Who gets to matter?

Afghani's trying to board flights leaving the country follow the Taliban's take over in 2021.

Image courtesy of Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images

Immigrants at the U.S. border, trying to evade Border Patrol.

Image Courtesy of Kyung Hoon/Reuters

As we have discussed since the beginning of our course, there is a disparity in the way the West has treated the war in Ukraine and other wars, particularly that in the Middle East and the Global South. Concepts of civilization and race are certainly at play here, but also our overall interest in the War has played a large role in the way that discourses of war are presented and circulated, and how they affect public opinion.

Nicholas Genova´s book chapter, “The ‘War on Terror’ as Racial Crisis, Homeland Security, Obama and Racial (Trans)Formations” is a great way of understanding how the discourse and affect of War in the Middle East is shaped by concepts of Race. Genova explains how The War on Terror demonstrates the creation of a “Muslim” racial identity which disquiets us for several reasons. He explains:

“The most fundamental work accomplished through the War on Terror’s global racialization of ‘Muslim’ identity is the production of a racial condensation that is inimical to the white (Christian, ‘European’) identity of ‘the West,’ while yet, precisely, ambiguous and inherently heterogeneous. The racial ambiguity and instability of the figure of the Muslim is productive, then—subject always to suspicion, commanding surveillance and further investigation in the incessant police work of uncovering the ‘terrorists,’ who, it may be supposed, refuse to be assimilated.

In other words, throughout the discourse of the Bush and Obama administrations (and the administrations since, yet those post-date the article) ‘Muslim’ became a term that refers to a racial identity created and imposed by the U.S., and later, thanks to U.S. global power and influence, disseminated to and adopted by other western countries. The racialized Muslim, according to the U.S.’ own construction of it, is the antithesis of civilization because of it’s extremism, islamic fundamentalism, demonstrated by the violence and barbarity caused by the execution of 9/11, is such a unconceivable violence, that these people are uncivilized, savage, or barbarians. Yet this discourse spread outside of just islamic extremism, as the racial ambiguiety of the ‘Muslim’ (those practicing Islam and in turn it’s extremism could have stereotypical Middle Eastern or African features, or could be white or white-passing) creates a paranoia, a need to survey, because the culprits are not easily identifiable. Because of the amiguiety of this figure, all Muslims, all people, could be terrorists, and this could be makes it so that all Muslims are now subject to racialization, not just those practicing extremism.

Thus, the ‘Muslim’ becomes a stand-in for any countries, regiones, or groups that practice Islam, the Middle East, Africa, become a racialized threat, a could be that might be uncivilized and might enact barbaric violence.

American economies of affect and information, as I discussed in my first blog, then circulate this discourse created. Those in the Middle East are now accepted to be by the average American as uncivilized. For Americans, war in uncivilized places is normal, violence and unrest are inherent symptoms and characteristics of barbarity and uncivilized people. So, war in the Middle East or Africa, where we have constructed the racialized Muslim, is simply unremarkable because it is believed to be in the nature of these nations.

And this rhetoric doesn’t affect only to the Middle East, The racialization of the Other as seen due to The War on Terror, is also seen in Latin America and the U.S., thanks to the War on Drugs. Genova explains that Homeland Security exists to ensure domestic security, but Katrina had exposed that mission was a “charade” as the thousands displaced were unsafe and faced starvation, disease, and death. “The charade of Homeland Security, of course, did not collapse, but rather continued shamelessly grinding along, setting its sights on an ever escalating campaign of terror against deportable migrant labor, especially that of undocumented Latinos—a peculiar “war on terror” indeed, which has fashioned “immigration” as its most precious target” (Genova).

The racialized Latino has been created long before under President Reagan’s administration. The War on Drugs policies notoriously affected Black Americans, who were racialized to be “criminals” and “drug dealers” and Latinos who were responsible for the trafficking and distribution of these drugs. Much like the ‘Muslim’ figure, Hispanic peoples are a diverse group of ethnic, linguistic, and racial backgrounds. However, this diversity provided the same ambiguity that provokes paranoia, it is therefore necessary to police and survey all hispanics as they could be narcos. The violence of the carteles became a stand-in for all Latinos due to the violence they perpetuated, and thus the Latino became uncivilized in popular culture. It’s also important to add that racist ideology about indigeneity and blackness held by the U.S. and the West adds another layer to the discourse regarding barbarity. It is much easier for the West to consider latinos uncivilized due to the racist preconceptions that the U.S. has toward those of indigenous and black ancestry.

Uncivilized latinos then are inherently violent and as we can see from the U.S.’ depiction of Latin America, it is characterized to be a largely violent, uncivilized, and unsafe place. It is this policy that shapes the way that the U.S. then handles inmigration. Those caravans and floods that arrive at the U.S. border are seen by the government and the wider public as threats due to 1.) the possibility that they could be traffickers, but most importantly 2.) the racial identity the U.S. has assigned to all latinos (and often hispanics too, as the average person has a hard time understanding the difference between the terms hispanic and latino) as uncivilized and barbaric.

Violence, hardship, including but not limited to war, are seen as inherent to these groups which the West has deemed uncivilized. And it is not surprising then or noteworthy, when violence or war breaks out in these countries. The economies of affect and information do not care about the loss of these human lives and neither does the public at large, simply because these identities have already been dehumanized by the West.

Additionally, the U.S. global political interests also affect which wars we are instructed to care about. For example, the U.S. public was largely in favor of 9/11 as a call for retribution, however, U.S. global interest in oil fuels the discourse. An American might be led to believe that ‘A dangerous country like Iraq should simply not control a large portion of the world’s oil.’ The War in Ukraine, as I discussed in my first blog post, has seen such support simply for being a civilized country victimized. However, as Nick Mulder and Sophie Pinkham point out, we are primed to care about the war in Ukraine due to the U.S.’ own interest in weakening Russia. As a long painted enemy of the U.S., Americans care about war in Ukraine because of Russia’s involvement and the presence of a clear villain.

However, the general support of the U.S. government and the American public at large, stoked by U.S’. political interest does not grace all Ukrainians. Racialized groups in the Ukraine are not of equal import to the West. As Max Granger points out in The Intercept, “The contrast, to put it crudely, is as clear as black and white: Even within Ukraine’s refugee population, African exchange students and other nonwhite residents have faced racist violence and segregation as they attempt to leave the country, with many reporting being blocked from crossing borders while their white peers are welcomed with open arms.”

In summation, while the U.S. global interests’ are a factor in determining the import that the West gives to populations who suffer under war and violence, ideologies of civilization and of race, and the racialization of groups, offers a better look at how the government and economies of affect and information teach us who to care about and on what grounds.

Works Cited

Granger, Max. “As Europe Welcomes Ukrainian Refugees, It Leaves Other Migrants Caught ‘between Two Deaths.’” The Intercept, The Intercept, 8 Mar. 2022, https://theintercept.com/2022/03/08/ukraine-refugees-europe-border-policy-libya-sally-hayden/.

HoSang, Daniel, et al. “‘The ‘War on Terror’ as Racial Crisis, Homeland Security, Obama and Racial (Trans)Formations.’” Racial Formation in the Twenty-First Century, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2012.