Wupr 23.3 The Arts by Washington University Political Review

Washington University

political review 23.3 | November 2015 | wupr.org

THE ARTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

Politically Correct Art: An Oxymoron?

THE ARTS

Sabrina Wang

Sydney Welter

Expensive Painting Infographic

Being Like Che: The Popularity of

INTERNATIONAL 10

David Flasterstein

Ben Szanton

Julia Winemiller

Michael Lukauskus

Federal Art Funding Infographic

“X” Marks the Diverging Tales

The Unspoken Jewishness of Bernie Sanders Reuben Siegman

ISIS’ Destruction of Art as a

Entropy in Egypt Aryeh Mellman

Syrian Refugees and

of Post-Katrina New Orleans

European Opportunism

Billie Mandelbaum

Bram Osterhout

Art as Resistance on the Mexican-American Border Natalie Kirchoff

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Boehner’s Tenure in Review

Bisma Mufti

Billionaires Don’t Buy Elections

Music Making, Making Change

Function of State Building

Focus Groups: Manipulation and Representation

Aaron Christensen and Serena Lekawa

Porn is Bad Grace Portelance

Ernesto Guevara’s Image Rachel Butler

Who Tells Your Story Maureen Flaherman

Art Repatriation: An Ethical Obligation

NATIONAL

Fix the Fox Lauren Berger

EDITOR’S NOTE Editors-in-Chief: Billie Mandelbaum Aryeh Mellman Executive Director: Hannah Waldman Staff Editors: Sam Klein Rachel Butler Grace Portelance Features Editors: Aaron Christensen Serena Lekawa Finance Director: Jake Belinky Director of Design: Andrew Kay Assistant Directors of Design: Nikolai Laba Ezekiel Saucedo

Dear Reader, In WUPR, we like to say that “everything is politics.” While big, important stories about wars and fiscal crises often dominate the headlines, many other forces play a role in shaping our everyday lives. One of the most ubiquitous and forceful mediums of expression is art. Seen as a commodity, art can be a powerful economic force; in November, a Modigliani painting sold for over $170 million. Art can also wrench hearts: viewers of Rothko’s majestic palettes are known to weep at the sight of the gorgeous paintings. Viewed through a more explicitly political lens, protest art can condense overflowing feelings of anger into deceptively simple designs. In this month’s issue, we hope to convey a sense of the range of ways that art impacts so many facets of our lives. Julia Winemiller explores the potential for music to create social and political change. Rachel Butler describes the bizarre commercialization of Che Guevara’s image. Bisma Mufti explains ISIS’ motivations in destroying ancient artistic and religious symbols. Turning to our own campus, Lauren Berger reveals how Sam Fox students are treated unfairly by the administration. Fittingly, this magazine is graced by more illustrations than we’ve had in recent memory, and our own artists’ contributions add immeasurably to the written work produced by our writers. As the semester winds down, we still have much to look forward to. Our final issue of 2015 will come out at the end of the semester, WUPR social events and study breaks are in the works, and David Axelrod, our featured speaker for this academic year, is set to join us on campus in February. As always, you can see more of our work on wupr.org, and anyone interested in getting involved in any WUPR activities should feel free to contact us at editor@wupr.org. Happy reading!

Director of New Media: Ari Moses Programming Director: Reuben Siegman Front Cover: Andrew Kay Theme Page: Ezekiel Saucedo Back Cover: Jeremy Sandler

Billie Mandelbaum and Aryeh Mellman Editors-in-Chief

political review | THE ARTS

Politically Correct Art: An Oxymoron? Sabrina Wang | Illustration by MJ Brown

ast year, Emma Sulkowicz, then a senior at Columbia University, made national headlines with her endurance performance art piece “Carry That Weight.” Her story is likely one you’ve heard before: Sulkowicz avowed to carry a 50-lb extra-long twin mattress—similar to the Columbia dorm mattress—until the student she alleged had raped her during her sophomore year was expelled or otherwise left the university. Caught between defending Sulkowicz’s freedom of speech and protecting the rights of Sulkowicz’s accused rapist, Columbia faced criticism from almost every direction. In combining political protest and symbolic expression of the emotional weight of such experiences, the art piece triggered a national conversation about campus rape culture and the difficulty universities face in prosecuting rape both effectively and fairly. In January 2015, when Sulkowicz was likely still home for winter break, a mass shooting occurred at the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine. Brothers Chérif and Saïd Kouachi, two jihadists and French citizens, killed and injured 22 people in total, claiming that Islamic law afforded them the right to kill anyone who “offends the prophet.” This, apparently, included the staffers at Charlie Hebdo, who published cartoon images of the prophet Muhammad—an act considered blasphemous in many sects of Islam. The horrific shooting—and the art that triggered it—opened up a dialogue about Islamophobia, censorship, and the extent of freedom of speech. Both of these incidents—though they occupy completely separate spaces on the spectrum— are perfect examples of the intersection of art and politics. Art, by nature, facilitates the communication of deeply personal narratives, allowing those who may not have a political platform to instantly communicate their views and begin a conversation about the human implications of policy decisions. But, in a culture growing increasingly sensitive to internalized racist, sexist, homophobic, and other discriminatory mentalities, freedom of speech—even in art—is beginning to seem like a secondary concern. The balance between giving

Hebdo’s headquarters were far from warranted; however, we as individuals, should be conscious of unintentionally expressing discriminatory mindsets or reinforcing existing power structures—and artists and content creators should strive do the same.

artists the freedom they deserve and protecting minority groups against discrimination is often nearly impossible to achieve. Some, like wildcard Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, see the increasing sensitivity to discrimination and existing power structures as “politically correct crap.” Trump may more often seem like the punch line of a joke than a serious politician, but given his popularity, it’s undeniable that Trump’s mentality echoes a national sentiment against what many believe to be censorship. Even politically liberal individuals such as journalist Jonathan Chait have criticized the extent of what he calls “PC culture.” Yet, acknowledgement of the inequalities in American society is important, and the desire to achieve social equality is even more so. Although Chait validly criticizes extremes of political correctness in his 2015 article Not a Very PC Thing to Say, he also deems recognition of microaggressions, everyday and unintended discriminatory insults, as oversensitivity. This viewpoint is misguided—and understandably so considering Chait, occupying a societal position of relative privilege, has likely never experienced a microagression first hand. It is important for us to be aware that the reality we personally experience may not be the reality all Americans experience, and that we often internalize the problematic mindsets we are surrounded by. While Charlie Hebdo made cariactures of many religious figures, the magazine published its cartoon of Muhammad at a time of anti-Islam sentiment in Europe. The attacks on Charlie

However, no one wants to put a hard restriction on freedom of expression, especially because offense can be meaningful. Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan illustrates this distinction between meaningful and meaningless offense in his 2001 art installation “Him,” in which the viewer enters a vast room, at the end of which is a statue of a little boy kneeling with his back the viewer. As the viewer nears the statue, he or she sees that the boy’s face is that of Hitler’s. In probing indignation (or perhaps lack of) in the viewer, Cattelan explores whether forgiveness is possible for such an icon of evil. In posing this larger question, Cattelan’s work encourages us to examine God, morality, and ourselves, an examination made possible through individual reactions of offense to the piece. Because works like Cattelan’s exist, there could be no universal statement about what types of art or what types of offenses are permissible. Instead, regulation of the messages behind art must come from the artists themselves. Protecting free speech is important is because, with it, artists have the opportunity to facilitate positive and tangible change by highlighting the human implications of cultural norms and politics. Instead of adhering to cheap stereotypes for a quick laugh or taking pot shots at disenfranchised groups for no deeper purpose, artists should capitalize on their unique ability to voice their opinions and better the community, using their platforms with sensitivity to existing power structures and biases. Artists, like policymakers or other influential figures, should actually make an effort to do so. And given the existing inequalities in our society, a good way to begin is with tolerance and understanding.

Sabrina Wang is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at s.d.wang@wustl.edu.

political review | THE ARTS

Art Repatriation: An Ethical Obligation Sydney Welter | Illustration by Steph Waldo

ith deep brown and perfectly symmetrical eyes, Ka-Nefer-Nefer, as depicted on her funerary mask, stares intently forward, prepared for her entrance into the afterlife. In accordance with ancient Egyptian belief, the funerary mask is intended to provide a means for the ba, or the spirit of the deceased, to recognize and return to its mummified host after traveling freely from the confines of the tomb. Gilded and vibrantly colored, the image of KaNefer-Nefer is idealized, symbolic of her afterlife free from flaw and pain. It embodies the culture of dynastic Egypt, and it served a critical role in the religious beliefs of its subject. The mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, however, no longer remains in the tomb of the woman it depicts. Instead it sits on display in the Saint Louis Art Museum, thousands of miles from its place of origin. Since its purchase from an art dealer by the museum in 1998, the mask has been the subject of great controversy. The United States government made a prolonged attempt to seize the work and return it, claiming that the mask had been stolen from Egypt 25 years earlier and thus could not have been imported into the country legally. The museum fought the forfeiture case and in 2014, the Eighth Circuit appeals court finally ruled that the mask would remain at the Saint Louis Art Museum. In addition to failures by the federal government to meet mandated deadlines, the court’s ruling was made on the basis that the government had failed to provide sufficient information surrounding the alleged theft and illegal importation of the piece. So although the debate continues, it appears that the mask of Ka-NeferNefer will remain in St. Louis for the foreseeable future. Out of context, viewers are unable to fully appreciate the purpose of the piece and its place within Egyptian culture. While compilations of works from the same culture and era can be found in textbooks and on the Internet, complete visual analysis requires that a viewer be present with the material. In keeping works in their original physical context, viewers are able to better to observe how the art interacts with light, space, and associated works. The debate over the ownership of historically significant artwork extends beyond Ka-Nefer-

Nefer. In recent years, many countries have come forward and requested that artworks be returned to their place of origin from the Western museums in which they are on display. The British Museum in particular has fallen under heavy criticism for its possession of part of Greece’s Parthenon marbles, as well as ancient artifacts from India and Egypt. The argument for repatriation of culturally significant artworks or historical artifacts arises because many of these works were looted or obtained under questionable circumstances. For example, it is unclear whether or not Greece willingly gifted the Parthenon marbles to an English ambassador. Similarly, many paintings have emerged throughout the United States and Europe that have been determined as stolen from countries under Nazi occupation during World War II.

possession of artifacts obtained under potentially illegal or deceptive means. Simply because a museum has many visitors or provides free access to the works does not mean the museum has rightful ownership. Similarly, the centralization of pieces of art from around the world into one Western location promotes a colonialist viewpoint. Culturally significant works are put on display for later generations of the “conquering” society to observe without full context or recognition of the culture that produced them. While repatriation may increase the difficulty with which some are able to view foreign works, individuals descended from and living in the region of past cultures would have greater access to the artwork that has had a direct impact on their history. Additionally, museums that wish to exhibit global art can build relationships with other museums and establish lending programs.

Many argue that repatriation of art is difficult and detrimental to cultural exchange. The British Museum’s official position in regards to the Parthenon Marbles is that they “are an important representation of ancient Athenian civilisation in the context of world history,” and that by remaining in London, “millions of visitors, free of charge, [can] admire the artistry of the sculptures and gain insight into how ancient Greece influenced – and was influenced by – the other civilisations that it encountered.”

True cultural appreciation requires context and careful attention to the work’s significance. When the stability of the country and the structure of a piece allow for safe transport, the most ethical course of action for museums around the world is to return art to its country of origin. Ka-Nefer-Nefer’s gilded mask should be observed and admired. It simply should be done in Egypt, close to the woman’s final resting place, her religious beliefs respected.

However, the British Museum fails to take into consideration the ethics of maintaining

Sydney Welter is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at sydneywelter@gmail.com.

political review | THE ARTS

Putting a Price on “Priceless” The Most Expensive Works of Art

Rhein II / Photograph print Andreas Gursky / 1999 Purchased by an unknown private buyer for $4.3 million in 2012.

The Card Players / Oil painting Paul Cézanne / 1892 Purchased by the government of Qatar for $272 million in 2011.

political review | THE ARTS

The Pointing Man / Bronze sculpture Alberto Giacommeti / 1947 Purchased by an unknown private buyer for $141.3 million in 2015.

political review | THE ARTS

Being Like Che: The Popularity of Ernesto Guevara’s Image Rachel Butler | Illustration by Bohao Zhang “

he revolutionary struggle of the cherries was squashed as they were trapped between two layers of chocolate. May their memory live on in your mouth,” reads the wrapper on the Magnum-brand “Cherry Guevara”-flavored ice cream bar. After eating away the layers of chocolate, cherry sauce and ice cream, one finds a wooden stick emblazoned with the words, “We will bite to the end!” These bars are sold all over the world; I picked one up from a street vendor in Jerusalem, an ocean, language, and culture away from the Latin American countries where Ernesto “Che” Guevara rose to fame as a revolutionary Communist figure. Cherry Guevara ice cream is just one product among countless consumer goods that utilize Che’s likeness and persona. TheCheStore. com sells everything from t-shirts to beanies to lighters, all adorned with the iconic image of Che that has permeated the international market. That image, taken by photographer Alberto Korda in Cuba in 1960, depicts Che with his beret askew and his piercing gaze staring up and into the distance. It has ironically become both a universal symbol of struggle against capitalistic government as well as a huge commercial success in the years since Che’s death in 1967. What is it about this image that gives it such ideological and marketable power? How can these two qualities—anti-commercial ideology and commercial marketability—coexist with each other in the image, and why is it such a popular combination? It’s undeniable that his image still contains political meaning. In Israel, I saw Che’s face decorating the t-shirts of a number of young Palestinian nationalists. Che Guevara’s wide-ranging and successful afterlife as a printed image is in part owed to the actual events of his life. In his own lifetime, was already a global figure who extended his ideology to various issues and locales. Though

a native of Argentina, Che was a leader of the Cuban revolution, fought in the Congo, and gave speeches around the world about such topics as South African apartheid and racism in the United States. This broad-ranging activism detached his ideology from any specific country, and made Che into a voice for the world’s disenfranchised. He died fighting

The ability to remain part of consumer culture while simultaneously representing values that undermine it actually gives Che’s image more power than it would have if it were not a desirable consumer good. in Bolivia, a country that he had no relation to besides a common language, thus making him a martyr for the cause rather than one specific country. In addition, his death was likely ordered by the CIA, a symbol of capitalist power. His death was mourned not by just one nation in particular, but by countless people around the world who related to his anticapitalist ideology. Dying as a martyr established him as a kind of savior figure among many who were moved by his ideas. He lived and died for his cause, and because that cause can be interpreted

to fit almost any group or individual that feels disenfranchised, he became a universal savior. Even today, many people in Latin America dedicate altars to Che during El Dia de los Muertos, during which most altars are dedicated to Christian saints. The distribution of Alberto Korda’s photograph of Che helped create his saint-like postmortem persona. Korda took the photo on March 5, 1960 in Havana, Cuba at a memorial service for the victims of a freighter accident, but the picture itself gives no hint of this setting. Che wears nothing that definitively distinguishes him as being in Cuba or fighting for the country—there is not a Cuban flag or symbol anywhere in the picture. His expression bears no sign of mourning, or any other clear emotion for that matter. It is unclear what he is looking at, or thinking about, or feeling. All of this ambiguity allowed (and continues to allow) the image to be interpreted along almost any set of precepts. The Korda image of Che Guevara, shorn of any context of where it was taken or what Che’s ideology really was, can be interpreted (and used, and commercialized) in countless ways. Many people around the world might recognize Che’s face, and perhaps associate him with the Cuban Revolution, and maybe with the other revolutions he participated in as well. However, it has been nearly five decades since his death, and in the absence of any living person to tie the image to, it transcends the life that he actually led. Yet there is more to the image of Che than its contextual ambiguity that allowed it to become so universal. If it was only ambiguity that gave it power, then any face could have garnered such universal appeal. However, most people who see the image know something about Che. His revolutionary spirit is still remembered by many around the world, even if his specific actions and words are not. His image serves as a mnemonic device for that revolutionary

political review | THE ARTS

ideal. It is what the revolution in question is that remains ambiguous and open to interpretation. The image has been used for a wide range of protest movements, of which here is a partial list: The Zapatistas in Mexico have flaunted images of Che on their clothes, banners, flags, and posters since 1994. French protestors carried Che Guevara flags in 2000 at the trial of French farming and anti-neoliberalism activist Jose Bove, who destroyed a McDonald’s restaurant in protest. Che’s image appeared at social movement events of landless workers in Brazil (1997), striking university students in Mexico City (1999), and peace activists in Italy (2002). The image was displayed at an anti-neoliberal globalization really in Argentina accompanied by speeches from Bolivia’s socialist presidential candidate (and later president) Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In Kazakhstan, supporters of that country’s Communist Party candidate wore Che’s image, and Columbian revolutionaries wore Che t-shirts as they ceremoniously laid down their weapons. The far range and reach of Che Guevara’s image as a political tool is evidenced by this extensive and varied list of movements that have employed the Korda photograph in shaping their own images. The only thing that these protests and movements seem to have in common is an antiestablishment bent, which is perhaps the only thing that interpretations of Che’s persona also have in common. Yet Che’s image graces more than just revolutionary posters and clothing today. The fact that Che transcended any specific conflict during his lifetime implies that, at least where the image is used as a device for anti-capitalistic protest, it remains true to his far-ranging values and therefore might still be sacred relative to his own beliefs. However, there are also myriad cases in which Che’s image is appropriated without any political agenda in mind, but purely as a consumer product within the capitalist framework that Che fought against. From ice cream wrappers to key chains to condoms, the Korda photo adorns many items that do not clearly connect to the spirit of antiestablishment revolution. Though this appropriation may seem to go against Che’s values, it still, in fact, serves to further his cause. Even when his image becomes a consumer good, Che avoids being

fully co-opted into the dominant, mainstream ideology because he represents ideas and values not easily folded into traditional patriarchal, conservative and capitalistic ideologies. The image, no matter what product it graces, continues to represent antiestablishment revolution even when it is sold and displayed within the establishment. The ability to remain part of consumer culture while simultaneously representing values that undermine it actually gives Che’s image more power than it would have if it were not a desirable consumer good. Che Guevara is gone, and capitalism is still the dominant ideology of the world; the only way that his persona can continue to fight the system is by working within it. Che’s image today is, rather than just a symbol of the man himself, a representation of the boundless and constant conflict between the mainstream system and those against it. Some of the few stories comparable to the dimensions of the battle that Che has become a symbol of are biblical parables and Greek epics.

Che functions as a current site of this longrunning conflict, one that preceded his own life and remains ongoing after his death. Members of the Organización de Pioneros José Martí, a Cuban youth organization, wear shirts emblazoned with Che’s signature and pledge to “be like Che.” What does that mean, in a world where Che is both in the system and against it, not a mere person but the embodiment of a conflict that transcends borders and years? That transcendence is something rarely accomplished by an individual. Equally rare is the fame and broad range that Che’s revolutionary life took on. Perhaps the exhortation to “be like Che” means not be like Ernesto Guevara, the man, but to be like Che’s image: existing within the system while simultaneously acting as a voice against it.

Rachel is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at rachelkbutler@wustl.edu.

political review | THE ARTS

Music Making, Making Change Julia Winemiller | Illustration by Kevin Schneider

or most of modern Western society, music is entertainment, a commercialized product that we consume every time we hit play on Spotify. For some, music is also a class. It’s an extracurricular, a skill that is taught and evaluated through instrument lessons or school ensembles. To another, smaller cohort of supposedly forward-thinking individuals, music is a tool that can be used for emotional expression, social change, community building, and pretty much anything else that involves human interaction. This group includes the leaders of projects such as El Sistema, a Venezuelan organization of local orchestras for kids in poverty, or the iPod Project, which utilizes music to restore memory and functioning to patients with Alzheimer’s. Other examples of individuals in this group are those who use songs to unite large crowds at protests and marches, people who use the process of songwriting to work through traumatic experiences, or those who encourage kids to move and sing and dance to music, even if they aren’t very good at it. I would argue that these people aren’t forwardthinking, but rather backward-thinking in their understanding of music. Only recently did Western culture morph the concept of music into a product that can be owned, traded, and sold. Copyright laws were first applied to musical compositions in 1831, and it wasn’t until 1972 that sound recordings became protected by copyright in the U.S. Collaborative musical traditions of non-Western cultures have struggled to survive under the pressures of individualism and capitalism. For some time, American folk music also adhered to a custom of respectful sharing and re-interpretation of the same melodies, with no concern of ownership, until copyright court cases became a norm. As we enter the 21st century, our collective ethos continues to de-emphasize the everyday creation of music, and champions music as a vendible object. The result is an increasingly rigid hierarchy of “people who do music” and “people who don’t.” Beginning in 1979 with the release of Sony’s portable Walkman

headphones, music listening has quickly become a passive, isolated activity. It’s hard to imagine a time where white cords running to the ears of passersby was not commonplace, but only 14 years ago did Apple begin releasing the iPod, equipped with a complementary pair of earbuds. Our newfound ability to withdraw into a “Free, personalized radio!” has disincentivized attending live performances, let alone actually making music with other people. Now, that isn’t to say that there aren’t people out there who do make music in their basement with their buddies, share new songs with friends, or have fun in orchestra class. However, they typically do not accept the label of “musician.” Claiming this identity denotes a career of entertainment, a recognized professional status. In fact, when you start asking people if they do music, a majority respond, “Oh no, I can’t sing.” To set the record straight, every human is physically capable of singing, and the fact that people go so far as to say they actually can’t shows how acutely perceptive we are of our ranking on the socially defined ladder of musical ability. The practical implication of this awareness is an impressive self-division of people who identify as music makers and those who adamantly disassociate from the title. Values of musical hierarchy and exclusion are strongly reflected in how we educate kids in music as well. Music education is largely restricted to a classroom setting, with one allknowing teacher leading a band of unruly kids holding expensive instruments. In alignment with our test based school system, music students are placed in a pecking order and instructed to perform. It is typical for music students to hear “you aren’t good at music,” whether explicitly said or not. This quickly develops into “you shouldn’t do music.”

In short, music is not being used to its full capacity. From natural experiences of bonding over a favorite song to institutionalized programs like El Sistema, there is clear evidence of unrealized potential in our human ability to create and experience music. The opportunities are endless. And with so many political, social, and cultural struggles in our modern world, this realization is more important than ever. Although programs like El Sistema and the iPod project have gained enough momentum to poke through the dichotomy of “good” and “bad” musicians, most of us do not interact with these kinds of programs on a regular basis. If our culture’s musical hierarchy were dismantled through a mass effort of selfawareness and dedication to validating music beyond the classroom and concert hall, these creative, impactful musical experiences could flood into our everyday world. Viewing this not as revolutionary idea but rather as reconnections to musical experiences lost in generations past will empower communities to use music making as a tool for social change. We must re-democratize music making, and discontinue our compliance in the suppression of relationship-based musical experience.

Julia Winemiller is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at jwinemiller@wustl.edu.

political review | THE ARTS

Government funding for art Research by Aaron Christensen and Serena Lekawa | Infographic by Nikolai Laba

political review | THE ARTS

ISIS’ Destruction of Art as a Function of State Building Bisma Mufti | Illustration by Chris Reisenbichler

slamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has proclaimed itself the next worldwide Muslim caliphate, acquiring territory in northern Iraq and Syria to secure its legitimacy. Aside from carrying out gruesome physical attacks, ISIS has engaged in the destruction of antiquities and ancient sites. For example, in August, ISIS destroyed “the pearl of Palmyra”: the Temple of Baal. Consecrated to a Semitic god, the Temple was a fusion of Middle Eastern, Greek and Roman influences. This cross-cultural quality extends to the UNESCO World Heritage site itself, as the city of Palmyra was a hub on a caravan route visited by traders from lands as distant as Southeast Asia. Syria and Iraq’s ancient sites—places of overlapping ancient cultures and religions—make the area a jackpot for ISIS to destroy the many cultures not part of its identity, thus making the area an ideal setting to define and build the state. The group’s images of the Temple of Baal being blown up into a gray mushroom of smoke were widely circulated in the media. Even more striking were its videos of men knocking down statues and sledgehammering the fallen remains. To the tune of crescendo chants, yellow bulldozers carelessly piled ancient reliefs so that the temple looked more like a construction site than a sacred place. Emblematic of the group’s notorious social media activity, these videos and images accomplish one of ISIS’ main state-building goals—to strike fear into the heart of outsiders. They use media as a tool for provocation—a “come and get us” bravado, as outsiders helplessly watch the group destroy treasured art. This helplessness invokes rage, which is exactly what ISIS wants. It is important to note that ISIS not only destroys internationally acclaimed art, but also pieces unlikely to receive great attention, implying there is a deeply rooted, ideological reason for its actions. For example, it has destroyed lesser known Sufi shrines and graves. This is an example of its destruction of pre-Islam pagan, polytheistic, and religious minority art. What

all these groups have in common is that they perform idolatry, which is heretical according to ISIS’ ideology. In ISIS’ mission of securing dominance, this purification of an area against idolatry is important in asserting its will and eliminating anything that does not match its beliefs. ISIS’ disapproval of idolatry stems from the Islamic concept of shirk. Shirk is strictly translated as “association,” meaning sin in associating the created object with the creator, but it is popularly used to describe idolatry. It goes against the concept of tawhid—the absolute monotheism of worshipping one god—since one would worship the created object instead of god. ISIS believes that it is continuing Prophet Muhammad’s campaign against shirk: “The Prophet Muhammad commanded us to shatter and destroy statues. This is what his companions did later on, when they conquered lands.” This is important for its state building goals because it legitimates its claim as successors to the Prophet; this, no doubt, is also an effective recruitment tool. As ISIS conducts its iconoclastic destruction, it also engages in a form of cultural cleansing that seeks to eliminate the rich heritage that is at the heart of Iraqi and Syrian pride. ISIS must rewrite history according to its terms in order to create a narrower, more acceptable state identity. This cleansing mission explains the group’s hatred of archaeology, which it views as a foreign import that fans Iraqi nationalism. As stated in an article appearing in ISIS’ online magazine, Dabiq: “The kuffar [unbelievers] had unearthed these statues and ruins in recent generations and attempted to portray them as part of a cultural heritage and identity that the Muslims of Iraq should embrace and be proud of.” This nationalism went against ISIS’ goal of creating a unified caliphate, so it had to be destroyed.

Beyond the ideological and cultural motivations, one must not forget the defense and financial benefits that come with destroying art. The group has mined ancient sites to discourage attempts by the Syrian government and the foreign-led coalition to recapture the ruins. It also helps that these forces probably would not bomb a UNESCO World Heritage site. Financially, the group has exploited the thriving market of looted antiquities as a way to finance its criminal activities. Its striking videos seem to be a smokescreen as it moves around more expensive pieces for profit. In fact, when American Delta Force commanders took out thirteen ISIS fighters in May, they found a stash of antiquities and receipts collecting taxes from looters amounting to $1.25 million. The ultimate motivation for ISIS’ destruction of art seems to be spelled out in a video released by the group: “By god we will destroy the signs of polytheism. We will destroy the graves and shrines of Shiites. We will smash the Christian crosses. We will demolish the White House in the middle of America, the home of the infidels.” In ISIS’ mind, there are no boundaries to state building—nothing is untouchable,not even America, the epitome of its anti-identity. After swiftly destroying the internationally protected art of ancient empires, its next target, no doubt, is the American empire.

Bisma Mufti is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at bisma.mufti@wustl.edu.

political review | THE ARTS

“X” Marks the Diverging Tales of Post-Katrina New Orleans Billie Mandelbaum | Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

fter Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans on August 28, 2005, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) organized, albeit belatedly, search and rescue efforts. Responders spray painted each damaged building they searched with an X-code, a large “X” that within its four quadrants conveyed information about the findings of the search, from body counts to hazards present within the structure. In the ten years that have passed since Katrina hit, the X-codes, known amongst New Orleansians as “Katrina Crosses,” have become a symbol, serving as a reminder of the destruction and death that befell the city. The X’s lie at the foundation of a movement made up of local artists who seek to document and reproduce the symbol in their work, evoking memories of the storm and its aftermath. In a post-Katrina New Orleans that boasts a booming economy, successful tourist industry, and growing entrepreneurial culture, the recurrence of the X challenges the unbridled rhetoric of triumph, progress, and revitalization that has been used by many in the telling of the New Orleans turn-around story. When viewed as an artistic element, the X-codes are visually engaging—brash in in their spray painted color, yet simple in their symmetrical and streamlined shape. In an interview with art consultant Dorothy Moye, Richard Campanella, a professor at Tulane University’s School of Architecture, described the X-code as “[…]hectic yet methodical. It was so ugly it was beautiful.” The motif of the X has appeared in photography, jewelry pieces, sculptures, and murals. In 2010, to mark the storm’s five-year anniversary, Moye curated “Katrina + 5: An X-Code Exhibition” for Southern Spaces, an online journal about Southern arts and culture. The exhibition featured the work of twentyfive photographers, all of whom documented X-codes that remained visible on the exterior

of homes. In an essay accompanying the exhibition, Moye wrote, “the X-code photographs…constitute a documentary archive with tales to tell.” Beyond the striking graphic itself, the X-code, as Moye suggests, allows one to literally “read” the story of Katrina from such images. For example, an X with a bottom quadrant filled with something like “DOA” (Dead on Arrival) or “DB” (Dead Bodies Found) triggers a memory of the high levels of human suffering endured after the storm. The photographs included in Moye’s exhibition were primarily taken of X-codes that remained on vacant homes. However, as residents returned to New Orleans, some decided to recreate semblances of the code on the exterior of their homes. For example, local artist Erika Larkin created a wrought-iron X-code replica for fellow artist Mitchell Gaudet to display outside his home in New Orleans’s Bywater neighborhood. Gaudet told The Times-Picayune that the sculpture was “Katrina Stigmata,” which perhaps provides an explanation as to why Gaudet’s neighbors complained after he put the piece on display. In the ten years that have passed since Katrina, many have shied away from talking about the tragedy, failing to confront the issues of racism, poverty, and inept public policy that lay bare after the storm hit. Such concerns have been obscured by the efforts of city leaders and many residents to portray New Orleans as—in the words of Mayor Mitch Landrieu—“America’s best comeback story.” That the city has made any kind of recovery is remarkable given the great extent of damage and devastation. However, beneath this dominant narrative of rebirth, is the tale of those that have not benefited from the city’s progress. The racial and economic inequalities made visible in the days following Katrina—news images of the city’s poor and African-American residents stranded on the roofs of their homes or festering away at the overcrowded

Superdome—continue to divide today’s city. New Orleans ranks second in income inequality among major US cities, with the median income of black households 54 percent lower than that of white households—a 37 percent increase in the income gap since the storm. Although the city’s population has returned to 80 percent of what it was in 2005, 100,000 fewer blacks now live in New Orleans. The city’s public schools have been replaced by an all-charter school system, while traditional public housing has been replaced with voucher programs, leading some to call post-Katrina New Orleans a “neo-liberal playground” for young, white entrepreneurs. Landrieu has often referred to his city as a “laboratory for social change,” but in the continued face of inequality it’s necessary to question who has benefited from such change. New Orleans was, and still is, a tale of two segregated cities. A recent survey conducted by LSU’s Public Policy Research Lab found that 78 percent of New Orleans’s white residents believed that the city was “mostly recovered,” while only 37 percent of blacks agreed with the same statement. It’s clear that amidst the celebration of recovery, certain voices have been silenced, which is why the representation of X-codes in art is so powerful. The X, with the haunting and stigmatic meaning it carries, forces people to confront the past and remember all that went wrong ten years ago, thus challenging the veneer of progress that has been erected in post-Katrina New Orleans. Billie Mandelbaum is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at bmandelbaum@wustl.edu.

political review | THE ARTS

Art as Resistance on the Mexican-American Border Natalie Kirchoff | Illustration by Sara Wong

t a press conference in September, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump announced his desire to build a wall comparable to the Great Wall of China along the Mexican-American border. Aptly referred to as the “Greater Wall,” Trump described the endeavor not just as a physical demarcation between the two countries, but as an exhibition of art. Claiming that thousands of artists would be commissioned to work on the wall, Trump declared that the project would be “the biggest and best piece of art ever made about the issues surrounding immigration, or about anything else, for that matter.” As a highly politicized location, the MexicanAmerican border is commonly regarded as a physical representation of a polarizing debate over immigration, holding significance for residents within both countries. As presented in media-driven political discourse, the border is often reduced to a spatial representation of unequal power dynamics and contentious policy debates. In a similarly reductive fashion, Trump’s aforementioned proposal of transforming the border into an art exhibition woefully ignores the reality of this 1,989-mile stretch. In actuality, the border has artistic integrity within Mexican and American communities alike that transcends its simplistic mainstream media portrayal. Art along the Mexican-American border reveals the politicization of immigration and other intersectional issues, demonstrating how these concerns affect people living on both sides of the divide. The Mexican-American border has become a central location for artistic expression that invokes Mexico’s storied history of muralism, which extends to the country’s postrevolutionary period. Starting in the 1920s, there was an emergence of muralist work in Mexico that conveyed social and political messages of the era. Spearheaded by renowned artists like Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, and David Alfaro Siqueiros, Mexican muralism was a way to express political

commentary through publically accessible art. This movement remains influential to this day, as evidenced by the modern day creation of murals both on and off the border that reveal personal reflections on immigration and other social or political concerns. In the neomuralist movement reflected in art along the border, there has been a shift away from murals commissioned by the government towards art that is created by and for the public. The art along the border is a representation of this current muralism that embraces the modern day street art movement and provokes social commentary through publicly accessible works. The artwork on either side of the border offers a social and political commentary on issues of immigration and individual lives, and seeks to both represent and include the populations that not only are affected by these issues, but also those who physically occupy spaces along the border. Artwork along the border can serve a dual purpose of not just conveying a political or social message, but also unifying communities through its creation. One such example of this were efforts by people on both sides of the border in 2011 to save a mural painted on the border in Nogales, Arizona. The work in question, Vida y Sueños de la Cañada Perla, is a replica of a 1998 mural by Tzetzal Indians that was created after they declared their allegiance with the Zapatistas, an indigenous revolutionary group. The original 1998 mural featured images of revolutionary figures like Emiliano Zapata and Ricardo Flores Mago and was considered an expression of autonomy and rebellion against the Mexican government. However, shortly after its creation, Mexican troops invaded the village, leading to its destruction. As a response to the destruction of the original Vida y Sueños de la Cañada Perla, replicas of the mural were created as symbols of solidarity in Barcelona, Madrid, Florence, and Mexico City, among other cities. In 2005, people from

Mexico and the United States joined forces to replicate the sixty-foot long mural along the border wall in Nogales. Although the political origins of the mural did not address the same issues found in the modern day debate over immigration, the original intention takes on a new life on the border wall. For example, one part of the mural features the words La tierra es de quien la trabaja, which roughly translates to “The land belongs to those who work it.” While this was originally used in reference to indigenous villagers rebelling against the Mexican government, these words take on new meaning in the context of migrant workers crossing the border. In 2011, the Nogales replica of Vida y Sueños de la Cañada Perla was threatened with removal when a new barrier replaced the original fence that the mural was created on. However, when it appeared that this mural would be destroyed, people in both Arizona and Mexico worked together to preserve not only this mural, but to save other art and graffiti from the fence. Through a community effort, the mural was saved with the intention of eventually restoring the mural back to the border wall. Because both the creation and preservation of art along the border is a form of resistance and solidarity, these efforts were critical for protecting the integrity of these works as cultural artifacts. Another border artist, Ana Teresa Fernandez, freely admits, “Political art is a risky business.” Fernandez focuses on the intersection of gender and immigration in her art, purposely creating her work while wearing a dress and heels. Rather than creating a mural in the traditional sense, her project, Borrando la Frontera, focuses on painting the border fence in Playas de Tijuana so that it blends in with the scenery on the adjacent San Diego side. Her art constitutes a form of erasure; rather than accepting the omnipresence of a barrier that symbolizes division and limitation, Fernandez creates her work with the intention of artistically rebelling against the physical and mental boundary.

political review | THE ARTS

Work like this demonstrates how issues of gender and immigration at the border are not mutually exclusive and political art can be used to express this critical intersection. This type of border art demonstrates how immigration, like so many issues with pressing political and social effects, is multidimensional. Art, therefore, becomes a way to express issues like gender, which may be marginalized or ignored in mainstream discussions. It is also important to note that not all art along the border is mural work. Artistic expression in this space takes many forms, including works in mediums of sculpture, spoken word, and performance art. Furthermore, there are recent modernist works that combine technological developments and social messages in order to create unique forms of art. One example of this type of modern art project is Border Memorial: Frontera de los Muertos.

Border Memorial is a smartphone app that uses geospatial software to project images of skeletons at the exact locations of recorded migrant deaths along the border. Described as â&#x20AC;&#x153;an augmented reality public art project and memorialâ&#x20AC;? by its creators, the smartphone application was created with the intention of reflecting the staggering mortality rate of those who have died attempting to cross the border. The app reflects a staggering mortality rate: according to the U.S. Border Patrol, over 6,000 migrants have died crossing into the United States from Mexico. Furthermore, this statistic only accounts for recorded mortalities, meaning that the number may be higher if it included the unknown number of migrants who lost their lives crossing the border whose deaths were not recorded. This art project is not only a critical way to help people visualize the number of lives lost crossing the border, but also helps impart the gravity of this loss.

While the border so obviously represents divide, the placement of art directly on the barrier represents a form of resistance that reflects the sentiments of those who live in these border spaces. Through the deliberate placement of art on the border, whether as a mural, graffiti, or projection, the border itself becomes a work of art that embodies resistance and unity. Recognizing the border as a piece of art in its own merit, reminds us that this is not just a passive divide, but also a communal space. It would do us all well, politicians and laypeople alike, to remember that the border is more than just a divisive political debate. It is a representation of the politics of the individual, and the lives continually affected and lost on both sides of the border.

Natalie Kirchhoff is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at n.kirchhoff@wustl.edu.

political review | THE ARTS

Fix the Fox Lauren Berger | Illustration by Alice Wang

n the most watched TED Talk of all time, speaker Ken Robinson proposes the bold claim that schools worldwide do not value the importance of the creative arts in their curriculums and art-specific course opportunities (or lack thereof). Robinson says, “Every education system on Earth has the same hierarchy of subjects. Every one. Doesn’t matter where you go. You’d think it would be otherwise, but it isn’t. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and at the bottom are the arts.” Robinson’s thought-provoking speech sparks a conversation that we as a nation must have moving forward. We need to consider how our current education system might be stifling the creative spirit in our youth and realize that this creative imagination has the potential to blossom into innovation that could change our world. Contrary to widespread belief, Robinson postulates that people don’t grow creative, they grow out of it, and that our education system is a driving force in this trend. To consider how this theory holds true in the context of higher-level education, we can examine the availability of fine arts programs in university settings. For the purpose of this article, I will recognize the quality of universities by how they are ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Of the top 30 undergraduate schools in America, only Yale, Columbia, University of California—Los Angeles, Carnegie Melon, and Washington University in St. Louis offer a fine arts program. As students at one of the only top-ranked universities in the country that also bolsters creativity with an undergraduate fine arts program, it’s important to think to ourselves: how does Wash U fit into this equation? Does Robinson’s theory hold true that the arts are valued at the bottom of the educational totem pole, even with the Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts? Do we really see a disparity in the way Wash U administration values and treats art students and the way it treats the students of its general student body? This past summer, I—a business school student

through and through—ventured outside my comfort zone and decided to study abroad in Florence, Italy through a Sam Fox art program in which I took a six-credit drawing studio. During my time in Florence, I gained a strong appreciation for the immense talent one can find within the students of Sam Fox. I also came to realize how rewarding the arts can be when long hours spent drafting, scrapping, and creating turns into a final piece you can be proud of. However, my greatest realization was that being an art student entails some really frustrating moments. Materials are expensive and must be purchased out of pocket. Studio hours are long and I often felt like the credits I was receiving didn’t quite amount to the effort and time I was putting into my work. I often spent over 30-40 hours in studio a week, and that’s not including my art history class, which met for six hours every week. Food was—well we were in Italy, so it was fantastic. I also began to notice that a habit of my studio peers was complaining about how Sam Fox is run. Halfway around the world in St. Louis, Sam Fox students struggle with the previously mentioned issues and more—and they certainly don’t have a quaint Italian market

full of freshly picked peaches and cherries just around the corner from classes. Nor do they have any source of sustainable, quality food near their classrooms (there’s only so many pre-packaged crackers and squishy grapes one can eat for a daily meal). In a survey I issued to get feedback on the matter, I asked Wash U students if they felt that Sam Fox students in particular were treated equally and fairly. Of the 51 respondents who indicated they were Sam Fox students, only 23.5 percent agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. 23.5 percent were neutral. 53 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, which means that over half of responders who are in Sam Fox do not believe they are treated fairly or equally by the Wash U administration. In comparison, of the 21 non-art students who responded to the survey, 42.9 percent agreed or strongly agreed that Sam Fox students were treated equally and fairly and 33.3 percent were neutral to the statement. That means that while a majority of art students feel that they are not treated equally or fairly, a majority of surveyed non-art students feel that Sam Fox students are treated equally or fairly or are neutral to the question.

political review | THE ARTS

If a majority of students within one of Wash U’s schools so clearly feels that there is a disparity between how they are treated and how students in other major programs are treated, then fostering a more supportive environment and advising system for these students shouldn’t just be a future plan, it needs to be a current effort. Most of the feedback from non-art students described confusion at the purpose of the survey and why questions like this were even being circulated. On the other hand, much of the feedback from art and architecture majors was nothing but frustration and feelings of being disregarded. One senior art major responded: “We are incredibly shunned. Why are we in the corner of campus so far from everyone else? Why are our food options terrible and parking so difficult?… B School seems to lead such grand lives compared to us—beautiful buildings, great food, great administration and advising, awesome perks, career opportunities. Art Sci too. Art students feel constantly undervalued and unappreciated and shunned. We pay just as much for our Wash U educations as everyone else!” A junior architecture major describes the financial burden placed upon Sam Fox students without much assistance from the administration: “Architecture (and art) students spend on average at least three times the amount on supplies that most students do on books. The fact that we aren’t supplied with a printing budget or material budget of any kind makes our major economically inaccessible. Supplies are to us what a textbook is to other students, and quality matters.” A sophomore art major expressed nothing but frustration with Sam Fox: “I have been very disappointed in the way Sam Fox is run over the past few years and how my education is majorly determined by how much money

Wash U decides to give to Sam Fox each year, which is consistently not enough. The way Wash U continues to undervalue its art school has been enough to make me seriously consider transferring.” According to Wash U’s admissions website, the Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts “combines strong studio programs with the resources of one of the nation’s finest university art museums. This environment enables the Sam Fox School to chart innovative directions, create new knowledge, advance the theory and practice of art and architecture, and address social and environmental challenges.” This statement seems to be at odds with the majority of students’ experience. Just as Wash U and the specific Sam Fox school administration challenges students through rigorous coursework and time-consuming assignments, they both need to make sure that this environment itself has all the necessary components to support these students in their endeavors. If a majority of students within one of Wash U’s schools so clearly feels that there is a disparity between how they are treated and how students in other major programs are treated, then fostering a more supportive environment and advising system for these students shouldn’t just be a future plan, it needs to be a current effort. Admittedly, many of the Sam Fox school’s problems stem from its separate physical location and poorer funding from alumni endowments than other Wash U schools. While Wash U has already announced future plans to expand the art school and integrate it more

with the main campus, in the meantime, there are plenty of simple ways administration can improve Sam Fox to help current students have a better experience and also to acknowledge that these students are being heard right now. The general consensus of surveyed students on ways that administration can improve its treatment of Sam Fox students includes the following: • Provide better advising • Provide better career resources • Improve the state of old facilities and obtain better equipment • Recognize how much time actually goes into Sam Fox classes when assigning credits • Allow Sam Fox students the freedom to pursue second majors or minors or take classes in other schools by being more flexible with scheduling • Consider exam schedules when creating class times • Subsidize expensive art supplies or at least try to provide at a reduced price • Give Sam Fox students at least double the amount of printing money they currently receive (which would be as much as B-School and Engineering students currently receive) • And, for Connie’s sake, give Sam Fox students a better selection of actual food in Etta’s. The five options of stale, packaged sandwiches and wilted salads are not acceptable when for many students this is the only source of food they can obtain between multiple three hour studios a day.

Lauren Berger is a junior in the Olin School of Business. She can be reached at laurenberger@wustl.edu.

political review | THE ARTS

ARE SAM FOX STUDENTS TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY? Research by Lauren Berger | Infographic by Vic Gainor

Are Sam Fox Students Treated Equally and Fairly? Sam Fox students (51 respondents)

= â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

Non-Sam Fox students (21 respondents) 42.9% agreed/strongly agreed 33.3% neutral 23.8% disagree/strongly disagree

23.5% agreed/strongly agreed 23.5% neutral 53% disagree/strongly disagree

Better career resources and advising?

â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

+ =

Cheaper supplies!

Reasonable credits for studios, and more freedom with minors and double majors.

More printing credits.

More food options!

political review | THE ARTS

Who Tells Your Story Maureen Flaherman | Illustration by Naomi Giddings

lexander Hamilton is known in the twentyfirst century American consciousness as a staunch Federalist, the architect of the United States’ financial system, and the victim of a deadly pistol duel. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical “Hamilton” upholds this image while also portraying a man with weaknesses and hardships relatable to his twentyfirst century audience. “Hamilton” has gained fame for its use of hip-hop and rap music to tell the story of one of America’s founding fathers. Based on Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography Alexander Hamilton, the musical chronicles Hamilton’s rise from obscurity as a teenager recently arrived in New York from the West Indies. It depicts his role as an aide to Washington during the Revolutionary War, his writing of The Federalist, and his tenure as the Secretary of the Treasury. Not only does the show recount Hamilton’s political achievements, it also describes his romantic entanglements and personal relationships. The story Miranda tells is a classic, but the medium he tells it through is revolutionary. Its musical numbers put eighteenth-century events in a twenty-first century voice by incorporating rap and hip-hop styles. Characters dressed in period costumes sing songs like those heard on the radio today, and historical speeches and letters are sung to a rap beat. By telling the story of a powerful intellectual using a genre often dismissed as lacking depth, Miranda condemns the distinctions often made between sophisticated culture, reserved for the elite, and popular culture consumed by the masses. Alexander Hamilton lies just outside the canon of founding fathers; in history classes he takes a backseat to such leaders as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. His contributions to American government are immeasurable but difficult to concisely explain. The federalist ideology and the American financial system are

and ideas in language that modern Americans are familiar with furthers this sense of familiarity, breaking down Hamilton’s image as an inaccessible theorist.

integral to life in the United States today, but many people don’t understand their intricacies. While Americans recognize Hamilton’s name as among those that founded the nation, they often don’t know many details of his life. Understanding Hamilton’s political and ideological viewpoints is reserved for those who specifically pursue that knowledge. Rap and hip-hop are sometimes considered modern and unintellectual, the opposite of Hamilton’s educated and old-fashioned language. Miranda upends this perception by using these genres to depict Hamilton’s life. By using hip-hop to discuss the most foundational ideas of American democracy, he lends the genre a sense of legitimacy and versatility. Furthermore, he demonstrates that rap and hip-hop have merit as musical styles, disproving critics who claim that they lack artistic integrity. By setting famous political leaders’ lines to a hip-hop style, Miranda makes them more relatable to the average audience. He often puts the ideas of the American Revolution into contemporary language, or simply spices up well-known language by adding a new beat. By interspersing Hamilton’s political achievements with stories of his marriage, his extramarital affair, and the death of his son, Miranda lends Hamilton a humanity that audiences can sympathize with. Putting Hamilton’s words

“Hamilton” also questions standard interpretations of history by casting mostly people of color. Rap and hip-hop are considered AfricanAmerican styles of music, and by casting people of color to perform a genre pioneered by people of color, Miranda highlights historically marginalized cultures. In telling a traditional American story through marginalized people and art forms, he also demonstrates that the struggles of today’s oppressed groups are similar to those of our founding fathers. Miranda’s comparison of contemporary and historical fights for equality legitimizes today’s conflicts while making past issues easier for modern audiences to understand. The final number of “Hamilton” is titled “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story,” highlighting the intersection of art and history in the musical. Throughout the show, LinManuel Miranda emphasizes the difference that the storyteller can make to the outcome of a narrative. By using popular genres of music to tell a traditional story, Miranda makes that story relevant to the modern age. He also gives rap and hip-hop legitimacy as traditional genres of music. Miranda tells a tale of a stuffy old intellectual through a modern medium, and celebrates an underappreciated genre of music as a vehicle for a timeless story. By demonstrating the fluidity of the line between traditional history and modern culture, “Hamilton” shows that distinctions between elite and popular culture hold very little meaning. Maureen Flaherman is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at maureen.flaherman@wustl.edu.

political review | THE ARTS

Porn is Bad Grace Portelance | Illustration by Kat Bourek

ornography is inherently and irrevocably harmful to human sexuality, and you all are a part of it. I say you all, because the supermajority of college men and about 18 percent of college women watch porn regularly. Those who watch porn multiple times a week, or even a day, see themselves as one of millions of consumers, detached from the fact that they are contributing to the demand for one of the great ills of society. To be honest, this argument generally doesn’t land well on young men, and most people who are anti-porn are accused of being prudes, or out of touch with their own sexuality. Being opposed to porn, however, isn’t the same as being against sex, or being against sex workers. Being against porn means that you stand against an industry that actively exploits women, and destroys the development of healthy sexuality in young people.

involved in porn, there are thousands of young girls with no other options who are pulled into the industry. Of the thousands who enter the industry each year, a few get active Twitter followings, book deals, and public appearances. The rest end up working in physically and mentally taxing conditions, partaking in scenes and acts that they never expected to be involved in. We have convinced ourselves that porn is harmless and victimless. This is simply not the case.

We all intuitively know that pornography is not great for young minds and the young women who become involved in it. We know it isn’t realistic, we know it is exploitative. However, that doesn’t stop us from watching it. Thirty percent of all data transferred across the World Wide Web is pornographic content. To put this into context, more people visit porn sites each year than Netflix, Twitter, and Amazon combined. Videos populate these sites by the thousands. And each one causes immeasurable harm to women and men across the world.

According to the 2015 documentary Hot Girls Wanted, “Major amateur porn companies typically book a new girl 2 or 3 times…Unless she is a breakout success, she will have to accept more niche-oriented jobs in order to keep working.” These niche-oriented jobs refer to the most degrading and violent acts. Even when you watch so called “vanilla” porn, where there is no clear exploitation, you are helping create demand for sadism such as facial abuse pornography, where scenes depict women forced to give oral sex until they vomit, and are often forced to eat that vomit. I cannot stress enough that these are not small percentages of the content available. The 2010 Violence Against Women study found that 88.2 percent of pornography shows verbal or physical violence towards women. For those women who entered the porn industry because they had few options and couldn’t turn down the idea of easy money, it is a rude wakeup call to realize that their career must become one filled with these painful and degrading acts desired by these so called “niche groups.” Nobody would engage in these types of videos if they had other options.

There are many people, both inside and outside the industry, who believe porn can be done humanely—in a way that realistically depicts sexual interaction. The trend of “sex positivity” has attempted to reclaim porn as a beautiful art of women expressing their sexuality. However, for each enlightened, sex positive woman

If the fact that porn as an industry is violent and harmful to women isn’t enough, the widespread access to pornography is harmful to the developing sexuality of adolescents. Porn is centered on the sexual act itself, which is nowhere near sufficient in capturing the nuances of true human sexuality. Consider the

We have convinced ourselves that porn is harmless and victimless. This is simply not the case.

fact that the majority of young people’s first exposure to sex is through pornography, and they see women brutalized again and again onscreen before they even have their first kiss. How can these young people, primarily boys, understand how to be a caring, respectful partner when their teacher is pornography? How can girls be safe around boys who learn how to behave during sexual encounters from porn? Violence, coercion, and unhealthy power dynamics are present in porn more often then they are not. New societal issues such as young men becoming addicted to porn, no longer able to function normally sexually or form relationships, are becoming commonplace, and we are all to blame—hundreds of thousands of acts, hundreds of thousands of women in millions of combinations are at adolescent’s fingertips. With our lack of coherent sex education in most parts of the U.S., most young people’s sex ed comes from porn, and anyone who has ever watched porn can tell you that this is a major problem. When it comes to porn, we choose not to think about the humanity of the people in the videos. Deep down, I think we all know that what happens to women in these few minute clips is creating unhealthy behaviors in our youngest generations and altering our views of what sexuality is supposed to look like. Porn will never go away. But we can at least be aware of how our consumption is affecting our own sexual psyche, and recognize the unhealthiness of the videos we watch. Grace Portelance is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at grace.portelance@wustl.edu.

political review | national

Focus Groups: Manipulation and Representation David Flasterstein

id Abraham Lincoln have focus groups listen to the Gettysburg Address before he gave it? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean that today’s politicians can succeed without using focus groups. They need them to refine their messages and understand how the American people think. But at the same time, focus groups can help politicians mislead and manipulate the public. Focus groups have become central to politics and will remain so for the foreseeable future. According to Frank Luntz, a pollster specializing in focus groups, a focus group works something like this: the moderator brings in a small group of people—usually of the same ethnic group, political party, and gender to make sure that they are expressing their genuine feelings—to watch multiple versions of a politician’s speech or advertisement. Afterwards, the moderator asks the group members how they feel and why they feel the way that they do. By discovering people’s true sentiments, the moderator can determine what speeches and advertisements work best and can understand what the people really want from their politicians. Bill Clinton was one of the first politicians to use focus groups. In the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton was considered a long shot. As governor of Arkansas, he was an unknown candidate on the national level. Throughout the campaign, Clinton used focus groups to combat scandals and gain advantage over his rivals. For instance, he was accused of having a 12-year-long extramarital relationship with Gennifer Flowers. Focus groups revealed that his optimal strategy was to flatly deny the accusations. He was also accused of smoking marijuana. Information gleaned from focus groups helped Clinton craft his now-famous response: “I only tried it once and never actually inhaled.” Because Clinton’s persona seemed distant and impersonal, members of focus groups suggested he make an advertisement about his life story. All of these

Today, politics has become a mix of art and science. factors were critical in turning Clinton into the president. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have used focus groups to determine the best rhetoric to spin issues in their favor. Leading this charge has been Luntz, a master at using focus groups. In 1994, he helped Newt Gingrich and the Republicans take over the House for the first time in almost 40 years. Based on information gleaned from focus groups, he advised Republican candidates to refer to Democrats and Democratic policies using the words “corrupt,” “devour,” “greed,” “hypocrisy,” “liberal,” “sick,” and “traitors.” Ever wonder why everyone started using “climate change” instead of “global warming?” In 2001, Luntz sent a memo to George Bush advising him to change his wording because the new term did not sound as scary. Bush started using “climate change” in speeches, leading to an increase in the use of the phrase. Luntz also advised Bush to emphasize the lack of consensus among scientists on global warming. This rhetoric has helped Republicans win elections. Focus groups have the potential to help politicians mislead the public, but they also help them gain a deeper understanding of what their constituents are thinking. In the past, politics was only an art. Politicians had to use their gut instincts and few conversations with voters to figure out what to say and what policies to push for. This meant that politicians would have to trust in themselves and these conversations to figure out what to say and do, but it also meant they might not understand the concerns of certain voters like minorities,

whom they did not regularly talk to. Today, politics has become a mix of art and science. Politicians must still use gut instincts to decide what the right decision is or policy to push for, but they can also use the abundance of information from focus groups and polls to determine what the voters want them to do. Today’s politicians must combine gutsy leadership with their knowledge of voter desires from focus groups and polling to become truly successful. This year’s Democratic primary exemplifies such a notion. On one side is Bernie Sanders, the instinctual politician. He is willing to say what he believes and hopes that people will follow. On the other side, Hillary Clinton, like her husband, exemplifies the focus group politician. She makes sure that all her policy positions and views are in line with those of enough voters to win the election. Instinctual politicians are charismatic and appear to be good leaders because of their genuineness and gusto, but usually struggle to get enough votes to win a majority. On the other hand, focus group may appear inauthentic and cold, but often get enough votes to win elections. To win races in today’s elections, candidates will have to combine the instincts of the instinctual politician with insights from focus groups, leading the people while also representing their interests.

David Flasterstein is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at davidflasterstein@wustl.edu.

political review | national

Billionaires Don’t Buy Elections Ben Szanton | Image courtesy of Flickr

n September 21st, Scott Walker abruptly quit the presidential race. After two nearly invisible debate performances, he was polling abysmally. Nevertheless, his exit came as a surprise. In fact, just four days before Walker left the race, Nate Silver, the political prognosticator who correctly predicted the outcomes of all 50 states in 2012, was optimistic about his chances to become a more serious contender. Strongly conservative, with an impressive election track record, Walker had always seemed like one of the most plausible candidates for the Republican nomination. As governor of Wisconsin he successfully cut the collective bargaining power of public sector unions. Then, after widespread protest in his politically moderate state, he became the first governor in history to survive an attempt to recall him from office. He was comfortably reelected two years later. In what was maybe the most significant indicator of his strength, Walker entered the presidential race with a formidable Super PAC. Ever since Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited political spending by independent groups, Political Action Committees (PACs) have brought in an explosion of money in politics. Unlike official campaigns, which can only accept a maximum of $2,700 per contributor per election, PACs can take $5,000 a year from a contributor. Super PACs, however, must maintain official independence from a candidate, but they otherwise abide by few rules. They may, and do, produce advertising material obviously supporting a particular candidate. Former advisors to the candidates who are familiar with their strategies can run these organizations. Most importantly, they can receive as much money as the wealthiest people, unions, and corporations care to give. The Super PAC system appears to give more influence than ever to the richest people and corporations. It is ethically questionable enough that most Americans at least generally disagree with it. Although a Gallup poll found

that a majority of Americans consider spending money a form of free speech, the same people polled supported limits on campaign spending. And a Washington Post poll soon after the Citizens United decision found 80 percent opposition to “corporations and unions [spending] as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections.”

The influence of Super PACS, and money in general, has always been overstated. In reality, though, the influence of Super PACS has always been overstated. Super PACs must operate independently enough from campaigns that their money cannot go to as effective a use as a direct donation would. But even if it could, that money would not do as much good as wealthy donors or outraged liberals might expect. Ultimately, the limited success of Super PACs in actually getting candidates elected has only revealed what has always been true in campaigns. Beyond a baseline threshold, more money doesn’t make much of a difference. Despite their limitations, objecting to Super PACs has been an instrumental campaign tactic for perhaps their most vocal critic, septuagenarian socialist Bernie Sanders, and has helped him launch a respectable challenge to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates,” said Sanders, who is one of only two credible candidates in the field to eschew the help of a Super PAC. (The other is selffinanced billionaire Donald Trump, which only seems to confirm Sanders’ point.) Although an unaffiliated group, Collective Actions PAC, has raised $8,795 and counting on his behalf, Sanders has relied on small donations from over 650,000 people to build his campaign. The approach has been effective

enough to generate $26 million in the third quarter of 2015 alone, nearly matching Clinton. Most importantly to his supporters, Sanders has done this while mounting a principled stand. Meanwhile, the Super PAC backing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Priorities USA Action, has already raised nearly $16 million. Three different groups supporting Ted Cruz have combined to generate more than $36 million. The Jeb Bush–championing Right to Rise USA has over $103 million in the bank. And before he had to drop out, Walker’s Super PAC, Unintimidated PAC, was the second richest, boasting more than $20 million. It didn’t mean much. Unintimidated PAC made little to no difference in Walker’s support with voters. In fact, it probably hurt his campaign. Although the Super PACs may seem to be independent in name only, with the nine richest ones in this election dedicated to helping a specific candidate, they cannot directly consult with the campaigns about strategy or, of course, send the candidates any of their millions of dollars. Unintimidated PAC, under the leadership of two of Walker’s former campaign managers, lined up a group of wealthy people to donate. Walker even drew the public support of conservative billionaire David Koch, one of liberals’ least favorite people in America. Yet when Walker’s campaign was languishing, his former campaign managers could not offer advice. When he struggled to raise enough money from average voters to pay his staff, Unintimidated PAC, as unintimidated as it may have been, could not help him out. Much the same was true for Rick Perry. The far-right former Texas governor entered the 2016 race after flaming out in 2012, backed largely by two very rich Texas businessmen. One Perry-backing Super PAC raised nearly $3 million, and another raised $10 million. After he failed to make any impression in the cramped Republican field, however, Perry had no choice but to end his run. Beyond just the limitations on the freedom of Super PACs, though, the idea that a few billionaires could ever buy a presidential election

political review | national PAC raises is simply not that effective at changing election results. In 2012, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson spent more than $150 million on a variety of Super PACs and other nonprofits with the goal of beating President Obama. The Koch brothers spent around $60 million in addition to organizing their rich friends. All in all, the top two conservative Super PACs generated a staggering $271 million compared to less than $157 million for their top three liberal counterparts. Obama still won.

is fundamentally flawed. It is true that the candidates that raise more money usually win. In fact, a study by the nonpartisan organization United Republic found that 91 percent of 2012 congressional candidates who generated more than their opponents came out on top. Although presidential elections are much less stacked in favor of one candidate–in congressional elections the incumbent is typically a prohibitive fundraising favorite–the winner of 10 of the 14 presidential races since 1960 has raised more than his opponent. But what causes what? If the more popular candidates tend to bring in more money from more people and the more popular candidates tend to win, this proves nothing about the role of the money. Indeed, a closer look at those 14 elections suggests just how tenuous a connection money actually has to the popular vote. Just two of the six races in which the candidates raised essentially the same amount of money were remotely close. In the most lopsided vote tally of all, 1964, Barry Goldwater received just 38 percent of the popular vote even though he had access to almost double the funds of Lyndon Johnson. Of course, 14 elections is also a very small sample size. To better understand the role of money in politics, economist Steven Levitt did

his own study. His results: holding everything else constant, congressional candidates who spent twice as much ended up doing one percent better in the popular vote than they would otherwise have done. So money has an impact on elections. It can increase a candidate’s exposure and pay for staff on the ground (although if it’s raised by a Super PAC it can’t even do that). Campaign contributions also create some incentive for the candidate to promote the interests of their donors while in office, although donors are probably likely to give to people who agree with them to begin with. Maybe most significantly, a baseline amount of money can be a barrier to entry in politics. There are always exceptions. Dave Brat, for example, challenged and beat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Virginia congressional primary last year despite raising one-fortieth as much money. Fundraising, though, always has and always will play some role in campaigns. Citizens United may have changed the game, but it has not much affected the outcome. The decision ushered in an era of the wealthiest Americans trying to dictate elections. They just haven’t really been able to do so. Money does not have as powerful a role on campaigns as people may think, and the money that a Super

In the 2016 race, Donald Trump and Ben Carson have led the Republican pack. Between them, they had less than onefourteenth the Super PAC money of Jeb Bush as of mid-October, who is polling further down in the Republican field. Ted Cruz, with a large war chest of his own, has done even worse in the polls. On the Democratic side, Sanders, with no Super PAC money at all, is encroaching on the fundraising powerhouse Clinton. No matter who is elected, our next president will have spent a massive amount of money on his or her campaign. A Super PAC will probably have spent even more. At first glance, we do have a system “where billionaires are literally able to buy elections.” But Bernie Sanders is wrong. Those purchases aren’t very effective. Billionaires don’t really control elections. Voters do.

Benjamin Szanton is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at benjamin.szanton@wustl.edu.

political review | national

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Boehner’s Tenure in Review Michael Lukauskas

he regular guy from Ohio is leaving Congress. Republican John Boehner announced on September 25 that he would be resigning from his position as Speaker of the House. Although some in his own party have been calling for a new Speaker since as early as 2013, Boehner’s announcement still caught the press and many politicians by surprise. His resignation comes at the start of his third term since he started as Speaker in 2011. Boehner’s initial election as Speaker was a real moment of accomplishment for a man who came from extremely modest circumstances, as one of twelve children growing up in a two-bedroom home. Even before winning the Speakership, Boehner was quite active as a member of the House of Representatives. Along with helping to craft the “Contract with America” in 1994, Boehner was one of four coauthors of the controversial— but bipartisan— No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Boehner continued to build his reputation as a star of the Republican Party by becoming the Republican Leader of the House in 2006. When, in 2010, the Republicans gained a majority as a result of the increased popularity of the Tea Party movement, Boehner was elected unanimously by his party to serve as Speaker of the House. Ironically, the Tea Party movement, which helped complete his rise to the top of the Republican Party, also played a significant role in ensuring that Boehner will not leave much of a legacy behind as he departs from office. He often had to fight with the more extreme factions of the GOP just to maintain the status quo. Those who recall Boehner’s time as Speaker are likely to remember the government shutdown of 2013, the most infamous instance of Boehner’s inability to unify his party around a strong strategy. With the Republicans and Democrats unable to come to an agreement over the government budget and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act,

the House Republicans stubbornly allowed the government to shut down before capitulating to President Obama’s demands 16 days later. Although his primary goal may have been to reach a pragmatic compromise, Boehner was crippled by his inability to control the far right members of his own party and the fear that compromising with the Democrats would alienate too many within his own party and cause him to lose his job.

Boehner was crippled by his inability to control the far right members of his own party. In this instance, as with many others during his multiple terms, Boehner was unable to impose party discipline as effectively as Denny Hastert, his Republican predecessor. Hastert was often seen as an uninvolved Speaker earlier during his career because of numerous ethical charges brought against prominent Republican House members (and later himself). However, his ability to control the members of the GOP through whatever means necessary was never questioned. Hastert and other successful Speakers like Nancy Pelosi had the skills and ability to ensure discipline and unity among their respective parties that Boehner did not possess. Admittedly, Boehner dealt with a different set of challenges than either of them, as he presided over a unique period in the Republican Party where Tea Party extremists dominated much of the GOP’s rhetoric and were often unwilling to accede to even the smallest of compromises with

the Obama administration. A more proficient Speaker, however, may have been able to cope with some of Boehner’s challenges in a more effective way. Boehner’s departure from office marks the end of a tenure that did not see much legislative progress, but it could also signal a change in the way the Republican Party operates. Boehner is often celebrated as a politician who is capable of compromise, civility, and pragmatism, all positive traits that accomplished very little for him during his time as Speaker. In an era when politicians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul—whose filibusters and empty bluster earn more political capital than Boehner’s careful negotiation— have taken center stage, it is worth asking whether or not the Republican Party is headed in a new and unfamiliar direction. Could it be, as Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid tweeted after learning of Boehner’s resignation, that “the party of Eisenhower and Reagan is no more?” The Republicans head towards an uncertain future, having ousted a reputable politician from the Speakership. They know that the next Speaker must either do what Boehner could not and unite a party in disarray around a more moderate agenda, or else acquiesce to the extremist forces that threaten to tear them apart.

Michael Lukauskus is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at mlukauskas@wustl.edu.

political review | national

The Unspoken Jewishness of Bernie Sanders Reuben Siegman | Illustration by Michelle Cunningham

hether you like it or not, faith plays a large role in politics. Recently, when Pope Francis came to the U.S., he spoke about the need to take care of our environment and to help the poor. Many politicians use faith to guide them in social issues like samesex marriage and religious liberty. It is also something that often connects politicians to the people, as many try to invoke religious rhetoric to validate their opinions. In a country where we proudly celebrate our freedom of religion, we have yet to see a nonChristian president. Why is this so? Why do we make a huge deal of other firsts, the first black president, first possible female president, but not the possibility of the first Jewish president? It would certainly be a significant achievement for Jews. As anti-Semitism is rising globally, it would be hard to imagine a Jewish leader of a European state in the 21st century. To have a Jewish president of the United States would be an incredible milestone for Jewish people. This year there is a Jewish candidate seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for president that is solidly in second, and leading in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. Although it’s not commonly discussed in the media, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Why hasn’t his Judaism been talked about? The last viable Jewish candidate running for President of the United States was Joe Lieberman, who ran in 2004 after running alongside Al Gore on the previous ticket. Lieberman’s campaign did not win any caucuses or primaries, causing him to drop out in early February. Bernie seems to have a much higher likelihood of winning the nomination than Lieberman did. In 2008, the historic importance of Barack Obama becoming the first black president was widely discussed. In 2012, Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith was also seen as historic. Today, Hillary Clinton is making sure voters know the

importance of a female president. Yet, we do not hear any of these discussions regarding historic importance when talking about Bernie Sanders’ campaign. As much of an achievement as having a Jewish president would be, it does not seem that the Jewish community has rallied around Sanders. Many of the big donors in the community have either supported Republicans or Hillary Clinton. According to an American Jewish Coalition poll in September, Hillary Clinton leads the Jewish vote with 40 percent, while Bernie come up in second with 18 percent. However, within the Jewish community there has been little talk about Sanders being Jewish. One does not have to support Bernie to talk about the importance of a Jewish president, and what it would mean to the Jewish community at large. One possible reason for this is that Bernie doesn’t speak about his Jewish identity often— he rarely publicly speaks about his upbringing and identity. Sanders mentioned in a recent New Yorker profile by Margret Talbot that one of the most formative experiences of his life was realizing how many family members his father lost due to the Holocaust. This made him realize the importance of politics in affecting people’s lives. Even as other candidates continually talk about their religion, it is not in Bernie’s style to do that; he is all about talking about policy. However, the more one looks at Bernie and his influences, it is clear that Judaism does play a role in his life and identity. Some of his closest friends and members of his inner-circle are observant Jews, and have said that he has a strong Jewish identity based on ethnicity and culture. Another reason people might give for his reticence on the subject is that Bernie is a secular Jew. But many Jews are secular and define their Judaism more on their culture and ancestry. One’s level of observance does not define whether or not he or she is Jewish. Even though other Jewish lawmakers have

been more open about their religious identity and observance, Bernie still defines himself as Jewish and should be looked at just like any other Jew who is running for office. A final reason people could mention is that Bernie has not embraced the Jewish community, and so they have not embraced him. He has spent most of his political life in Vermont, a state not known for its Jewish community. For whatever reason, Sanders has not really embraced the Jewish community. None of this means that the Jewish community should not embrace Sanders. Even if you do not agree with his policies, it is important that the community makes it known that he is Jewish and that it is a significant achievement for the community to have someone running for President. Jews should be proud of the fact that we play an important role in the presidential process. The lack of media coverage on his Jewishness is astounding, and it is up to Jews to make it known that we have a candidate running for president.

Reuben Siegman is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at reuben.siegman@wustl.edu

political review | INTERnational

YOUR IDEAS

HERE WRITE

wupr is always accepting submissions from washington university undergraduateS.

SEND YOUR IDEAS TO EDITOR@WUPR.ORG MEETINGS ON THURSDAYS AT 7PM IN THE PRINT MEDIA STUDIO (3RD FLOOR DUC)

political review | INTERnational

Entropy in Egypt Aryeh Mellman | Illustration by Juliet Goodman

s usual, the Middle East is dominating headlines. The bloody war in Syria drags on with no signs of slowing, Saudi Arabia is launching airstrikes at Yemen’s Houthis, ISIS continues its rampage into Iraq and Syria, and the U.S. is watching carefully to ensure Iran implements its part of the nuclear deal signed over the summer. Left out of these headlines is a country that is four years removed from protests of two million people, which led to two revolutions and three rulers in that time: Egypt.

Unfortunately, Sisi’s national program contains more than these two planks. Arguably his most prominent policy is his violent repression of free speech and civil society. Sisi has enacted a slew of repressive laws that control NGOs and restrict speech that differs with the official position on terrorism. The Egyptian strongman has gone even further in practice, initiating mass arrests of over 40,000 protestors, killing over a thousand in the process, and sentencing over 500 more to death.

Current Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has endeared himself to Western leaders by pursuing the twin goals of reforming extremist Islam and fighting terrorism in the region. In a January speech, Sisi called for a “religious revolution,” made necessary because “the Islamic world is being torn…by our own hands.” After wresting control of Egypt from the Muslim Brotherhood, Sisi is attempting to promote moderate Islam as an alternative to ISIS’ Sunni extremists.

Even if Sisi’s iron fist is able to stamp out any possibility of a popular revolution, his association with the U.S. will drive anti-American sentiment in Egypt.

Sisi has been equally insistent on combatting terrorism in his region. He launched a comprehensive campaign into the Sinai Peninsula designed to flush out Ansar Bait al-Maqdis (now known as Sinai Province), a terrorist organization affiliated with ISIS that has entrenched itself in the Sinai and has attacked Egyptian soldiers and civilians alike. Somewhat more surprisingly, Sisi’s Egypt has also been a staunch foe of Hamas, the terrorist group that runs the Gaza strip. During Hamas’ latest war with Israel, Sisi closed the aboveground Rafah crossing (Gaza’s only non-Israeli land border and shut down nearly all of the tunnels used by Gazans to smuggle military and civilian goods. There are more complicated political dynamics at work here; Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sisi’s primary domestic foe. Nonetheless, Sisi’s positions make him appealing to the West. Indeed, President Obama lobbied Congress in 2014 to pass a law that would nullify an existing law which prohibited the U.S. from continuing aid to Egypt after a coup. The new law was passed, and the U.S. transferred $1.5 billion to Egypt.

American support of Sisi in light of these policies reflects an inability to learn lessons from past military engagements. Sisi’s continuation and expansion of Mubarak’s repressive policies ignores that the 30-year dictator’s rule led to the largest popular protests in recent history. Even if Sisi’s iron fist is able to stamp out any possibility of a popular revolution, his association with the US will drive anti-American sentiment in Egypt. An increasingly desperate political situation can allow terrorism to thrive. Thus, while Sisi is materially combatting terrorism in Gaza and the Sinai, he is unwittingly supporting it in his own country. This is another unlearned American lesson. Fighting terrorism isn’t like fighting a conventional army, in that you cannot defeat them with direct force alone. President Obama’s recent decision to delay the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan was made in large part due to the fact that, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, the

Taliban occupies more territory in Afghanistan than at any time since 2001. ISIS has also made inroads. This is despite roughly a trillion dollars spent and 14 years of fighting from the most powerful army in the world. Sisi’s mass imprisonments are particularly counterproductive. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of ISIS, was imprisoned by US forces in Camp Bucca in Iraq, and used his time in prison to radicalize his fellow inmates and build up a vast network of likeminded supporters. Sisi would do well to keep this lesson in mind as he fights against Baghdadi’s army: imprisoning vast numbers of people with similar ideologies for little reason will create a bitter distaste for Sisi’s Egypt (and by extension, a distaste for America), while gathering them together in a community. As one of Baghdadi’s inmates at Bucca reflected in an interview with the Guardian: “If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no [Islamic State] now. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.” Sisi’s methods are cruel and counterproductive, but that doesn’t mean he is completely useless as a regional partner for the U.S. He is committed to fighting terrorism where it appears, and has upheld Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, both of which are crucial for maintaining stability in the volatile Middle East. Nonetheless, the U.S. has a variety of diplomatic tools (starting with the billions in aid) it can use to pressure Sisi into further supporting free speech, imprisoning fewer political dissidents. Those tactics may prove to be even more powerful in fighting terrorism in the long run than any army. Aryeh Mellman is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at aryeh.mellman@wustl.edu.

political review | INTERnational

Syrian Refugees and European Opportunism Bram Osterhout | Illustration by Chantal Jahchan

any politically conscious Americans have by now seen satirist John Oliver’s recent show on the European refugee crisis. I was personally thrilled to see that he covered the topic, since—despite global telecommunications—quality reporting on the crisis has had a little trouble crossing the pond, leaving most Americans uninformed. However, after watching Oliver’s segment, I can say with some degree of certainty they are now hardly more informed. The problem with Oliver’s reporting on the subject is not just an Oliver problem—although in my opinion, the show included a little too much summary of the plot of Days of Our Lives and not enough clarification of European asylum policy—but a general deficiency in coverage on the crisis throughout the American media. The result is a great deal of misconceptions and gaps in knowledge, a few of which I hope to rectify.

Oliver’s first pitfall is the same as that of that of most American news outlets— calling refugees “migrants.” This is a hugely important distinction, as “migrant” means something very different from “refugee,” the primary distinction being that migrants are seeking better economic opportunities and not fleeing conflict. Refugees have specific rights under international law, and it is the legal responsibility of all signatories of the 1951 Convention on the Rights of Refugees to grant asylum to refugees. Some news agencies—including such reputable ones as The Washington Post—have attempted to implicitly justify this characterization by citing a “statistic” that 30 percent of refugees are actually migrants from countries other than Syria masquerading as refugees. Reading a bit deeper into these articles, however, reveals that the “statistic” comes from Tobias Plate, a Press Speaker for the German Interior Ministry, who based it upon the perceptions of border guards and admitted to having no

formal information (something very different from the rather definitive headline). The German media consistently use the term Flüchtlinge (“refugees”) or Asylbewerber (“asylum-seekers”) and not Migranten to refer to the Syrian asylum-seekers.

Because Europe is willing to invest vast amounts of money in keeping refugees out, the majority of the financial burden will continue to fall on the more impoverished nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa. So at least the German media do a decent job of reporting on the crisis, but what about the work of the German government? As usual, German Chancellor Angela Merkel received international praise that she probably does not deserve. Oliver and other pundits praise the German government’s “philanthropy” without pausing to consider that the Syrian Civil War has been raging since 2011, and refugee populations climbed into the millions years ago, so why didn’t they do this sooner? The answer is simple: politics. Over the past few years, the German government has delighted in attaining a balanced budget and playing mad scientist

with the Greek economy. While thousands of refugees have drowned in the Mediterranean over the past several years, Europe’s response has been limited to naval operations dedicated to disabling smuggling operations—not to actually addressing the causes of migration. Four years that could have been devoted to building sustainable housing for refugees and ensuring that the social service system could deal with the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who needed asylum were instead spent improving Germany’s economic status. Why, then, did the German government now decide to let in hundreds of thousands of immigrants—thereby suspending the Dublin Convention’s mandate that refugees may only seek asylum in the nation they arrive in? Part of it is public opinion. Huge pro-refugee demonstrations have sprung up in Germany over the past year, indicating that public outrage was reaching a breaking point. The second reason is economic. To the credit of the American media (and John Oliver), many news outlets have pointed out that Germany has a huge deficit of young, skilled workers, and the refugee crisis provides the perfect opportunity to solve this. This is an excellent deal for both Germany and the Syrian refugees—I don’t dispute that—but in the American media, this is where the story ends. Leaving people with nothing more than the information that all the refugees are going to Germany is problematic. Imagining that the refugees are safe and happy in Germany might put our minds at ease, but it is exceedingly naïve. Searching for articles on the topic Flüchtlinge on the website of the popular German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, I am confronted with the following articles: “Violence in refugee lodgings—Police arrest 15 suspects,” “CSU [Christian Social Union] suggests halt to refugee acceptance,” “14 injured in mass brawl in refugee housing,” “[Local woman suggests] curfew for refugees,” and “Planned refugee

political review | INTERnational

lodging at Bodensee set ablaze.” Within the first half of 2015 there were more attacks on refugee housing in Germany than throughout all of 2014—almost all undertaken by right-wing extremists. In Germany’s recent national summit on refugee policy, no representatives for the interests of refugees were present. (A Federal Press Secretary claimed, “The interests of refugees will be represented by the interior ministers.”) This all tells a very different story than most American media sources. This is not to say that Germany is entirely inhospitable for refugees. Most Germans are indeed supportive of refugees, and there have been moving stories of communities holding vigils outside refugee housing to protect the inhabitants from Neo-Nazi assaults. Huge left-wing protests have occurred in support of refugees—though these have sometimes unfortunately led to physical confrontation with bands of rightwing extremists. The lesson here, however, is that despite all the hardships, Germany is still the country of first choice for Syrian refugees. Many commentators have ascribed Germany’s pull factor to the large social welfare system, but this is an oversimplified take. In fact, the German government has decided to discontinue cash aid to refugees in exchange for assistancein-kind (e.g. food), and this has done nothing to slow the influx of refugees. Germany is not a utopia for refugees by any means—it is merely the best option. If refugees are willing to brave the peril of Neo-Nazi assaults and pervasive prejudice in exchange for (possible) asylum in Germany, it can only mean that the situation is worse elsewhere in Europe. Germany’s actions, made out of political necessity and not out of humanitarian responsibility, are indicative of a much larger European program of isolationism which is having disastrous effects on the refugee crisis. The foreign policy of the Global North since the end of the Cold War has followed this trend of subtle neo-imperialism, which has manifested itself very clearly in the handling

and the long-overdue designation of Turkey as a “safe land of origin,” enabling Turkish citizens to more easily acquire visas to European nations.

of the crisis. The German government has, admittedly rather deftly, orchestrated the current geopolitical situation in Europe and the Near East to derive as much benefit as possible out of the crisis with no regard for the welfare of such policies’ impact on the mostaffected nations. To recognize the devastating effects of Europe’s refugee policy, we must turn our attention from Germany and back to the Middle East. Recent discussions on European refugee policy have been centered on expanding funding for Frontex—the naval anti-human-smuggling operation meant to prevent refugees from reaching Europe—and on relocating the refugees to other countries. On October 15, the European Union signed an agreement with Turkey by which Europe would donate three billion Euros to Turkey (why this money could not be spent to assist refugees in EU countries will remain a mystery) in order to keep refugees from continuing across the Bosphorus into Europe. Why would Turkey—already home to 2 million Syrian refugees—agree to this? Because the European Union has promised an acceleration of EU membership negotiations

Because Europe is willing to invest vast amounts of money in keeping refugees out, the majority of the financial burden will continue to fall on the more impoverished nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa. Lebanon, whose over 1.2 million Syrian refugees make up almost a third of the country’s total population, has for years been experiencing the effects of an unsustainable long-term refugee population. The desperate shortage of refugee housing and the duration of the refugees’ stay has forced most of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon to move out of the camps and into rental housing in cities, which has been disastrous for the Lebanese economy. The labor market has been thrown into chaos (making it little wonder that Turkey does not allow refugees to obtain work), schools with previously ideal student-to-teacher ratios are now overcrowded, rental prices have soared, and healthcare has become expensive and often inaccessible. By now, it should be abundantly clear that Lebanon and its refugee population need immediate relief. It is not wrong even for highly developed nations like Germany to be worried about taking on vast refugee populations—such a massive influx of people in need of care is bound to be difficult to manage. However, this does not change the fact that someone is going to need to shoulder the burden of the Syrian Civil War, and the Global North is better equipped to do so than countries like Lebanon are. To say nothing of the alleviation that the United States could provide by taking in several tens or hundreds of thousands of refugees, countries like Germany need to accept their humanitarian duty—even at the cost of a balanced budget.

Bram Osterhout is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at bosterhout@wustl.edu.

JE R E M Y