The War Photo No one Would Publish

...

who have friends and family in the war and pro-war groups would not have empathized with the photo. By stating this, I believe that empathy is not universal towards any point of view and the photo of the Iraqi soldier would not have had enough force to change the conclusion of the war.

Almost everyone has something that they care very much about. Lots of people stand up to shelter something that is close to them or protest something they believe needs to be alternated. When something like this occurs, there are some who stay by them and take part in the empathy toward these actions. There is also the possibility of people being unempathetic. In a recent article published in the New York Times, a football player by the name of Colin Kaepernick is expressing his feelings in a different way. Billy Witz reports that Kaepernick did not stand for the National Anthem and took a knee instead. Colin Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, heard the sound of the National Anthem did the opposite of what you should do: kneel. The article by Billy Witz titled, “This Time, Colin Kaepernick Takes a Stand by Kneeling,” shows Kaepernick doing just this.

During a preseason game whenever Kaepernick, “entered the field… took a knee, and virtually every time the 49ers offense broke its huttle” he was booed at (3). This challenges Deghett’s argument by expressing the alternate views that United States citizens would have on the photo of the Iraqi soldier if it had been published. Deghett does not include this in her argument. Witz wrote, “What began as a gesture to protest police brutality and social injustice had careened into a national debate…” (2). People started to have feelings of empathy towards Colin Kaepernick. His fans wanted to buy his shirts and get his autograph, more so now because of what he has done.

This is how some would feel towards the picture of the Iraqi soldier. There might be people who would advocate for the image and want more people to understand and empathize with it. Staff Sgt Jonathan Felix was interviewed by Witz and quoted in this article; Felix had been deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan, “‘I understand his message… There is a lot of oppression in the world and he’s fighting for people just the way I have been. It’s mind-boggling that so many people are against him when he’s fighting to take a stand,’” (4). Another example of how the photo would be treated is exactly this; Deghett is fighting to take a stand with the Iraqi soldier so people with empathize and create an impact on how others view Iraqi people. A large group of his fans supported him, “They were mostly Latino, Asian and black” (1), this conveys what group he was connecting with most. These people were showing him support, they experienced empathy because they feel that people of their skin color are being treated unfairly. Just as Deghett feels that the photo of the Iraqi soldier is being treated unfairly by not having the opportunity to be published. This is the one side that Deghett feels that the American people would have towards the soldier.

Empathy and tolerance are extremely similar in the aspect that not everyone feels it to the same level. This creates parts of Appiah’s argument that are not as well thought out as they could be. Appiah believes that if everyone can learn to tolerate others, they can get used to one another. There will always be people that do not agree on certain cultures, traditions and actions which makes his argument problematic. Not everyone can be tolerant of the same things; they can be understanding and try to be accepting but that will not go on forever. People’s core values affect how they perceive things each day.

Appiah argues that, “… the various communities did not have to agree on a set of universal values,” but people can be tolerant and get used to certain ideas, (50-51). However, this argument is complicated by a published article in The Atlantic, “Female Circumcision Comes to America,” by Linda Burstyn, expresses the values of families from countries around the globe. Female circumcision (also known as female genital mutilation or FGM), is the removal of the female genitals. When immigrants come to America, they bring this tradition with them and not many Americans are too keen on the idea. “‘We don’t warn [immigrant] families that we consider this child abuse,’ says Catherine Hogan, the founder of the Washington Metropolitan Alliance Against Ritualistic FGM… ‘this is a clear case of child abuse… protect these girls from barbarous practices that rob them for a lifetime,’” (3). This shows the relation to Appiah’s argument because Hogan shows her core values by being intolerant. She may disagree with this part of the culture but not all parts of it, meaning that some aspects of the culture are believed by Hogan to be good.

As stated before, Appiah clearly overlooks that people can be intolerant to certain aspects of cultures. As the article demonstrates, there are bountiful African Americans and Americans at this day in age who are intolerant and do not believe in this. Many women will not want this done to anyone again because of the pain that they experienced, “‘I was angry and still am,’” stated Mimi Ramsey, an already circumcised woman, and also an activist against FGM, (6).

Although, many Africans still stand by this part of their culture in the United States. As Appiah believes that people can become tolerant, some are tolerant of this, as it has a positive impact on their lives. (3). A taxi driver in Washington D.C. defends the practice. He had his daughters circumcised and said, “I stood over her to make sure she cut enough” and “I wasn’t going to let my daughters have those things!” (4). This side of the story supports Appiah’s argument. This shows that the practice of the female circumcision is strictly on tolerance within what you believe, and this culture has certain core ethics and that is tolerated through practicing specific values.

The idea that Appiah makes about becoming tolerant of another culture and its traditions is shown through an article by Stanley Fish, published by The University of Chicago Press, “Boutique Multiculturalism, or Why Liberals Are Incapable of Thinking about Hate Speech.” This article is about the true meaning of being introduced in a culture and how it affects the way you tolerate it. It addresses being influenced by other cultures and an American’s idea of what multiculturalism really is. Fish claims, “…but boutique multiculturalists will always stop short at approving other cultures at a point where some value at their center generates an act that offends against the canons of civilized decency as they have been declared or assumed,” meaning that people seem to not agree with other