What's under the veil?



National Geographic's controversial 1985 Afghan girl found 17 years later.

"How does she eat?" is the first thing that came to mind as my English class examined the rediscovery of the controversial "Afghan Girl" sporting a burka. Often we jump to conclusions when we have voids in our knowledge, especially when it comes to a foreign culture. As much as I hate to admit it, I've been guilty of this, too. If you're like me and have no clue what a chador is, I suggest you take a few minutes to read this article on the differences in the major types of Islamic veils.

But more importantly, I'd like to explore how we form associations with certain symbols and appearances. What makes the above photos so compelling? Is it the Afghan girl's bright green eyes, her curious innocence? Or is it the fact that she's wearing garments so concealing that we'd consider her to be oppressed? It's probably a combination of the two, but there must have been something that brought the turmoil in Afghanistan to the American spotlight after years of its existence. I think the overarching  eye-grabbing attribute of any photo is, simply put, 'mystery.' It comes down to what we know, what we don't know, and what we want to know more about. To most people, the Islamic veil portrays a lack of freedom. While this may be true in certain scenarios where wearing a type of head covering is mandated, in others it is quite the opposite - the veil serves as a channel for self-expression. In a western, liberal mindset, it is hard to fathom more female clothing as being expressive; men lust for short skirts and low tops. The American narrative urges us to uncover the veil and seek out whatever secrets are hidden underneath. However, the actual justification for the veil is to keep a woman pure for her husband and to prevent herself from distracting other men. It makes sense if you think about it...

Time Magazine’s cover photo of Aisha, an 18-year-old Afghan woman whose nose and ears were sliced off in 2009, under orders from a local Taliban commander.

This "mystery" aspect isn't a rare gem. A big component of evoking a sense of mystery lies in the layout of a photo and caption. Aisha, as shown above, sparked a contentious debate when her face was featured on the cover of Time Magazine. After gagging at the slightly scarring image of Aisha with her nose sliced off, a viewer of this Time Magazine issue would respond by immediately questioning how leaving Afghanistan (subtitle on right hand side) relates to the catastrophe taking up the front cover. The story, while intriguing, may prove cliché in the long term. Violence, terror, and corruption is nothing new. But what readers are left with is the image of a poor, helpless girl seared into their memories. And THAT'S what inspires them to come to the rescue. Ultimately, the way we communicate images and ideas dictates the messages that viewers take away.

Trapped

Let's take a step back. In this blog, I've primarily examined communication as it pertains to our lives in the US. Yet, as an educated participant in global affairs, we must understand how different countries communicate the narratives of their pasts. In my social studies class, my fellow students and I have been discussing Paul Collier's esteemed novel The Bottom Billion. In it, Collier describes four traps that have prohibited the bottom billion countries (where the poorest billion of the world population reside) from breaking into the industrialized, first-world playing field. These traps include the conflict trap, the natural resource trap, being landlocked with bad neighbors, and bad governance in a small country. However, I've spent time researching Germany and its roots, and so I'd like to elaborate on how Germany AVOIDED these traps and where it stands today.

Conflict
A prevailing issue in bottom billion countries is civil conflict. Civil wars, which Collier attributes to low income, poor growth, or unbalanced exports, create a cyclical effect once started, reducing growth even further. Fortunately, Germany has not really had a civil war as a newfound nation. Conflict has existed, case and point WWII, but internal conflict is what really deteriorates a society, since it cannot unite towards a common progressive goal. While Germany's real growth rate barely tips 3%, consistency plays a key role - Germany has maintained growth for a long period of time. Growth and income = happy citizen --> minimal civil conflict.

Natural Resources
Natural resources, especially valuable ones like oil or diamonds, provoke greed and external intervention in countries. Collier expounds upon the term "Dutch Disease", which claims that a single commodity dominating exports raises the price of a currency, thus hurting alternative export goods. Ironically, German isn't blessed with as many valuable natural resources as countries like oil-rich Nigeria. German has its share of coal, natural gas, timber, and a smattering of uranium, but nothing that would tear the country apart, since these are all abundant in other parts of the world. Because Germany has to trade for many of its resources, Germany has built a name for quality industrial goods, which are exported to balance copious imports. In fact, Germany ranks 3rd in world exports and 4th in world imports.


Landlocked
Another concern with the bottom billion is being landlocked around bad neighbors. Because such a huge portion of the bottom billion lies in the epicenter of Africa, Collier's criticism of landlocked countries holds valid. Still, Germany serves as a close counterexample to this argument. For the most part (prior to the Euro debt crisis), Germany's European neighbors such as France and Switzerland have remained cooperative, influential trading partners in times of peace. Studies have shown that countries grow at a faster rate when their neighbors are growing as well. Growth --> minimal civil conflict, sound familiar? Moreover, Germany has accessible waterways to the North, excluding it from the criteria of this trap.

Governance
Poor governance, specifically in a small country, manifests itself as the final trap. This trap is more relevant to countries where the political system allows a few people to seize control, set up an oligarchy-esque style of rule, and funnel all profits to themselves rather than reinvesting them in the state. Because Germany runs under a form of democracy, its rulers (chancellor, president, etc.) are elected by the people. Thus, the rulers act in the people's and in the nation's interest. While we take this for granted, it's not the case in small, corrupt, resource-rich countries like Chad.

Generally, the trend has held the same. By staying out of a few traps, Germany has avoided the others. Germany is neither a small, landlocked country nor a poorly governed country, and it doesn't place a huge emphasis on one specific natural resource. Thus, it has remained out of extreme civil conflict for a while. Albeit unlikely that Germany sink into any of these traps, maybe it is time that Germany, along with other developed countries, help the bottom billion throw off their shackles.

Digital Footprint

           It's mind-boggling how quickly word gets out. I'm sure that's exactly what was running through General Patraeus's mind after the whole world learned about his short-lived affair. For those of you who are just finding out about the CIA scandal, I suggest you check out this link. When Jill Kelley reported threatening e-mails to an FBI agent, an affair between revered General David Patreaus and his biographer Paula Broadwell seeped out. But then, the situation became even stickier, when Kelley was accused of an affair with General John Allen, a close friend. Many details are still unclear, but there's one lingering question in the back of my mind. When a CIA director can't hide his activities online, can we really expect to?

           Most of us don't understand the intricacies of how information is spread through the web. E-mail, even when anonymous, is not as secure as you'd think. Each e-mail we send out carries little packets of information called "metadata", containing information about the source of an e-mail, such as an IP address. If someone is willing to put in the time, there's always a way to track information, no matter how you try to get around it. In fact, some reports claim that Petraeus tried communicating with Broadwell through saving drafts in a shared e-mail account. This may sound clever, however it probably made it easier for investigators to access the messages once they found out this method was being utilized.
           Now, if you're one of those people who are thinking, "Well, I don't send private e-mails, so I don't have to worry," think again. Texts and phone call history can be tracked with the push of a button. When we take photos, digital cameras or image-storing programs often bundle data in an Exchangeable Image File Format (Exif) with each snapshot. This data may include GPS coordinates for where a photo was taken. For more information, read this article on digital privacy. I'm starting to wonder whether anything we do digitally can be considered "safe" from the people around us.
           Only in the 21st century have we really seen digital footprints being used as criminal evidence. Ironically, an electronic communications privacy act was passed in 1986, largely before the age of the Internet and social media. But the USA PATRIOT Act, which Obama extended for an additional four years in 2011, expanded the government's definition of terrorism and its power of law enforcement, especially with regards to gathering intelligence.
           Yet, people are complaining about a lack of privacy even on a smaller scale, such as with social media. By clicking on certain links, you may be inadvertently yielding information to unknown websites. Most of the times, the information being sent out is harmless; for example, your search history, which could be beneficial to advertising companies. But there can be much greater implications; we've all heard a story of someone who foolishly sent their credit card, bank account, or social security number in an e-mail to a fraudulent address. Be careful, you are not as hidden in the digital world as you think.

Pick Your Vote

            Impressions are key. Everyone knows that. But the people who should really take this into account are politicians. And in these recent presidential debates, the final impressions of the Republican and Democratic parties will most certainly determine the fate of the next four years of our nation.

            As a teenager somewhat isolated from the world of politics, I often get stereotypes of politicians through comical interpretations that spread through the web and media. In a recent discussion in class, a student mentioned B96 radio posing the question of who Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the first presidential debate, had more control over: Obama, Romney, or his own bladder. Years down the road, do you think more people will remember the 5-point plan Romney laid out or the fact that he likes Big Bird? When I look back at the 2008 election, the first thing that comes to mind is Sarah Palin claiming that she could see Russia from her backyard. These aren't unique incidents; ever since the spread of social media into mass culture, our views are increasingly becoming defined by the perspectives of others.

           Contrary to popular belief, not all social media portrayals of the candidates highlight their weak suits. Candidates who manipulate the web find that it works to their advantage. As an active follower of both candidates’ Facebook pages, I'd say that Obama has achieved more successful results in social media marketing. Obama's page is loaded with things like pictures of his thousands of fans or his family, pledges to stop texting and driving, inspirational quotes, you name it. Obama's followers like, share, and comment on these photos, generating web traffic and spreading his audience. A quick scan of the page leads to his TV campaign ad. Watch it for yourself and witness the power of media.

On the other hand, as I was looking through some of the comments people posted on Romney’s page, I found a link to RomneyMakes.com, a website to essentially calculate how much Mitt Romney makes in the same time you perform daily tasks. According to this site, Mitt Romney makes $346.90 while he clips his toenails. This is probably the harmless consequence of some programmer with too much time on his hands and a clear aversion to the Republican candidate, yet it clearly shows how individual people can start ripple effects through social media. Even though it's clearly not true, my first thought was, “Wow, look at Romney, he must be spoiled and out of touch with the American people." Yet, if Romney is so skilled at managing money (he organized the 2002 Winter Olympics and managed a multi-billion dollar corporation), wouldn't he be more qualified to fix our economy? Social media leaves a first impression that blinds our judgments.  Romney’s platform is advocating for the middle class; unfortunately for him, social media is hazing out his views. What are some other media images or posts that have affected your view of the politicians?

Kony 2012: Is it a sham?

             A man by the name of Joseph Kony, the leader of a group known as the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), has conducted thousands of crimes against humanity. Still, for over 10 years, his brutal actions went largely unnoticed by the American media. That is, until a grassroots organization called Invisible Children brought the tyrant the infamy he deserved.  How? Through one, single YouTube video. That, my friends, represents a new age of social activism.

          
            Watch & share. That’s all that the young group of motivated, passionate teenagers asked for. And it worked. “You can lead or you can follow, but eventually everyone will have to MOVE,” says the team. Thousands of shares, e-mails, photos, and #stopkony tweets barraged the Internet. Within a month, the 30-minute informative video titled Kony 2012 became arguably the most viral video EVER. I encourage you to see the video for yourself, and comment below if you feel it impacts you.

            Yet, with great power comes great responsibility. After persuading thousands of willing people to donate or contribute to the cause of Invisible Children in Central Africa, Jason Russell, creative director of the Kony 2012 video, went on a psychotic meltdown. Disappearing from his home, he was later discovered running naked in public. He confessed to Oprah that the extreme media pressure had “broken” him. And just as quickly as Invisible Children’s reputation was built, it was degraded by thousands of enraged citizens posting negative remarks about Russell and the humanitarian organization being a sham. Now the team of young adults is forced to focus their efforts on explaining Russell’s actions and appeasing the public. But in all honesty, do you really think that one foolish act should discredit something as genuine and powerful as Invisible Children? The curse of social media is that it’s used as a vehicle to attract attention. And it’s easier to rally people around criticism, creating mass potential for harm.

            Still, the crew chose not to give up. Now Invisible Children claims to be days away from catching the warlord. With radio towers and surveillance infrastructure set up throughout Central Africa, they’ve guided countless villagers to safety and have identified the LRA’s current position. They have already received support from the EU, AU, and UN. In fact, Obama signed the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act a few years ago. On November 17^th Invisible Children is inviting people across the world to assemble in Washington, D.C. to press the White House and federal officials to capture Kony. It might be a little too optimistic to claim that after years of struggle, THIS is the year that Kony and the LRA will be brought down. Nevertheless, their initial goal of raising awareness for the crisis has been far surpassed, and they owe a big thank you to our friends YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

           

Let me introduce you to... the world

I AM a 21^st century child. I was raised on the brink of the new millennium, the prime of a new era in which communication and interaction between millions of people across the world became the norm. Having lived in multiple states and having travelled to over fifteen different countries, I’ve accumulated tastes of almost every culture. Even in the metropolitan atmosphere of my home city, Chicago, it is not uncommon to find an authentic Mexican restaurant side-by-side a Korean karaoke bar.

I grew up not knowing what was going to reinvent the world in the next month or the month after that. Technology has always fascinated me, ever since the days of the Gameboy Color and iPod Nano. But more than late night entertainment, technology has transformed into a medium for communication between societies. Have you ever stopped to wonder why “LOL” is the internationally recognized abbreviation for “laughing out loud”, and not “lost our luggage”?

To be an active participant in world affairs, it almost goes without saying one needs to be connected to social media. Social media diverged from simply being optional. Facebook has roughly three times as many users as people living in the United States! That’s a whopping 955 million subscribers to the mindless collection of images and posts by friends, or strangers we dare call our “friends”.

In fact, businesses are devoting entire departments to social media marketing, and those of us savvy enough in the field gain that extra edge. Even my homecoming groups and fantasy leagues utilize Facebook as a forum for discussion and planning events.

Some question social media’s invasion of privacy, and I concede their points. It’s a little unsettling to think that those superficial acquaintances I glance at in the hallways probably know the last concert I went to or what I ate for breakfast, thanks to our good old friend the World Wide Web. Sure, there have been sporadic instances of deactivations of Facebook and Twitter accounts, futile attempts to revert to old ways. Yet, in some ways, social media is that old friend that never leaves you alone. It’s an addiction. A powerful addiction, one that affects everyone around you. Once you feel connected, you feel like you’re in. And once you’re in, there’s no getting out.

Despite all the stigmas, the resulting high-speed communication has left positive influences on the world. It’s better for health, better for technology, and better for communicating with friends and family. It has created a sense of democracy in the marketplace of ideas, allowing average citizens to find things that make them happy, but also things that make them tick. What sticks with you?