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.