’s acceptable for the media in non-European/North American countries to showcase a brutal murder of a victim on the screen but then we have an injustice when white viewers are checking the images on YouTube. We are not the only nation that has a history of racial oppression and genocide. I just think people are voyeuristic by nature and the news media takes advantage of this. Curiosity cuts across all races and national boundaries.

The issue is whether white news editors and the white corporate suits at media companies deliberately promote images of people of color in pain and death. I think the US media is more comfortable showing suffering and death of non-American figures than anything else.

And I would hardly call the response to Abu Gharib photos as “tepid”. The news media in the US jumped all over the story. Images of tortured Iraqi victims were plastered all over the news and the internet. There was plenty of outrage by American population–especially from the liberal and left-wing quarters. The ghastly images ignited more debates about our military involvement in Iraq.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 12:53 pm ¶
Proteus wrote:

I see something else in the point you raise: The tendency of people who are looking for certain issues (see also the title of this blog) to see those issues in everything and to imagine them to be the locus of all meaning in every instance. While certainly there is a double standard here with regards to the “snuff film” aspect of this video, if the Western media deliberately didn’t show this couldn’t you make an equally cogent point about their unwillingness to consider the suffering of brown people? Is there any possible outcome that couldn’t be analyzed on these terms?

It is true that we in the West will be predisposed to view Iranians as “the other,” but let us not forget the universal feature of human nature that we perceive tragic events that happen far away as less urgent than those that happen close at hand. Perhaps when the events happen around the world from us we need to see more graphic images just to pierce our defenses; The same defenses that prevent us from weeping all day every day because somebody somewhere, pink or brown or any shade in between, is suffering.

There comes a time when people have to put their grad-school ideas of how the world works on the back burner and ask what can be done rather than what this says about the media and our patriarchal heteronormative white privilege blah blah blah. Yes all those things are true but regardless of how the image is transmitted the facts it portrays remain. The woman is dead, and this has been seized as a rallying point for a country of people struggling under oppressive theocratic rule. I fail to see how their plight is caused by Western media bias or Consumer Culture or any of the other Usual Suspects.

I’d say her plight was caused by a Basij sniper. Make of that what you will.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 1:19 pm ¶
Jay wrote:

Just to point out, that picture accompanying this post is not of the deceased Neda. It’s a different Neda, mistakenly taken from a Facebook page.

http://wipoun.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-wrong-neda-photo-became-irans-face.html

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@Evan
I am not holding the Middle East to a different standard: I don’t live in the Middle East, I live in the United States. So when I write about the history of displaying racialized bodies for the horror/pleasure of a white Eurpoean majority I am talking about a tradition that has its roots in the slavery of African Americans. Are there other examples of showing violent crimes in media around the world? Sure. But that is beside the point in this post. (Please see Tami’s comment #37.) That is why the fact that you chose to invoke al Jazeera in this context is a suspicious derail.

“Racialist”? I have no idea what that means. Does it refer to a person who foregrounds racism in various power dynamics? Why is that a bad thing? A practice like displaying racialized bodies has a racist history in the US and ignoring that–or obscuring it by bringing in unrelated examples– does no good at all.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 2:48 pm ¶
Joy wrote:

“These images are helpful when these events are far away,” she said, because they can bring home a story. They, however, are “not helpful to people when they’re in their own backyard.”

“if it was my mother, I’d still shoot the picture”

Interesting & on topic news commentary:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/24/neda.iconic.images/index.html

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶
Danny wrote:

I know this comment is inappropriate at this time but much later on when things stabilize, look back on it carefully.

Reading most of these comments, I think most readers do not dispute the significance of this event, nor do they disrespect the dead. I admit, this is an interesting-worthy discussion but a little awkward for this particular time to talk about it.

Visual images are important and as others have mentioned, a picture is worth a thousand words. There are both pros, cons and impartial reasons for viewing pictures and videos. Then there’s the putting in context part that probably needs to be stress on.

For example, I admire the man who stood up to the tanks near tiananmen square. The images and information around it was really an icon of struggle against authoritarian rule. The same can be said for this event. However, remember the image of the Vietnam War era where you see a man who is tied up with a gun aiming at his head? As disturbing as it looks, I had mixed feelings after founding out the background story around that event. For quite a while, I and many others, had assume it to be something else.

That’s really my main point in looking back at things carefully. Anyways, I hope justice prevails soon.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 6:06 pm ¶
Moira wrote:

@ Abu

I’m a white girl whom you have never met and know nothing about. And yet, it’s apparently more important to make ASSumptions about how I feel or what I’m thinking as I watch the coverage of the brutality in Iran than it is to comment on the heartbreaking oppression of the students and other protesters. With all due respect, I think the entire premise of the article is pointless and without merit. The Iranian government is blatantly ignoring the wishes of the Iranian people and violently crushing their protests. And yet somehow this became yet another rant against white Westerners? Seriously?

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 11:13 pm ¶
x0x wrote:

The photo posted isn’t of Neda, just thought I’d pass it along.

Posted 24 Jun 2009 at 11:54 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“However Westerners killing POC’s or being killed by POC’s cannot be shown because then the average American’s already threadbare support for the illegal “War on Terror” would be eliminated completely, giving the American elites no more room for justifying this mess.”

Actually, my mother watches a lot of the FOX News channel, and apparently, they have footage of Taliban being killed by American troops on rotation this week. Also, I remember being fairly young, and being absolutely UNABLE to avoid the explicit photos of Uday and Qusay Hussein’s corpses being shown after their deaths. I remember wondering why fake violence was apparently so worrisome that children should be ideally shielded from it by cordoning off special stations, times of the day and programs from them on the off chance that they might get a glimpse, but they said “bring it on” to real-life carnage in the middle of the day, on almost. every. channel in that instance.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 1:47 am ¶
roja wrote:

just a quick note and a correction.
at first they mistakenly said neda was 16 and with her dad.
she was 27 and with her university professor.

i don’t know why everyone assumed he was her dad.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 1:52 am ¶
Nora wrote:

I felt that the coverage of the protests in Iran was more of a “they’re kinda like us” sentiment. Like, we should care because they’re (more) white. Iran is more developed that Zimbabwe (postbourgie had a post about this: http://postbourgie.com/2009/06/18/and-what-color-for-zimbabwe/) and therefore Americans are supposed to relate to more. These people are not “savages”, but more like you and me. At the same time, I understand your problem with people watching Neda die. It’s disgusting that ANYONE needs to watch someone die to feel a connection to these people. It is strange that youtube didn’t ban the video.

Also, “But why does the Western world (and here I refer mostly to the dominant culture, not marginalized groups) have to see these things to be shaken from its complacency?” I feel like the international nature of the protests in Iran adds another layer to the story. I don’t know if this is as much racially as nationality specific. I can’t understand why a marginalized group would be more able to access this connection.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 3:22 am ¶
JRWF wrote:

Photos of the dead white people we’ve all had access to…

The stand out photo of the Oklahoma City bombing is of a dead baby in the arms of a firefighter.

The stand out photo of the Kent State shooting is a dead student laid out on the side walk.

Many pro-war, pro-bush sites and even Fox News provided links to the unedited beheading of Nicholas Berg at the hands of self-proclaimed terrorists. Cable news ran a few times, I’m pretty sure always with pixelation.

Who hasn’t (at some point) ‘needed to see’ John F Kennedy’s grizzly murder captured on film? Has anyone not seen this?

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 7:26 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Evan,

Have you ever been in the Middle East? Do you have many friends, especially females, with whom you’ve talked about these issues? I am just wonder where you get your opinions from?

It might interest you to know that it happens to be Middle Eastern women that are often in the forefront of religious movements. It might surprise you to also know that many Middle Eastern women are VERY religious and really dont like Westerners, like yourself, telling the world what they want and dont want. I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East and this is a constant refrain from people I know and people I meet.

What you are being spoon fed at the moment from the Western press is the opinions of the secular elite in Iran who are a small minority. Have you asked yourself why the Western media has refused to interview and provide the viewpoint of the MAJORITY of Iranians who tend to be religious and supportive of one or other religious parties? They are actively trying to form your opinion and others like you.

Personally, I think Western media should show more death. I think we should see EXACTLY what our policies and actions abroad do. Lets see the results of a botched US air strike in Afghanistan……..let’s see the end results of our invasion of Iraq. I speak Arabic and I watch Arabic news. I dont need them to tell me Western/US responsibilities for much of this violence. But as nasty as it might be, I do like it that they show the dead bodies, chunks of human meat 100 feet from Israeli or US bombs. It puts it all in perspective.

It is very easy for people in the West to support this war or that without having to be face with the realities of what this means!

As to Abu Ghraib, the Western media pulled their punches BIG time. Why didnt we hear more about the rape of Iraqi women by US soldiers? Why not more about the sexual humiliation of male Iraqi detainees? There is a lot that wasnt covered, probably a lot we dont even know about that NEEDS to be covered.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 9:54 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“Has anyone not seen this?”

*raises hand* Never seen it.

“Many pro-war, pro-bush sites and even Fox News provided links to the unedited beheading of Nicholas Berg at the hands of self-proclaimed terrorists.”

I was also going to mention the use of explicit video of beheaded whites as a call to arms/outrage among the far right/war hawks. Also, when the contractors in Iraq were killed and their bodies were strung up, I remember video of that being shown somewhere on TV.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 1:12 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:

@ Joseph:

“As far as the image of Neda Sultan’s death is concerned, in Orientalist terms, gender is the other context we should note. The death and suffering of Middle Eastern/Muslim men does not inspire similar moral outrage in the West. That is because the narrative of Middle Eastern/Muslim women as “victims” who must be “saved” by the West is as prevalent on the US American Left as the Right. The suffering of Arab/Muslim men? Not so much… especially when the West/US/Israel are the cause of that suffering.”

Excellent point!

Because the Muslim/Arab man is seen as a barbaric monster who does nothing but throw grenades and beat his poor, poor Muslim woman (or women *rolling eyes*). Our (Muslim women’s) bodies are perpetually be used and abused by Western voices to justify their oppression of and violence toward Muslim people’s. However, this is not specific to Muslim women’s bodies. The bodies of women of colour have been and are being used in this same manner. The invasion and colonization of India was also justified in similar manners. In that case we were being oppressed by our Indian men, some of whom, in fact the ruling class, were Muslims.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 2:17 pm ¶
Layla wrote:

FCA wrote:
Iranians aren’t brown, they range from White to Tanned. Check out South Asians (Indians), they range from light brown to dark brown. All darker than tan.

Ummm…excuse me? As a South Asian (Indian) myself, we come in many different colours, as do Iranians. In my immediate family alone, I have very dark skinned, and very light skinned family members. We also have green eyed and brown eyed members, and two of my siblings look more stereotypically Persian than Indian. Both Iran and India are host to a wide variety of features, skin colours and ethnicities. Please don’t assume that skin colour alone is a marker of national idenitity.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 2:49 pm ¶
JRWF wrote:

Also, with all due respect: what major news outlet bombarded us with images of “bloated and floated” dead bodies killed in the floods of New Orleans? Not to mention Myanmar, where camera crews aren’t exactly free to walk around.

I can’t believe you’ve been given a free pass on this.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:

@ Divergent Dana

Your comment earlier about Uday/Qusay’s bodies makes me want to clarify my earlier statement a little. I would say Uday/Qusay’s bodies, Saddam’s hanging, and Taliban members deaths were shown in order to depict the American military’s “victory” in vanquishing some of the enemies. It would be necessary to show that in order to continue the American public’s support for the War on Terror. Also when JRWF mentioned about Nicholas Berg’s beheading, those images were shown (which are exceptions to the general rule of not allowing white American’s demise be publicly shown and which were pixellated for the most part so as to minimize the graphic nature of the acts) also in order to boost American public support for the war.

Now when I mentioned about not showing dead Afghans/Iraqis I meant dead civilians. Showing those in all their graphic nature (and believe me it would be easy to find these images on the internet if the media ever did choose to show them) would cause a massive loss in public support; the same loss in support would occur if Americans were regularly shown the caskets carrying dead soldiers. This of course would go against keeping up the “Long War” going for however long the corrupt ruling elites want it to.

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 8:15 pm ¶
Safiya Outlines wrote:

@RChoudh – Ironically the leaked footgage of Saddam’s death actually made him look good. The fact that he showed no trace of fear on the gallows and calmly recited the kalima* led to many praising him for “dying like a man”.

*Islamic testification of faith

Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 9:21 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:

@ Safiya Outlines

Oh I didn’t know that. I guess you could say his death was viewed by different people in different ways. In the West I imagine the media believed publicizing his death would prove to its public that America was successful in getting rid of an evil tinpot dictator and in installing “democracy” in Iraq.

Posted 26 Jun 2009 at 12:21 am ¶
E A wrote:

Excellent post. The martyrdom of people of color outside the US is different than that within the US. It’s residue of the ‘brown savage’ mentality. Regardless of class position, but with careful attention to ‘citizenship’ (where we were born, not necessarily who takes nonwhites/anglo’s as part of their nation), in what ways can our violence be used to portray us as less than human?
@ Daniel
Gang violence does not get that much attention because it’s within the US and caters to our genocide so that whites’ minority status can be delayed (I am thinking of the European Americans United discourse on their culture dying out). When it’s brown on brown outside the US, well then it proves that their salvation is still the ‘white man’s burden’ although not to the extent the US wants them here.
As for the discussion on Katrina, Kent State, OK bombing. A picture is a second, a video…to see the actual process of dying…that shock value…i can’t find the words. Then again, in the current state of pop culture, how many movies are about people being blown to bits, shot at, and ni war?

Posted 28 Jun 2009 at 9:11 pm ¶
Robin wrote:

I don’t think this has as much to do with race as with nationalism. We didn’t need gruesome images of Columbine or WTC because these were things that happened in our own country. The problem was very clearly right on our doorstep, that needed to be addressed.
But if it’s a foreign country where the tragedy is happening, and at that a country perceived largely by Americans as, at best, not a political ally, and at worst, a threat, it takes scenes of brutality for Americans to worry about what’s happening to the people there. In the case of Israel, it’s a political ally, so of course the American media doesn’t want to focus on the carnage they’re causing. Promoting the cause of political moderates in Iran is very much in the U.S.’s interest, so they show martyrs to get us to back the cause. The race of Iranians isn’t as important here as our political relationship to them.

Posted 01 Jul 2009 at 8:32 pm ¶
Isaac wrote:

I never knew Persians were brown. Last time I checked the word Aryan came from the word Iran.

Posted 03 Jul 2009 at 1:27 am ¶