Psychology, Culture & Religion Group

The Dehumanization of Arabs & Muslims in America’s War on Terror:
How the Middle-Eastern Looking Male
Became the New Face of our Enemy

It would seem following the events of September 11, 2001 that many Americans now regards Muslim and Arab looking males, and on some occasions even females, with new fear and suspicion. Today it is not uncommon to hear young Muslim men express anxiety about the idea of going to the bathroom on the airplane, lest their fellow passengers start whispering about a possible terrorist threat. Creating fear and suspicion towards a group or groups of individuals is not a new phenomenon. Native-Americans were and in films today still are portrayed as violent scalpers (Rollins and O’Connor, 1999). During World War II the Germans were portrayed as barbaric Huns and the Japanese as conniving, kamikaze fighters (Keen, 1986). This led to America’s involvement in the War as well as the internment of Japanese-Americans as potential enemies of the state. Today, the face of our enemy is most frequently portrayed as Arab or Muslim males wielding a bomb in one hand and holding a Quran in the other.

Following the end of the Cold War, a shift occurred away from communism as the primary enemy of America and towards a focus on terrorism and radical Islam. It was at this point that the dehumanization of Arab and Muslim populations from Africa, Asia and particularly the Middle East started. Following September 11th, the portrayal of Arabs and Muslims as dangerous terrorists, as anti-Western jihadists, fundamentalists, oppressors of women and other similar caricatures’ and stereotypes has quadrupled, resulting in hate crimes, discrimination, and all out war in two countries. The dehumanization of Muslim populations has far-reaching implications, both psychologically and socially. Chomsky (2002) writes, “The public sees no reason to get involved in foreign adventures, killing, and torture. So you have to whip them up. And to whip them up you have to frighten them” (p. 30). Inducing fear is one aspect in the process of dehumanizing a people. Images that evoke fear, disgust, or anxiety are the most effective in diminishing human qualities and attributes.

The process of dehumanization towards an entire group of people, as well as the process of desensitization towards violent acts targeting specific groups or large masses of people takes place over time and through various means. The focus of this paper is the ongoing process of the dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims, with a focus on the immediate period following the events of 9/11 and the start of America’s War on Terror. The focus will be on dehumanization as it affects the United States and how Americans have begun to react to dehumanizing portrayals of their Arab and Muslim neighbors. I will discuss the means by which this dehumanization and desensitization is occurring, and several solutions to prevent dehumanization, work toward conflict resolution, and re-humanize those who are seen as different or “other”.

Dehumanization typically refers to a process by which an individual or a group of people assert the inferiority of another individual or group through words, images, or actions. Dehumanization is also viewed as the stripping away of human qualities. This often occurs in conflict situations in order to cause individuals or groups categorized as the enemy to not be perceived as similar to ourselves. When an individual is no longer seen as having human, personal qualities it becomes much easier for human beings to commit violent acts or acts of aggression towards others. The process of dehumanization is tied to racism, ethnic stereotyping and scape-goating as well as other psychological processes such as desensitization. Militaries, governments, communities and individuals all have used dehumanization at various points throughout history to create negative images of other governments, nations, groups or individuals in order create an enemy or justify actions taken towards that group or person. Prisoners, mentally ill patients, as well as hospitalized individuals may also feel dehumanized, or stripped of their human qualities when others start to see them as only numbers or merely patients without a name or a distinct personality. Zimbardo (2007) writes that:

At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives” (p. 307).

Dehumanization has been most widely used during times of war or conflict. Keen (1986) writes that, “As a rule, human beings do not kill other human beings. Before we enter into warfare or genocide, we first dehumanize those we mean to “eliminate” (p.25). In order to kill others, we often need to feel that they are not like us, they are subhuman, or barbarians, or inherently evil. During a war, individuals on the other side are not viewed as people with families, and hopes and dreams. Militaries train soldiers only to view other armies and even individuals as the enemy. Sometimes single incidents are repeated over and over again in order to convince soldiers and citizens that in fact an entire group or an ideology is the enemy or a potential enemy.

The attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001 are two events that characterize this style of dehumanization. All of the perpetrators on 9-11 were of Arab descent and were born Muslim, facts used to justify a war on Islam, a clash of civilizations, and the idea that all Muslims are violent, potential terrorists. Similarly, one incident occurred in Iraq at the early start of the current war in which a female suicide bomber blew herself up at a checkpoint. Soldiers were then trained to suspect everyone as a potential bomber, men, women, and children. In essence, the entire Iraqi population became “the enemy”, “potential combatants”, “hostile residents”. Waller (2002) notes that: “These isolated subgroups are stigmatized as alien and memories of their past misdeeds, real or imaginary, are activated by the dominant or social group” (p. 245). In the war on terror, we no longer have mothers, students, doctors, Imams. We have suspicious looking people in headscarves, young Muslim men taking pictures of sensitive sights, and Imams praying before a flight. Wearing hijab, saying the daily prayers, and taking photos when on vacation are frequently viewed as alarming behaviors by fellow citizens, law enforcement, and politicians. Even everyday activities like large numbers of Muslims congregating for prayer, going to museums and other tourist sites, and wearing your iPod with wires hanging out of your scarf are interpreted as threatening and potentially violent. In this dehumanizing state that has enveloped us in our current War on Terror, our Muslim and Arab neighbors are no longer viewed as individuals just like us raising families and going to work. Everyday, normal activities are now seen as potential signs of terrorist tendencies.

Incidents, as well as words, images and portrayals of members of a group all contribute to positive or negative perceptions of group members. As Waller (2002) suggests “Dehumanization is mostly likely when the target group can be readily identified as a separate category of people belonging to a distinct racial, ethnic, religious, or political group that the perpetrators regard as inferior or threatening” (p. 245). In the case of Arabs and Muslims they are distinguished based on several factors; religious affiliation, ethnicity, and style of dress. Confusion about what makes a person Arab or Muslim has occurred in the United States, as was seen after 9/11 when many members of the Sikh religion were attacked in hate crimes, mistaken for Muslims because they wear turbans, which was viewed by many Americans as being a distinctly Arab style of dress (as well shall see later, this was perpetuated by the portrayal of Arabs in movies). Distinct racial, ethnic and religious qualities of Arabs and Muslims are increasingly viewed as threatening, inferior, uncivilized, and completely alien from that of Western culture.

Originally, those who we viewed as threatening or in some way opposed to views and policies were known merely as the enemy. More sophisticated terms have been developed in recent times and utilized in the War on Terror including insurgents, terrorists, axis of evil, suicide-bombers, jihadists, Al-Qaeda supporters, and Islamic extremists. Keen discusses the terminology used by President Truman during the cold war in order to create an image of communists as brutal and immoral: “Truman created this picture by a repetition of phrases such as “raw aggression,” “communist slavery,” “a dark and bloody path,” “evil spirit,” “iron rule of dictatorship”, “puppet states,” “the tide of atheistic communism”…” (1986, p. 45). Similarly President Bush and other politicians have repeatedly used similar language to refer to Muslim countries, Muslim leaders, and Muslim individuals. Even the term War on Terror is viewed as an inaccurate image of a global war against many enemies in different regions of the world. Former presidential candidate John Edwards discussed the phrase War on Terror as a propaganda tool stating: "This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do," Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. "It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true." (Allen, 2007). At one point, shortly after September 11th, President Bush also referred to a crusade against terrorism. “His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years” (Ford, 2001 Christian Science Monitor). Another term that is seen as particularly disturbing is President Bush’s use of the term Islamic Fascism. Bush regularly uses the phrase Islamic Fascists or Islamic Fascism, making a connection between Islam and violent behavior: “"The use of the term casts a shadow upon Islam and bolsters the argument that there is a clash of civilisations between Islam and the West," Mr. Younis, the national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), told the BBC. He said it was wrong to link the actions of violent Muslims to their religion. "There is nothing Islamic about their fascism. The Prophet [Muhammad] and the Koran clearly articulate that this type of activity is outside of bounds for Muslims." (Greene, 2006, BBC News). Many Muslims in America believe the use of such terms will have an affect on how Muslims are viewed by their fellow Americans.

Waller (2002) discusses the linguistic dehumanization of victims that have lead to brutality and genocide. He states: “Perpetrators so consistently dehumanize their victims that the words themselves become substitutes for perceiving human beings. Before the Japanese performed medical experiments on human prisoners in World War II, they named them maruta - logs of wood” (p. 247). Many other examples of linguistic dehumanization are provided, including the Hutu use of a word meaning cockroach or insect to describe the Tutsi. The Nazis referred to the Jews as filth, cancer, vermin, and demons. Several media commentators and internet blogs have started to refer to Islam as a cancer or cancerous growth. Keen (1986)discusses how this term was previously used to refer to communism, “More recently, now that cancer has risen to the surface of our consciousness as the symbol of the evil par excellence, we re told that communism is a “creeping cancer” (p. 63). Bloggers, media commentators and several other figures in the United States have recently used similar terminology in referring to Islam as a cancer or like a cancerous growth.

Several religious figures in America have also contributed to the development of negative terminology to refer to Islam and Muslims. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston, and Franklin Graham have all made disparaging comments in the last several years that have contributed to the development of dehumanizing terminology. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, in particular, made several remarks that have angered Muslims and contributed to negative perceptions of Islam and Muslims in the United States. These include calling the Prophet Muhammad a terrorist (2003, CBS), and defended the remarks of another pastor, Dr Jerry Vines, for stating that Muhammad was a demon-possessed pedophile (2003, WorldNet Daily). He also stated that “the Moslem Religion teaches hate” in a Beliefnet article (Caldwell, n.d.).

The use of cartoons and caricature images to portray a group of people in a negative way has been utilized for more than a century. The dehumanization of groups peaked during World War II, when all sides portrayed their enemies as cold-blooded, vicious, barbaric murderers. This served the purpose of reducing an entire nation or opposing military into a monster, making it easier to accept war and violence as a necessary means to stamp out such evil.

In America’s War on Terror the use of cartoons to vilify an enemy as well as simplify a people and strip them of familiar human characteristics is no exception. One of the most well-known examples of this is the Danish Cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad and other Muslims. These cartoons were seen as so offensive that they caused protests and riots throughout the world. One of these cartoons is supposed to feature the Prophet Muhammad with his turban as a lit bomb, making the clear insinuation between terrorism and Islam. Another of the Danish cartoons depicts Muhammad with horns, and another shows an Arab man with a staff with a creature on a leash behind him that looks like a demon (see Appendix A for Cartoon Images). Almost all of the cartoons portray Muslims as violent, barbaric, or evil. One cartoon asks, “What would Muhammad Drive?” and shows a Ryder rental truck with a large missile sticking out the back of the truck. Following the cartoon controversy even more cartoons cropped up depicting Muslims as extremists who are intolerant of free speech. Keen (1986) notes that, “The image of the enemy as barbarian has been an integral part of the formation of the psychological and political identity of most “advanced” societies. The barbarian forms a kind of psychological bottom line that defines how far “civilized” people are allowed to descend” (p. 121). Another cartoon shows a turbaned, bearded man dressed in white wielding a sword with two women shrouded in black behind him. In almost all cartoons depicting women the only image is of a faceless, shapeless figure in black who has no resemblance to the average Western woman today. These portrayals are perhaps even more dehumanizing than those of Arab men because it serves to strip Muslim women of recognizable qualities and portray them as truly inferior and alien.

In almost all cartoons of Arab and Muslim men the image of a maniacal, bloodthirsty zealot exists. In one such cartoon an Arab man flashes a woman in burqa in the middle of a desert setting, but instead of seeing his privates, we are shown the belt of TNT around his waist. Yet another cartoon features a turbaned man - apparently an Afghani by the style of dress and turban - admonishing American for raping and killing civilians and then advising the viewer that car bombs are a much more effective way to kill civilians. Another cartoon shows a turbaned, bearded man dressed in white wielding a sword with two women shrouded in black behind him. These images help to perpetuate the myth of a turbaned, unshaven man bent on destruction. Many of these images at first seem humorous, while at the same time invoking emotions of fear, disgust, or scorn, all emotions that become associated with the process of dehumanization and desensitization.

Muslim women are a particularly vulnerable segment of the population in the United States, particularly following the events of September 11, 2001. In the wake of September 11th, there was an increase in hate crimes and discrimination targeting Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians, and Muslim women who wear a headscarf or traditional clothing were potential targets. This increased feelings of fear, anxiety, stress and depression amongst members of this population which has been compounded by dehumanizing images of Muslim women as “ninjas”, clad in enveloping robes, as second-class citizens, and as female terrorists. Muslim women and recent immigrants have been the increasing targets of hate crimes following September 11th. This is often due to the fact the many Muslim women wear the hijab or traditional clothing, and many recent refugees and immigrants wear clothing from their home countries, may speak little English or English with thick accents, and may walk or utilize public modes of transportation to get to school or work.

Many dehumanizing names have been placed upon individuals with difficult sounding names, names that are obviously Arabic, and individuals whose country of origin is obvious. They are often taunted with phrases asking them to go back home, called sand-niggers, camel jockeys, and camel herders. Both men and women are referred to as ragheads, and burqas and other forms of covering have in particular become objects of ridicule. There has been an increase in reports of Muslim children being harassed in the schools due to their names, particularly those bearing names such as Osama, Muhammad, and Hussain, not only by fellow students, but also at the hand of teachers.

In cartoons Muslim women are portrayed only as figures clad in all-encompassing cloth, who are frequently mistreated by their husbands. Many cartoons make fun of the abaya, or burqa, the long black gown worn by many women in Middle-Eastern countries, most notably in Saudi Arabia. They poke fun at women wearing abayas being concerned about their looks, participating in beauty contests, and going o the beach. The underlying implication of these cartoons is that if you cover in such a manner, you are unable to participate in many activities, or you do not have concerns that are similar to the concerns and preoccupations of Western women. The burqa, in fact, does not define or in any way reflect a woman’s activities, personality, or alter her personal life to such an extent that it is alien from the way other women live. Several other cartoons suggest that all Muslim women are oppressed by their husbands. In one cartoon, the husband is using his burqa-clad wife as a foot-stool. In another, the husband utters words of love, but he is in fact not talking to the woman, but rather a goat sitting beside her (see Appendix A for cartoons). In one of the Danish cartoons, burqa-clad women are seen standing behind an Arab male wielding a knife. Muslim women are increasingly portrayed either as victims of violence or accomplices in violent acts. They are seen as two-dimensional and completely alien from their Western counterparts. The goal of such dehumanizing portrayals is to create an image of Muslim women that prevents Americans from identifying and empathizing with their Muslim neighbors, co-workers, and Muslim women who must be viewed as potentially dangerous in order to successfully implement many of the profiling programs that are part of the War on Terror.

Muslim and Arab immigrants are also portrayed in American media as two-dimensional, lacking in individuality, and as stereotypical caricatures. They are either taxi drivers or small business owners, if they show up at all in mainstream American media. Muslim women, children, and immigrants, are, however, the most visible segments of the Arab-American and Muslim-American populations. This has made them particularly vulnerable to discriminatory language, harassments, and hate crimes. Thomas, in discussing the effects of the war on terror states:

While everyone has been influenced by September 11, immigrant and refugee groups have been profoundly affected. The practices of the U.S. government in the aftermath of September 11 have included detentions, interrogations, deportations, and the confiscation of property, directly or indirectly causing a state of fear and sense of isolation. Moreover, the increase of hate crimes directed against people of Arab and Middle Eastern descent has intensified their communities’ sense of anxiety and feelings of “otherness” (2006, p.141).

The development of the feeling of being an “other” has only served to further isolate and alienate Arab and Muslim Americans, particularly youth, who do not see themselves as anything but American, and cannot understand why they are being treated differently because of their names or the way that they look. Isolation from mainstream society and into enclaves of fellow immigrants or particular communities then reinforces the negative stereotypes and further dehumanizes these groups to the majority populations.

Wallbott writes in his discussion of the cultivation of beliefs hypothesis that, “It basically states that in contrast to pre-mass-media times out knowledge of the world, our beliefs and attitudes are not shaped by our everyday experiences, but instead by the mass media, and here the most predominant medium is television”(1996, p.330). For Americans who do not know any Muslims or Arabs personally, the majority of their information about this group of people does come from television media, as well as the internet and movies. Wallbott tells a story about students in Bavaria who were asked to name the predominant color of cows: “It was reported that the majority of the pupils believed that cows are lilac! It comes as no surprise that one of the most popular Swiss chocolate and sweets producers, which advertises heavily in German television and in the print media, uses a lilac cow as its brand symbol!”(1996, p. 331). Like these young students who were not personally acquainted with cows, the majority of Americans are not personally acquainted with Muslims or Arabs. The students understood the color of cows by the way they were portrayed on television, just as most Americans understand Muslims to be as they are portrayed on television.

Jack Shaheen (2000) studies the portrayal of Muslims and Arabs in both television and film and notes “Research verifies that lurid and insidious depictions of Arabs as alien, violent strangers, intent upon battling non-believers throughout the world, are staple fare. Such erroneous characterizations more accurately reflect the bias of Western reporters and image-makers than they do the realities of Muslim people in the modern world” (2002, p. 22). The predominate image of Muslims and Arabs appearing in the media is as violent individuals, as terrorists, or as anti-American.

Though these images of Muslims and Arabs do not reflect the reality of the majority of Muslims both in the United States and throughout the Muslim world, the negative stereotypes continue to persist through the medium of television, movies, novels, the internet, newspapers and other sources of information and entertainment. American-Muslims, of which there are approximately 8 million, are teachers, doctors, lawyers, mothers, fathers and students, not blood-thirsty terrorists or Anti-Americans. On television, Arabs and Muslims are portrayed as terrorists, Al Qaeda supporters, sympathizers, Anti-Western, anti-women rights or another storyline along this track. Muslims have never been portrayed as your neighborhood doctor or lawyer, which is a more correct portrayal of Muslim and Arab-Americans. This has contributed to an overwhelming dehumanization and two-dimensional image of Arabs and Muslims in the minds of most Americans. Following 9/11 and the declaration of the war on terror the mention of fictional terrorists in American television shows and movies has essentially tripled.

Television shows such as JAG, 24, The West Wing, NCIS, Sleeper Cell, E-Ring, and even Lost have all featured some negative portrayal of Arabs and Muslims, mostly as terrorists or Islamic extremists. Television portrayals of Muslim women often portray them as meek, helpless, or oppressed individuals who do not stand up for their rights or who suffer at the hands of their husbands or other male relatives. In NCIS one of the main female characters is murdered by an Arab terrorist. In one episode of The West Wing, the president orders the covert assassination of an Arab figure. In the new show The Unit an episode featured, “The Unit tracks down a wanted Indonesian terrorist on US soil, but in a race against time they must prevent this moving target from exploding”. (CBS.com, 2006). One episode of the show JAG showed Palestinians killing at a Washington, DC hospital. The show 24 on Fox television featured an episode in which a Muslim family was portrayed as a terrorist sleeper cell. The show so disturbed Muslim Americans that the Council on American Islamic Relations asked for a disclaimer to be aired along with the episode. Kiefer Sutherland, the main actor in the television series recorded the disclaimer which stated:

Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's 24. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind (WorldNetDaily.com, 2005).

Despite the addition of the disclaimer, the show still showed no positive portrayals of Muslims, further dehumanizing an entire population by portraying a normal, upper-class Muslim American family as “the enemy”. The author of one blog posted this after watching the episode of 24:

In an era where Americans are fearful of attack from Islamic fundamentalists, will a TV show depicting "normal" people as terrorists deepen our paranoia? Will it lead to violence against Muslims or Middle Easterners? [The really frightening thing is that I could imagine Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers blending in and seeming to be "normal" to my fellow Americans just like the men in this show while they planned and plotted and prepared for their dark day of death. I think the show should deepen our paranoia of those among us who fit the...racial profile (Gasp!) of our terrorist enemy. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims (The Greatest Jeneration, 2005).

The post of this blogger is just one example of how many Americans who viewed the television series felt about this and other episodes of the series. Most viewers will now have no problem conceiving of their Arab or Middle Eastern neighbors as possible terrorist sleeper cells. Television viewers are also becoming increasingly desensitized to this type of violence and to the portrayal of Muslims and Arabs as the perpetrators of the violence. Perpetrators of violence are typically portrayed as religious zealots belonging to the Islamic faith, Middle-Eastern males, bearded figures holding guns and the Qur’an at the same time, which is quite contrary the reality of many convicted terrorists in America’s history, including Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph and other abortion clinic bombers, as well as separatist militias.

In news broadcasts, only the negative activities of Muslims are discussed, such as car bombings in Iraq, possible terrorist cells abroad or in the United States, and most recently, the questioning of Keith Ellison, America’s first Muslim congressman, as to whether he is truly loyal to America as well as his decision to use the Quran in his private swearing-in ceremony. Even these positive things, like the election of Mr. Ellison, are twisted by the media to sensationalize and project Muslims as potentially menacing individuals who are not loyal to their country or who are secretly plotting some terrorist activity. In an interview on CNN Headline news on November 14th of 2006 Glenn Beck asked Keith Ellision, “"I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way’" (Media Matters for America, 2007). Rarely are Muslims asked to come onto news programs and discuss the actual beliefs of Muslim-Americans or allowed the opportunity to denounce terrorism and other false portrayals of Muslims as violent, intolerant individuals. In a quick search of news stories using the keyword Muslim, the following stories come up: “Cleveland Imam deported to the Middle East”, “Fatah-Hamas violence continues in Gaza”, Al Qaeda deputy eggs on Somali militants” and “The Congressman and the Quran” (CBSNews.com, 2007).

When American children are asked what comes to mind when we say the words Arab and Muslim, the majority will state “Osama Bin Laden” or “terrorists”. Even in children’s cartoons, Muslims and Arabs are portrayed in a negative fashion. Shaheen (2000) writes about cartoons such as Disney’s Aladdin where, “The storyteller is portrayed as a shifty, disreputable Arab, dastardly saber-wielding villains still try to cut off the hands of maidens, and a wicked vizier still slices a few throats”(2000, p. 24). Shaheen also analyzes the dozens of TV cartoons that depict Arabs negatively or ridicule Arabs in the course of the cartoon, including such classics as Popeye, Bugs Bunny, Woody Woodpecker, Superman and Batman. He writes of the effect that these portrayals have had on Arab and Muslim children:

According to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), many parents have complained that as a result of the pervasive stereotype, their children have become ashamed of their religion and heritage. Some have asked their parents to change their Arab names to something more American sounding….Especially alarming are the numbers of incidents targeting youngsters. After the Trade Center bombing several children of Arab descent were told to “go back where you came from.”(2000, p. 28).

The portrayal of Arabs and Muslims in films, most of which eventually make their way to television, are also disheartening. The movie The Siege, released in 1998 is particularly disturbing, as it portrays New York City being attacked in a series of terrorist attacks after the US military takes into custody an Islamic religious leader. Martial law is eventually declared and all Muslim Americans are put in internment camps (Internet Movie Database, 2007). Despite the attempt to give a balanced image of Muslims in this film, it still proposes to the audience the idea that, in the case of terrorist attacks on New York City, it would be okay to put Muslim Americans in internment camps. A few years after the films release, the events of 9/11 triggered the current War on Terror. Immediately following the attacks radio talk shows started to discuss the possibility of internment camps, sending a chill through the Muslim-American community. This leads us to the idea put forth by Albert Bandura of vicarious classical conditioning, or modeling. In the case of these television shows and movies featuring terrorist acts or restrictions on civil rights, do individuals perform a behavior or accept the performance of a behavior by watching others being rewarded or at the very least, not punished for it? Bandura felt that much of what we learn is learned vicariously through the media (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). Bandura’s research focused almost entirely on the performance of violent or aggressive behaviors following television viewing, but it is possible that we also learn to display prejudicial attitudes by watching others being rewarded through the open display of prejudice or stereotypes. Little research has been conducted thus far to examine vicarious learning of attitudes.

Another film, True Lies, which has appeared both in theaters and on television was severely criticized by Arab-Americans and other anti-discrimination groups. The Washington Post (1994) reported on the negative stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims in the film, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger:

They chant prayers before detonating atomic missiles. They slap women around, using them as human shields. They kidnap children. They even videotape their terrorist threats for the American people….Of course, minority stereotyping –be it racial, ethnic or gender-based – is nothing new to Hollywood. Audiences are routinely bombarded with one-dimensional meanies – like the Japanese in “Rising Sun,” the Libyans in “Back to the Future,” the South Africans in “Lethal Weapon II” and the Soviets in nearly everything – to name just a few recent examples. Now, in the post-Persian Gulf War, World Trade Center bombing era, Arabs and Muslims seem to be wearing the industry’s black hats. (Miller, 1994, p. c02).

Hollywood and television producers appear to be fully aware of the stereotypes that they are perpetuating, and that in many action films they are using a specific ethnic or religious group in many films. This trend has been noted in previous periods, particularly the portrayal of Russians, Nazis, Communists, and Native Americans as barbaric, evil people bent on destruction or world domination. This created periods of fear, discrimination, and violent behavior towards individuals who appeared as belonging to the blacklisted racial, ethnic, or ideological group. Films like The Siege and True Lies, as well as television shows like 24 and The Unit make many Arab and Muslim-Americans feel like they are being specifically targeted by the media. Many Muslims and Arab-Americans are also afraid that such depictions of Muslims and Arabs will make Americans suspicious and even fearful of their Muslim neighbors.

Following 9/11 the attitudes of Americans towards Muslims and Arabs became increasingly negative. Even prior to 9/11 there was the existence of a negative perception, particularly stereotyping of Muslims and Arabs as terrorists, resulting in false accusations and harassment of Arab-Americans. This was especially true following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. The Oklahoma Hate and Harrassment Report (Cajee, 1995) recounts the findings of the Community Peace Coalition in regards to the treatment of Arabs and Muslims after the bombing: “In the aftermath of the April 19th Oklahoma City bombing, Muslims and other communities of color were attacked, threatened, harassed and stereotyped. From Wednesday morning until Friday afternoon – when suspect Timothy McVeigh was arrested – all persons who appeared “Middle Eastern” instantly became suspects in the fatal bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building” (p. 1). The Muslim and Arab community was immediately bombarded with harassment and violent attacks, mainly due to the immediate assumptions of news programs that the attacks appeared to be the work of Arab or Muslim terrorists. Shaheen (2000) adds to this saying, “Following the April 1995 Oklahoma city tragedy, speculative reporting combined with decades of stereotyping encouraged more than 300 hate crimes against America’s Arabs and Muslims”(p. 28).

In a survey conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in March of 2006 it was found that between 23 and 27 percent of Americans “consistently believe stereotypes such as: “Muslims value life less than other people,” and “The Muslim religion teaches violence and hatred”(2006, p. 1). The Washington Post and ABC News released a similar poll that found that one in four Americans admitted to harboring prejudice toward Muslims. “That survey indicated that 45 percent of Americans have a negative view of Islam, a seven percent jump since the months following the 9/11 terror attacks. The Post-ABC poll also showed that the number of Americans who believe that Islam promotes violence has more than doubled since 2002. The Post’s report on the poll findings quoted experts who say negative attitudes about Islam are “fueled in part by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists”(CAIR, 2006, p. 1) Another poll conducted in late July of 2006 by USA Today/Gallup found that nearly four in ten Americans are in favor of having Muslims carry a special ID (Newsmax, 2006).

Despite the fact that there has been no terrorist attack since the events of 9/11 on U.S. soil, and the fact that the majority of Muslim-Americans are highly-educated, working professionals, the negative perception of Muslims in America continues to not only persist, but to actually increase. This raises the question of whether the media’s portrayal of Muslims and Arabs is contributing to the persistence of the stereotypes of Muslims and Arabs as terrorists or anti-American. Not only is the portrayal of Arabs and Muslims in the media consistently negative, but also the portrayal of Arabs and Muslims in newspaper cartoons, the speeches of world leaders, politicians, and religious leaders, and the use of terminology and language that contributes to a specific image of an entire group of people. Is the process of dehumanization, where all members of a specific group are seen as the “enemy” or “evil”, occurring primarily because of media portrayals as the Washington Post’s own poll suggests?

It is one thing to outline a problem and note the fact that when it comes to dehumanization, we are historically repeating actions that have, in many cases lead to horrible atrocities and genocides. It is quite another thing to acknowledge the fact that dehumanization can lead to a complete stigmatization of groups of people that often results in violent actions taken against members of that group, but that there are many things we can do to counteract the effects of dehumanization. Sociological and psychological research over the last fifty years has given us a treasure trove of information that can help us to educate people and prevent members of society from becoming influenced by dehumanizing factors.

The key to overcoming the current perceptions is for everyone to become conscious of the preconceived image and ideas that exist in their own minds. Diversity workshops are often successful at assisting in overcoming stereotypes and generalizations. Allport's (1954) Contact Hypothesis research has demonstrated that intergroup conflict and prejudice between groups can be lessened through shared goals and personal contact under the right conditions. Therefore the promotion of actual intercultural and interfaith dialogue is even more beneficial than diversity workshops led by one individual. Through cross-cultural and interfaith dialogue, community leaders can gain an understanding and appreciation for differences, instead of feelings of intolerance or fear towards that which they do not understand. Education, and frank conversations are key to establishing cross-cultural and interfaith dialogue, and the understanding that the goal is not to convince group members that one set of beliefs or practices is right, but rather for participants to look for common ground. These dialogues can take place formally, through local organizations, or informally at small events, potluck dinners and other situations where members of different groups may meet.

It is very important for Americans to get to know real Islam and real Muslims, not the images that are frequently found in cartoons, television and the movies, and not from the intolerant and aggressive rhetoric of politicians, religious leaders, and media spokespeople. In order for this to happen, however, Muslim in America must take a pro-active role in explaining their beliefs and rituals, and interacting with members of their local community, not just at their jobs and at their schools, but in ways that bring them into greater contact with wide and divergent segments of American society. This is not an easy task to accomplish, as it requires Muslims to prepare themselves to answer hard questions, to be willing to participate in open and frank conversations, to put themselves in vulnerable positions, and to take the time out of their own lives to participate in activities that will allow them to develop relationships with others outside of their own culture. It is more than just saying hello to the lady behind the cash register when checking out at the grocery store, though even small interactions like that do serve to re-humanize people. It will require Muslim parents to take active roles in their son’s and daughter’s schools, to participate in local events, volunteer as soup kitchen and hospitals, and hold open houses at mosques, Islamic centers and Islamic schools.

The research has shown that when an American personally knows a Muslim they are less likely to hold negative views about Islam and Muslims. Dehumanizing images of Muslims that have been discussed throughout this paper are only effective in serving to strip a group of their human qualities, and create prejudice and discrimination when those exposed to the image have no other reference about the group in which to frame their knowledge. Thus, providing images of Muslims that assert their individuality and diversity, whether by physically getting out and meeting others, taking more proactive roles in the media, and protesting against dehumanizing language and images that do occur, are necessary steps to promoting tolerance and peace.

Numerous types of images, including print, television, blogs, and other forms of media, as well as the language and terminology developed by radio talk show hosts, commentators, religious figures and politicians in America points to the development of a policy of dehumanization towards Arabs and Muslims, particularly since the start of the War on Terror. Many of these messages and images portray a view of Muslims and Arabs both in America and abroad that is completely the opposite of Muslim Americans. Muslims and Arabs in America are a diverse group of people representing numerous ethnic backgrounds, religious sects, languages and cultural upbringings. One of the most dangerous aspects of a policy of dehumanization is the painting of Arabs and Muslims as one homogenous mass with an easily defined set of beliefs, ideologies, and practices that are adhered to by all. In reality, Muslims and Arabs in America practices Islam (as well as Arab Christians, Druze, and other religious groups who are ethnically Arab) in various forms, believe in many different practices originating in different cultural contexts, and are acculturated at different rates. As pointed out in a CAIR policy bulletin (2006): “The American Muslim Poll by Project MAPS shows that the American Muslim community is younger, better educated, and better off financially than average Americans. Three-fourths (74 percent) of adult American Muslims are less than 50 years old. The percentage of Muslim college graduates is more than double the national percentage (58 percent versus 25 percent). Half of American Muslims (50 percent) have an annual family income of more than $50,000, and 44 percent describe their occupation as professional/ technical, medical or managerial” (p.3). This is contradictory of the typical image of American Muslims as uneducated, alienated, jihad-spewing young men. Despite these contrasting images, the myths and misconceptions about Muslims and Arabs continue to persist, with approximately one in four Americans believe that Islam is a religion of hate and violence and nearly one fifth of Americans admit to intolerant feelings towards Muslims. However, many Americans expressed the fact that their attitudes could change. In a 2006 CAIR American Public Opinion study they found that: “A vast majority of Americans said they would change their views about Muslims if Muslims condemn terrorism more strongly, show more concern for Americans or work to improve the status of Muslim women or American image in the Muslim world” (2006. p. 3). This once again points out that dehumanizing and stereotypical views of groups can be changed through education, contact, and dialogue.

As the War on Terror and its offshoots continue to shape and effect our society, our economy, and our way of life in America, we must become aware of the way in which language, imagery, and other propaganda during times of war shape our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors towards members of perceived out-groups. In order to promote tolerance and peace we must be able to recognize the process of dehumanization and desensitization when it occurs and take rigorous measures to dispel dehumanizing imagery and terminology from being disseminated. Throughout history, dehumanization in combination with other factors, has allowed human beings to commit horrible crimes against our fellow human beings, from they massacre of Native Americans, to the genocide of Jews and other “undesirables” under Nazi Germany, and the recent ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda (see Waller, 2002 and Zimbardo, 2007). There has come a time when, in our advanced age of technology and instant knowledge, we must act to prevent history from repeating itself. Following the attacks on 9/11, conservative radio talk show hosts discussed placing Muslims in America in internment camps similar to the placement of Japanese Americans during World War II. Today, many Americans believe it is a good idea for Muslim Americans to wear special badges and undergo special security measures, demonstrating that we are, in fact, not too far away from considering our neighbors, class-mates, and co-workers, the face of the enemy. Throughout history there have been many faces of the enemy. Behind that face, however, lie real human beings, with the same desires, ambitions, and concerns as the rest of us.

“24” terror show on Fox upsets Muslims. (2005). The Greatest Jeneration.
http://www.greatestjeneration.com/archives/002122.php

CAIR Policy bulletin (2005). Western Muslim minorities: Integration and disenfranchisement. Washington, DC: Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR. (2006). American public opinion about Islam & Muslims 2006. Washington, DC: The Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Cajee, M. (1995). The Oklahoma hate and harassment report. Norman, OK: The Community Peace Coalition. http://www.themodernreligion.com/assault/okla-report.html

Caldwell, D. (n.d.). Falwell: Deep concerns. Beliefnet. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/70/story_7040_1.html

Chomsky, N. (2002). Media control: The spectacular achievements of propaganda. New York: Seven Stories Press.

CNN’s Beck to first Muslim congressman. (2007). Media Matters for America from http://mediamatters.org/items/200611150004

Ford, P. (2001). Europe cringes at Bush’s “crusade’ against terrorists. The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

Fox’s “24” airs Muslim disclaimer. (2005). WorldNetDaily.com at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42770

Green, R. (2006). Bush’s language angers US Muslims. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4785065.stm

Hooper, I. (2006). Two new polls show negative image of Islam in U.S. Washington, D.C.: The Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Keen, S. (1986). Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the hostile imagination. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Miller, A. (1994). True Lies’ or stereotype?; Arab American groups blast Schwarzenegger film. The Washington Post. p.c02.

Rollins, P. and O’Connor, J. (1999). Hollywood’s Indian: The portrayal of the Native American in film. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.

Shaheen, J. (2001). Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood vilifies a people. New York: Olive Branch Press.

Shneider, F., Gruman, J. and Coutts, L.(2005). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Thomas, N. (2006). Efforts to prevent terrorism: Impact on immigrant groups. In Kimmel, P. and Stout, C. (Eds). Collateral damage: The psychological consequences of America’s war on terrorism. Westport, CT: Praeger

Wallbott, H. (1996). Social Psychology and the media. In Semin, G. and Fiedler, K. (Eds.). Applied Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.pp.312-340.

Waller, J. (2002). Becoming evil: How ordinary people commit genocide and mass Killing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.