Support MuslimMatters for Just $2 a Month
I grew up in Khartoum, Sudan. There was no TV, except a poor excuse for a local channel that played old ABBA songs and grainy ‘iftah ya Simsim’ the Arabic version of Sesame Street. My siblings and I spent many lazy afternoons biking, making zip lines and reading Enid Blyton. We baked mud pies and jumped over walls into our neighbors’ yards to catch our rabbits. Treasure hunts and impromptu plays ruled the bougainville-covered house on 33rd Street.
If you ask my kids, their memories revolve around cartoon characters or Disney princesses. I have to prompt them to talk about vacations or fun trips, which they enjoy but come second to the GREAT TV moments. I find my self jealous of Diego. It is also depressing to see the look of total absorption when the kids are watching and 1/2 an hour turns into two and soon the whole afternoon is gone.
Change doesn’t happen from the outside, it starts from the inside. Some people may mock me saying that this is not the greatest challenge to the Ummah right now but I do not have control over global issues, but I can take steps in my own life to purge my soul – whether it is the environment around me or the media that my children and I are exposed to while they are in my house. If I am serious about the tazkiyah of my soul, I have to make concrete changes in my life.
Last year I switched off cable, I lived in constant fear of inappropriate ads and uncensored language. Read here why we turned in the first place after four years of being without it. My kids would wake up in the morning and switch it on and would want to watch something before being tucked into bed. It wasn’t that they were watching too much by ‘normal’ standards. I was following most of the tips suggested by parenting websites. The incessant asking for more and the whining was out of control and I felt it in every part of my soul. I was sick of saying, “NO no more, turn it off – Listen to ME.” They were wearing me down. I threatened to have the cable turned off and when the words came out of my mouth, I realized if I didn’t go through with it they would never take me seriously. It was my moment of truth. A message from Allah.
So far the biggest change is in my toddler. Since he can’t watch his favorite shows, i.e. Diego, he doesn’t want to watch TV all the time. He is no longer throwing hissy fits when we turn off the telly; his tantrums were one of the major reasons I ‘pulled the plug’. It is amazing how he knows that those shows are no longer available and so he has stopped asking for them. I let him watch one or two ‘educational’ shows, like Super Why or Words World on PBS, which doesn’t have too many direct ads. He wants to play with blocks and his train set.
Materialism: Raising the super-consumer
I live on the West Coast of the United States – Tinseltown, Hollywood are my backyard – here neighborhood kids compete on brand of clothing and vacations – I want to raise children who do NOT think that their worth is based on toy cars that cost over $300, even if everyone on the street has one. When Sister Hina’s article came out, I read of parents who raised such amazing children; proactive parents who didn’t just read an article and then went their merry way – they did something about it.
We need to think about the media saturated culture we live in and acknowledge it affects positively and negatively on our lives. We tend to lives in cocoons and pretend that these problems aren’t our problems, that these belong to others – who live a more hedonistic lifestyle than ours; wake up and unplug yourself from this illusion. Our children are surrounded by media since they were born, dawah from the dark side, bombarded with ads. “Ads on TV are so 20th century”, they are on the internet (fantage, webkinz), on cellphones.
According to the CEO of Prism Communications,
“they aren’t children so much as what I like to call ‘evolving consumers’.”
According to Direct Marketing magazine, by the age of eight children make most of their own buying decisions. Modern children can often recognise brands and status items by the age of 3 or 4, before they can even read. One study found that 52 percent of 3 year olds and 73% of 4 year olds “often or almost always” asked their parents for specific brands. Advertisers recognise that brand loyalties and consumer habits formed when children are young and vulnerable will be carried through to adulthood. Kids ‘R’ Us president, Mike Searles, says, “If you own this child at an early age… you can own this child for years to come.”
There are 15 conferences a year on how to reach youth through advertising/marketing campaigns. Child psychologists do massive, detailed research to help companies sell to your children through focus groups and ethnographic research. The studies are so creepy: they film them eating breakfast, in the supermarket, at school, they even follow them into the bathroom – take showers, how they use shampoo – it is sickening! Nuero-marketing is a technique used- when they do MRI’s on children to detect what part of the brain light up when an ad is shown, when the color of the background is changed. Blink tests are done to hold the child’s gaze at long as possible. Every ad, every cartoon has been precisely manipulated to attract the attention of children.
Advertising to children is increasing and it is not fair – everyone is trying to make them into consumers from the minute that their pure souls come to this earth. We see ads in which children decide which car the parent should buy, where they should eat, where they should go on vacation. Children are the future market. Buzz words like 360 degree immersive marketing where they get to the child from every aspect. Can you blame your children? How can they resist? We, as adults, can’t resist (read Amatullah’s post); we easily spend an hour just looking at the ads that come in with the newspaper, making us want to run to the mall just because there is sale at Macy’s or a new iPhone is on the market or they have convinced us that our cushions aren’t the color of spring. So how can we expect our children to resist? There are ad songs, ad games, ad books. I have noticed that even the Scholastic book order forms are progressively getting more commercialized, constantly promoting brands, selling toys and jewelry in the guise of books.
According to the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, children aged 2-11 view at least 25,000 advertisements a year on TV alone, and that doesn’t include product placements (like the Twilight series ring that Edward gave Bella, available now at price points ranging from $35 to $2,000). More often than not, these ads teach children that the route to happiness is through consumption and robust participation in the world of commodities.
The Nag Factor– Companies study this particular children’s behavior. Why do you think cartoons are a certain color vs another – hours of research has gone into deciding what will catch your child eye. It is a trillion dollar market!! Purchasing influence on parents is what they are banking on.
Children will say on the average ‘can I? can I?’ nine times before the parents will give in.
Concepts such as “owning” children and “cradle-to-grave” brand loyalty are enthusiastically described in advertising industry publications. Parents should be especially outraged by advertisers promoting the “nag factor” – an ad industry term for children pestering parents to buy them things. As part of the effort to get children and their parents to part with their money, advertising agencies routinely employ psychologists to improve the effectiveness of their ads. The success of this questionable partnership is evident in all aspects of children’s lives, including their health. Read the rest here.
Screen Free Week is also an opportunity to consider our relationship with media and the marketing activities that underlie them. Turning off our screens is just the first step to understanding how implicated technology is in every aspect of our lives and might allow us fresh eyes to separate the garbage from the good. Read the rest here.
Every parent who has a television, computer, smart-phone in the house should watch this. Every parent who takes their child to the mall, supermarket needs to watch this. Disclaimer: background music.
If you need more info, check out this e-book the Awful truth about TV.
Trashyourtv.com has some great info as does this great website filled with articles and resources to help you make the decision of turning of your TV. Unplug your kids has great alternative activities for TV free kids as does this site. For a Muslim perspective read Khalid Baig’s article and this khutbah by Brother Shareef on TV-The Third Parent.
I know my husband likes to unwind after a tough day of work in front of the television. It will not be easy and that is why I am first going screen free next week to see how life will be with out television. Many of you may have already made this decision and are living better – stay tuned for Umm Reem’s post about media effects despite a TV-free home, do comment on Brother Siraaj’s Reader’s Opinion post on how to live a balanced life and PLEASE take this challenge with me. Insha’Allah my hope is that after this week, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will give my family the tawfique to cut the cord. Pray for us and give us suggestions. How did you do it? What were the challenges? Share your experiences.
Özlem Sensoy and Elizabeth Marshall are professors in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. They are editors of the book, Rethinking Popular Culture and Media.
Sharon Beder, ‘A Community View’, Caring for Children in the Media Age, Papers from a national conference, edited by John Squires and Tracy Newlands, New College Institute for Values Research, Sydney, 1998, pp. 101-111.
Support Our Dawah for Just $2 a Month
Ten Reasons You Should Support MuslimMatters This #GivingTuesday
Support MuslimMatters for Just $2 a Month
With so many amazing #GivingTuesday campaigns running, why should you choose to support MuslimMatters?
1. MuslimMatters publishes Islamic news and perspectives not given voice in mainstream media, and we do it for free.
2. We bring awareness to the issues otherwise sidelined by mainstream media, like refugee rights, Palestinian self-determination, the oppression of the Rohingya, mass internment of the Uighur, and government lockdown and repression of the Kashmiris.
3. We are the oldest, largest, and more reputable online site for Muslim-specific content. When Muslims have an important message for other Muslims, MuslimMatters is how to reach them.4. Your funding keeps us independent, allowing our writers to speak truth to power without worrying about losing funding, government support, or corporate donors. Click To Tweet
5. Muslimmatters is the global platform that is proud to raise other Muslim voices up. Anyone can write for us, and everyone can benefit from what we’ve worked to establish.
6. We’re taking back the narrative about Islam that is too often hiijacked by people not Muslim and entirely ignorant of Islam. People won’t have to believe what others are saying about us when we have the platform to speak for ourselves.
7. Our content has been cited by media outlets like CNN, ESPN, Buzzfeed, and the Washington Post.Your contribution to MuslimMatters is building a reputable, credible source of news that other outlets look to for clarification.Click To Tweet
8. Articles published on MuslimMatters have appeared in Supreme Court Briefings, reading requirements for College Classes, and Interfaith Education events, granting their authors reach beyond what micro-blogging could ever accomplish.
9. Many of our pieces have inspired Friday Khutbas, and Khateebs from all over the country have shared how something they read gave them insight and inspiration to write a more informed, more relevant sermon than they would have been able to otherwise.
10. MuslimMatters brings difficult and otherwise taboo issues to the table for discussion, not shying away from the responsibility of trailblazing and myth busting in the Muslim community.
MuslimMatters is provided for free, and supported entirely by readers like you. So please, help us continue our work.
Support Our Dawah for Just $2 a Month
A Letter From The Executive Director
Support MuslimMatters for Just $2 a Month
AssalamuAlaikum Dear MM Fam,
Alhamdulillah in 2007, I was fortunate to be a part of the team that started up a little website called MuslimMatters.org. It’s hard to believe it’s been over a decade. In that time MM has grown from a group blog into a full-blown media entity giving an independent and authentic Islamic voice to contemporary spiritual, social, and political issues that we face.MM's work has been featured in CNN, Washington Post, ESPN, Buzzfeed, and more. This platform has grown tremendously and now reaches millions of readers every year.Click To Tweet
With 2020 around the corner, we are at a critical juncture. Traffic has grown beyond our current capacity – yes, we’re basically the masjid that now has an expansion project lol – and we have to grow in order to meet our community’s media needs.
Your help is needed to invest in the MM infrastructure so we can not only keep up with our current growth but also develop new content such as podcasts and videos to continue to reach more readers all across the globe.
Your contribution on #GivingTuesday is particularly vital as it will count as double with a Facebook match. We need your help to make vital improvements that will enable MuslimMatters to continue being a voice for the voiceless and a platform for mainstream Islam in the media.
This #GivingTuesday I’m raising money for Muslimmatters Inc and your contribution will make an impact, whether you donate $5 or $500. Every little bit helps. And on GivingTuesday Dec 3, Facebook will match a total of $7 million in donations first come, first served. Thank you for your support.
Contribute what you can, and please share this post to help us hit our #GivingTuesday target to keep MuslimMatters strong for 2020.
Support Our Dawah for Just $2 a Month
The Creation Of The Stereotypical Arab
Support MuslimMatters for Just $2 a Month
Robert Entman, professor of media and public affairs, published an excellent study in 1993 in which he explained the inner workings of framing. Framing is a well-known concept within communication sciences and the study of mass communication, and concerns according to Entman both selection and promotion. He describes it as:
“The selection of some aspects of a perceived reality to make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described”. (Entman 1993)
A typical frame consists therefore of four qualities. It selects a specific problem by considering and checking the related actors, with which resources they act and observed from their own cultural framework. Then, the greater forces behind the problem are identified, i.e. the broader context. Subsequently, ethical questions are raised that interpret and evaluate the effects and actions of what is taking place. Eventually, solutions and treatments are offered.
Entman illustrates this by giving the example of the Cold War. According to him, American media made during that time frame extensive use of the so-called “Cold War frame”. This frame selected for example the Vietnamese Civil War as a specific problem. It then identified the actors and greater forces behind that war, usually Communist rebels supported by the Soviet-Union and China. Subsequently, these media ethically appraised the whole situation, interpreting the war as instances of severe Atheist agression. This frame could then eventually lead to the promotion of specific solutions being presented to the common man, among which support of the United Stated to the opponents of Communism, and military intervention.
Framing is a means used by mass media to transmit specific messages to the audience. This is accomplished by using the classic transmission model, i.e. the sender who sends a message to the receiver through a channel/medium. However, Entman adds culture as an additional element for the transmission of a frame. Professor mass communication, writer and expert on racial and ethnical stereotypes in the media, Jack Shaheen, expands on this theory. After all, the framing phenomenon can not be completely understood when detached from the social and cultural context in which the message is transmitted to the audience. The era of Communism and the “Cold War frame” may be over, traditional mass media keep using frames to promote specific images among their audience.
Images that would certainly have a hard time to take root where it not for it adaption to existing and established cultural convictions. Convictions that were built up and developed through decades-long illustrations and representations within cultural productions, most notably in the movie industry.
Shaheen did some extensive research on the cultural depiction of Arabs in the Hollywood society. The results of his observations were brought together in the documentary Reel Bad Arabs (2006), one I’d recommend everyone interested in this subject. “Arabs are the most malign group in the history of Hollywood. They’re portrayed basically as sub-humans,” says Jack Shaheen to open his argument. “These images have been with us for more than a century.”
During no less than thirty years he watched thousands of movies, from the oldest ones to modern blockbusters, to observe and analyse the depiction of Arabs en Muslims in Western cinema. He subsequently discerns a dangerous and systematic pattern of hateful and racist stereotypes that strip a whole people of its humanity and depicts them as the embodiment of evil, fanaticism, and ignorance. According to Shaheen, this is an established fact from which filmmakers rarely deviate.
The land of the Arabs! An image Hollywood eagerly adopted from long-lost British and French explorers and writers that depicted the Arabs based on their own biased imagination of the Orient, the strange and exotic land that seemingly emanated stories like “One Thousand and One Nights”. The land with its eternal deserts, its threatening roughness, and ominous music. The desolate wilderness littered with palaces of rich and decadent pashas and their harem. The mysterious melodies that guide the movements of voluptuous belly dancers and snake charmers, watched by the all-seeing eyes of the scimitar wearing guards in movies like Invitation to the Dance from 1956.
Even today, such stereotypes are being used, even in children’s movies. Disney’s Alladin (1992) has been watched by millions of children all over the world but recycles nearly every stereotype that had been already used by the silent black-and-white Hollywood past to depict the so-called Arabland. A rough, unfriendly desert landscape where “they cut off your ear when they don’t like your face”, as stated in the opening song of the movie.
In the Looney Tunes animated cartoon Ali-Baba Bound (1940), we see the fairy tale character depicted as a cunning, insidiously grinning Arab with a beard, big nose and evil eye-brows who calls his companions by literally barking at them like a dog. The caption of the show reads: “Ali Baba, the mad dog of the desert.“
Not only children, but adults as well see Arabs depicted in movies as hot-headed and impulsive simpletons who deliver some cheap and funny laughs. Take for example the India Jones movie Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), in which Indiana ends up face-to-face with a threatening and completely random armed Arab. The man tries to impress the American hero with his evil smile and some sword tricks, to which Indiana simply shoots him dead and runs off to continue his adventure.
The same Arab that prefers dogs over women. Indeed, an Arab states in The Happy Hooker goes to Washington from 1977 that “dogs are better than sheep. They’re cleaner, I know, I’ve tried dogs.” And if it isn’t dogs or sheep (think of the popular nickname “goatf*#ker” used by Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh to publicly denote Moroccans), than it is blond, American women.The stereotype of the obtrusive Arab obsessed with white women appears so many times that it becomes ridiculous.Click To Tweet
In the Bond movie Never Say Never Again (1983), Kim Bassinger is being undressed by a filthy Arab businessman to be sold, with an unintelligible gurgling and crackling (Hollywood Arabic), to a bunch of miserable Bedouins. Arabs are being depicted as primitive and aggressive desert dwellers obsessed with American women as a welcome change to their usual covered and invisible womenfolk hidden in their palaces.
Those Arabs, on the other hand, that do effectively have access to modern society, technology and progress are being imagined as a faceless nuisance to Western society or death and destruction craving terrorists anxious to ruin the West.
Two businessmen in The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) jokingly state that Arabs “don’t go anywhere without their animals.” Note that they were talking about a recent trip by plane!
“How was London?” the main character of the movie Chapter Two (1979) is being asked. “Full of Arabs,” he replies. Movies that are in no way related to Arabs or Muslims and aren’t connected to the Middle-East in any way still can’t resist to the urge of making racist and humiliating comments on screen.
Back To The Future
Even in the hugely popular Back to the Future from 1985, the above statement is sadly the case. The movie is a plain, American Sci-Fi picture for teenagers in which stereotypes about Arabs are nevertheless again introduced. Emmett Brown, scientist and the inventor of the time-traveling car is minding his own business when he suddenly gets shot at, without any motive or reason, by a bunch of Libyan terrorists. They shoot him and then focus on the main character Marty McFly. The shooter curses violently when his weapon jams and fails to kill McFly. When he finally resolves the issue with his machine gun, their car breaks down so they again fail in an almost cartoonish way to continue.
The reason for this sudden and random occurrence is completely unknown, and all throughout the rest of the story no reference is made to it. But the fact remains established, a group of inept Arabs killed the beloved professor.
Just like the above-mentioned Cold War frame, this frame on Arabs and Muslims is a perfectly suited tool of the mass media and the political establishment to help shape American foreign policy in the Middle-East and North Africa in the minds of the American citizens. Four different events caused Hollywood to radically increase its use of Arab and Muslim stereotypes. Before anything else, the creation and establishment of Israel in 1948 en the subsequent Arab-Israeli wars resulted in a clear positioning of the United States and Hollywood on the side of their Israeli ally. The Arab embargo that hit Europe and the USA during the 1970’s and the Iranian Revolution further contributed to the role of Arabs as thugs and greedy businessmen. The notorious War on Terror could count as the fourth reason for the establishment and representation of the Arab and Muslim as enemy of progress and freedom.
Take for example the plans of a rich Arab oil sheikh to buy his way up through the United States, conquering it in the process. In the movie Network from 1976, it’s insinuated that a group of Arab businessmen threat to almost run over the Unites States financially by buying up several companies and building plots. The character of Howard Beal than calls live on television to rise against these Arabs, that are planning to buy his TV network. A memorable and frightening scene than follows in which the audience can see a mob of angry citizens take to the streets to express their rage, an image of social hatred against a common enemy, the Arab.
The Ultimate Demon
If it’s not an evil, perverse, and decadent Arab businessman, the Arab gets the role of dangerous and hostile terrorist assigned. Reserved for Russians and Cubans during the days of the Cold War, Palestinians would later figure as the antagonists of the hero in American action movies. The terrorist antagonist stripped from any bit of motive and humanity, serving as fleshly embodiment of the ultimate evil.
This image is already used as early as 1960 in the movie Exodus, where the Palestinians are depicted as invisible enemies hiding in the desert who perform appalling acts against the innocent Jewish colonists because of their radical antisemitism. It’s no wonder that this movie was considered a major promotion for Zionist thought and a support for the Israeli cause.
Theologian and writer Roland Boer writes in his 2009 work on Biblical themes that the depiction of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in American cinema still influences American citizens to this day with regard to their opinion on the conflict.
Over a decade later, we find the same old story in the movie Black Sunday (1977). A Palestinian female terrorist wished to detonate a blimp over a typical American sports stadium during the Super Bowl, with about 80.000 ordinary Americans present. The caption of the movie on its release poster reads: “It could be tomorrow!” Again, a decade later, Arnold Schwarzenegger faces a group of Palestinian terrorists that wishes to destroy American cities with nuclear missiles in True Lies from 1994. Again and again, Arabs and Muslims are being identified with hatred, terror and the ultimate failure of their plans due to the American action hero.
An image that, not unimportantly, was fed extensively by two Israeli producers, Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus, who created The Cannon Group company. For over twenty years, The Cannon Group produced at least thirty movies in which everything Arab is being mocked and demonized. Yes, the political relationship between the USA and Israel does indeed trickle in the world of cinema. What could be a more effective weapon than a seemingly unending source of full-length movies in which enmity and distrust against a certain people is promoted? A cultural alliance to dismiss these Arabs, “sand n#^*rs”, “goat f*^#rs” and “ragheads”, fed by a billion dollar business.
The most striking example of this would be the movie Rules of Engagement from 2000. The film leads the audience to Yemen, where a mob of dusty Yemenis are protesting loudly in front of the American embassy. American marines are being asked to evacuate the present staff, when they suddenly open fire and mow down every single protester, including women and children. As a result of this event, an investigation is started to examine the decision of the marines to open fire. Towards the end of the movie, however, the audience is revealed a whole other story than initially portrayed. Plot twist, the Arab protesters were armed themselves and they opened fire on the American soldiers.
Men and woman wildly brandishing guns and even a little girl that aims her pistol on an American soldier. A little, Arab girl that wasn’t nearly as innocent as she looked. A whole bunch of Arabs that weren’t as innocent as initially thought. They deserved to die! It was their own fault they attacked the mighty American army of the free! The marines had the right to kill them, to protect themselves! Sure, it was a massacre, but a legitimate one against the enemies of the USA. Against faceless, unknown human beings killed like animals.
Debunking Cultural Practices
Such movies present complicated and nuanced conflicts as a caricatural fight between Good and Evil. They polarize the wars in the Middle-East and North Africa by presenting the American cause as the necessary and just fight against demonized and inhuman enemy, an intrinsic evil. A propaganda weapon arises on a massive scale because of popular cultural injections.
Entman also describes culture as the “stock of commonly invoked frames“. In fact, he defines culture as “the empirically demonstrable set of common frames exhibited in the discourse and thinking of most people in a social grouping.” The fact that framing is then used extensively in the mass media, which includes movies, soaps and news reporting, could be explained from this point of view.
Because of the prolonged cultural impact of Hollywood, the frame of the Arab and Muslim is undoubtedly established within those societies that lie within its sphere of influence. The frame is developed as a cultural element within that society and determines how people look at messages and images that fit within that frame. The Arab that appears in the news is usually no individual. He’s a terrorist, a religious extremist, a zealot, a Muslim, a Palestinian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian or Iranian. These are all frames that evoke certain connotations among the traditional receiving audience, developed within a shared consciousness.
It’s a dangerous trend, but the best solution is the simplest one of all: look beyond the message alone. Don’t let popular culture or traditional news reporting decide how you see the world, because there’ll always be agendas being followed to guide and manipulate you. Common sense, an open mind, and sufficient dialogue can debunk the most stubborn cultural prejudices.