Fall 19, Issue 2: War Is Peace by Avant Garde

War Is Peace

Editorial Note “War is Peace.” 70 years ago, George Orwell’s harrowing phrase in 1984 echoed through the minds of readers and thinkers alike. Many asked how relevant the phrase has maintained its relevance to history, and to current events. Instead of just analyzing War Is Peace, we bring to you an analysis and exposition of the violence of war, and the cost of keeping the peace. Both war and peace are inseparable from expression, culture, art, and sports, and it is through these elements that we have constructed an image of Orwell’s contradictory phrase. 70 years from now, how representative will this image be?

Editor in Chief Youssef Fahmy Managing Director Mariam Said

Executive Assistants Seif ElDein Ahmed Mahmoud Wael Aziz

Associate Managing Director Farida Tarek

Graphic Designers Alhussain Shaker Amr Remah Rawan Shaheen Yehia Khaled

Operations Director Abdurrahman Radwan

Photographers Sally El Fishawy

Graphic Designer Head Fatma Farrag

Editors Asmaa El Nagar Habiba ElHadidi Jonas Rowan Laila El Refaie Laila Ghoneim Mahmoud Fadel Raneem Mangoud Reem Aly Youssef Fahmy

Photography Head Yasmine El Nawawi Managing Editor Laila El Refaie Associate Managing Editors Jonas Rowan Mahmoud El Fadel

Writers Arwa Hezzah Atlas Cecilia Varga Hana Shama Jonas Rowan Kareem Younes Khaled Hamza Konstantin Schäffer Laila El Refaie Mahmoud Fadel Mahmoud Tharwat Nour El Captan Yasser Osama Youssef Fahmy Yumna Omar Faculty Advisor Dr.Sanaa Makhlouf OSL advisor: Rania Nafie

TABLE OF CONTENTS War and Peace Ain’t no Rights for the Wicked This Is The Bad Place! “Fire and Fury”... Or not? Contradiction is Unity War Is Peace: Contemporary Totalitarianism

04 08 12 16 18

The Violence in War The Violence in Peace The Moral and Just War An Empire of Dandelions: Ecological Imperialism Would You Kill the Fat Man? The War to End All Wars

24 28 32 36 40

The War on Expression Art is an Uncommitted Crime These Boots Are Made For Walkin‘ War on Words Football or War? The War on Minds

42 44 46 48 50

AIN’T NO RIGHTS FOR THE

Wicked Writer: Konstantin Schäffer Editor: Laila El Refaie Konstantin Schäffer is a political science student with a soft spot for philosophy and music.

“Men are born and remain free and equal in rights” – the French Revolution promised no less when the National Constitutional Assembly announced the Declaration of the Rights of Men and of the Citizens in 1789. Being human entitles us to irrevocable rights, this is a truth few would argue against. Does it not follow that those deprived of a home, citizenship and protection should be the primary targets of human rights? Looking into recent history, our record is a mixed bag at best. It took us two world wars to realize that the greatest danger to our rights is being excluded from any national category. The figure of the refugee, unclaimed by any state, yet human, signifies that the nation-state does not speak the language of human rights unless it is translated into citizenship. To the human without citizenship, the state is not a protector of rights, but a force of exclusion and violence. But let us first look at how the Rights of Men are codified in our global community. Since the rise of humanism and the enlightenment, the individual human being has become the center of science, philosophy and ultimately politics. The source of legitimate sovereignty could no longer be tradition, heritage or God – only “the people” could be the ultimate sovereign. Immanuel Kant declares this principle the foundation for the ideal organization of humanity: in his essay “On Eternal Peace”, he proclaims that every country should have a republican form of government and thus be founded on the belief of equality of the people. However, Kant’s vision for universal human rights

knocking on the door of a sovereign state is “limited to the conditions of general hospitality.” The foreigner has no more rights than to be a guest, to be not treated with hostility and to seek shelter when their life is threatened elsewhere. If we look into the Geneva Convention of 1951, we can see how Kant’s rationale informed the way we treat refugees: those fleeing prosecution have the right to asylum only on the principle of “nonrefoulement”, meaning that refugees may not be deported to where their life or freedom is in danger. Kant maintains that hospitality is more than philanthropy—that it is, in fact, a universal right. But who provides this right if the human herself is the only source of sovereignty? Jacques Derrida had a rather dim view on the universality of Kant’s cosmopolitan right. Thinking about hospitality, implies a host who extends their welcome to a guest. The host may receive the guest and treat them with highest honors – but they will continue to own the house and expect the guest to eventually leave. A right to hospitality is thus an inherent contradiction, because it robs the host of their choice to receive the guest in a place that belongs to them. Derrida criticizes Kant for ignoring that the relationship between the host and the guest is subject to a power dynamic, whereby only the former has the right to extend and revoke their welcome and the latter is subject to their rules. In reality, our passports suffice as evidence for this; every visa-stamp holds the date signifying the end of our welcome. But this is even more significant for refugees, whose life may depend on the extension of a permit. Every glance at the date printed on a piece of paper reminds them that they are at the mercy of their host’s goodwill.

5 History has shown that the state is not as generous a host as Kant had hoped. Hannah Arendt’s account of refugees between World War I and II illustrates this in an unsettling way: As the nation began to “capture” the state and enforce the notion that “the people” should be a homogenous ethnopolitical group, increasing numbers of people became minorities and undesirable to the state. Pushed from country to country, some had the fortune to be claimed by another nation-state. Others, however, remained stateless and lost their home, their citizenship, their legality; their “right to have rights.” Citizenship became a weapon against those the state did not consider its own, the most extreme case being the Holocaust: Nazi Germany paid painfully close attention to first depriving Jews of their citizenship, then of all legal statuses. Only when no other country would claim them as their own would they declare them inhuman, rightless and unworthy of life. Some might argue that the Refugee Convention of 1951 proves that the international community has learned from this experience, vowing not to let it happen again. But recent episodes of mass migration have caused the nation-state’s muscles to twitch time and again. Egypt’s signature under the convention, for instance, held little value for Sudanese refugees fleeing prosecution in their home country. When they protested their precarious situation during the “Mostafa Mahmoud sit-in” in 2006, the response was excessive violence, leaving 29 dead. Even Western democracies, who pride themselves as beacons of human rights, tellingly titled the waves of migration after 2015 the “Refugee Crisis”, rather than the “Big Welcoming.” Instead of easing the refugees’ struggle to assert their human rights, European states fortified the boundaries of their sovereignty: After simply declaring some countries of origin safe, several European countries have also begun deporting asylum seekers to where they escaped from, leading to multiple documented deaths upon return. All of this is notwithstanding the thousands of refugees dying in the Mediterranean, who never even had the chance to ask for protection because their European hosts shut their doors in front of them. This is the great paradox of human rights: They are written to be universal, yet protected

only by nation-states. As long as the nationstate’s sovereignty divides people into citizens and aliens, the human being as such falls between the cracks of national borders. That nation-states felt the need to adopt human rights discourses surely acknowledges this problem. However, it does not change the fact that universal rights are only as strong as nation-states decide they should be. As long as this continues, we are only one sovereign decision away from stripping everyone who is considered “other” of their humanity. How then could we move towards a truly universal conception of human rights? The dichotomy between citizens and non-citizens seems so inherent to our system that thinking beyond it seems unimaginable. However, it might be possible to disconnect human rights from citizenship. Jacques Rancière claims that human rights are not a status to be granted by a sovereign power - instead, they can be claimed by the rightless through political acts. Consider the Sans-Papier protests in France in 1996: By taking the streets to protest their lack of rights, they forced the state to recognize them as part of the political sphere. While Rancière’s argument seems optimistic, the rejection of the nationstate’s categories might be a powerful tool. What if, for example, refugees and citizens alike took to the streets to assert their rights not as citizens or nationals, but as humans? No longer would the guest wait at the host’s porch if both recognize that it is not the door that defines who they are and that the lock is better left to rust beyond repair.

Sources: Arbutina, Zoran. “Opinion: Germany’s awkward search for a national identity.” DW, 2019. “Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.” UNHCR, p.3 Crisp, James. “One in 18 migrants die crossing the Mediterranean as death rate soars amid divisions over EU rescue policy”, The Telegraph, 2018 Girouard, Catherine.“‘Sweden sends us to be killed’: young Afghans face perilous deportation”. The Guardian, 2017. Kant, Immanuel “Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein Philosophischer Entwurf.” Rollins, Tom. “Ten Years of waiting: Sudanese refugees stuck in Egypt.” Middle East Eye, 2015. Walker, Keith & Jones, Timothy.“Germany’s list of ‘Safe Countries of Origin’ and what it means”. DW, 2019.

American Propaganda poster

Writer: Laila El Refaie Editor: Reem Aly

Laila El Refaie is an author and editor with interests in philosophy, history, and literature. An arid grey mist surrounds the dismal souls as they trudge through the streets—corpses wading through the sludge of the River Styx. With hollow eyes, they have nowhere to look but down. Their aching limbs and bleeding scars evoke no sympathy, and if their nostrils could inhale any more than the minutest wisps of air their lungs desperately lunge for, they would choke on the smell of rotting corpses. Towering buildings clotted together in a gross amalgamation observe, their windows glasses for the eyes of the tyrant. Particles of dust seem to permeate the skin, soiling the blood and inhibiting any semblance of life. Occasionally, one foolish woman will wrench herself from her chains and let out an animalistic screech, but none follow her lead. In mere moments, she is pushed to the ground, kicked eighteen times, dragged in her chains for two hundred metres, and then shot. She is forced to continue moving in her chains until she dies. Finally, her fellow people will drag her corpse until they arrive at their destination. She is not taken off the chains and buried, but is instead left to rot until her bones collapse from the rings—a constant reminder of the fate of fools.

In some way, the images and themes above will likely remind you of something. Whether it’s an image from a film or a scene from a novel, dystopian ideas are far more similar than they are different. George Orwell’s 1984, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, or Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale—all of these are rooted in one common theme: oppression. Their settings are urban, their people are despondent, and there is often some form of discolouration—be it literal or metaphorical. All of these similarities beg one clear question: Why? The dystopian genre is broad and has extended over numerous time periods, but in different combinations and forms, these themes and images tend to prevail. Not only must we ask why these similarities abound, but we ultimately are brought to the question of what a dystopia truly is, at its core. To better understand the nature of fictional dystopia, it is important to understand the context under which they were written. Orwell famously wrote 1984 as a warning against what he perceived to be the future, if Soviet Communism were allowed to flourish in the West. Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit

451 as a response to his fears of the prevalence of book burning in light of US McCarthyism. Atwood criticised American Christian extremism through The Handmaid’s Tale. All of these contexts share one key element: they embody their author’s perception of Hell. While seemingly different in purpose, all three novels seem to criticise the same form of governance—autocratic dictatorships. What Orwell deemed dreadful in the loss of his privacy, Atwood feared in the loss of her autonomy. There is a shared fear of losing individual freedom, and in the loss of freedom, life is presented as devoid of all colour— both figuratively and literally. Happiness becomes a gimmick; language becomes controlled; the individual’s purpose is dictated to them in a way that seems to contradict human nature. In any dystopia, one individual, party, or group hijacks the lives of the masses and enforces its worldview upon them. These contexts are not only extraneous, but lie within the authors themselves. Those who construct dystopias have a clear conception of human nature. An author like Anthony Burgess sees the chaos that arises from a lack of control as the foundation for the dystopia in A Clockwork Orange. Interestingly enough, the protagonist is forced through Pavlovian conditioning to become a pacifist—a dystopian concept by Alduous Huxley’s standards. Nevertheless, the notion of allowing individuals free reign to wreak havoc is rooted in the assumption that humans are inherently chaotic. On the other hand, Ayn Rand’s Anthem holds that human nature is inherently individualistic, but also good. One could argue that through the character of Prometheus, Rand presents the idea that when left to their devices, people will ultimately work for the betterment of society through the betterment of themselves. The state’s hindrance of this process is thus dystopian, because it goes against human nature. What is interesting about these contexts shaping the dystopias written around them is how they fail to acknowledge what would be better. It is much easier to provide a recipe for chaos than to provide one for peace. With regards to philosophical conceptions of human nature, Thomas More argues in Utopia that human beings are generally untrustworthy, and that social stability—produced through surveillance and a near-perfect legal system—is the ultimate utopia. Marge Piercy, on the other hand, believes in innate human goodness. For this reason, allowing people almost complete freedom and encouraging self-regulation (arguably through manipulative means) will ultimately lead to perfection. However, in fiction, the utopia is often represented by the individual(s) who stands up to the oppressor as the

voice of opposition, whereby the opposition is human nature. Regardless of their success, they nevertheless act as a beacon of hope for the utopia. The utopia is therefore presented as the absence of dystopia.

I wish to argue, instead, that the dystopia is rather the absence of the utopia. To quote Christopher Marlowe’s demon Mephistopheles, “this is Hell, nor am I out of it.” He then explains that, after having experienced Heaven and the favour of God, any mode of existence outside of Heaven is a Hell in itself. Similarly, if we immerse ourselves in our conception of a utopia, we will begin to taste it, and ultimately find dissatisfaction in any other form of existence. Plato’s Republic intends to develop the virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice through a perceived internal harmony. Plato also believed that the human soul experiences a form of Heaven both before and after life. If that is the case, then in light of our experience of perfect justice in this Heaven, we will never find perfect justice on Earth. If we take lesser justice to be a form of injustice, then all justice outside of Platonic Heaven is injustice, and if the utopia is tied to justice, then all realms outside of Platonic Heaven are rendered—at least to an extent—hellish in nature. Quite dismal, is it not? Even more so when we acknowledge that all conceivable utopia that does not rely on substantial divine intervention comes with a price. In Plato’s Republic, the guardians, or protectors, of the state are forced to live a strenuous life for the sake of the overall happiness of the state’s inhabitants. Piercy and Burgess both include some level of coercion and manipulation to instill morality in their society’s subjects, at the expense of their autonomy. Only a divine entity can override the need for these costs by altering the metaphysical concepts of morality, human nature, and autonomy. With that in mind, we must be aware of the extent to which our contexts and biases affect our conception of utopia, and while we must work towards the closest achievable thing to our utopias, we must also expand the spectrum to include the utopias of others. Perhaps what we have then will not be a definitive utopia, but it may just come close.

Sources: 1984, George Orwell (Print) A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess (Print) Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury (Print) Kragset, Anne Opal. “Utopian Freedom: Individual Freedom and Social Order in Thomas More’s Utopia, Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time and Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed”, 2009. Messerly, John. “Summary of Plato’s Theory of Human Reasoning.” Reason and Meaning, 2014. The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood (Print) The Republic, Plato (Print) Williams, Layton E..“Margaret Atwood on Christianity, ‘The Handmaid’s Tale,’ and What Faithful Activism Looks Like Today”, Sojourners, 2017.

Sally El Fishawy

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Department of Economics, Lebanon, Beirutâ&#x20AC;?

”Fire an

Jonas Rowan is an American exchange student studying physics and Arabic, and with interests in world politics, economics, and philosophy

Ever since the Cold War, there has been an enormous public backlash to the idea of the use of nuclear weapons, born of the threat of all-out nuclear war that defined the age. By the 1960s, the world had fallen into the lull of a nuclear stalemate; the strategy of massive retaliation developed by the Americans and Soviets sufficiently deterred any direct assault. The same mechanisms which bound nuclear weapons applied to chemical weapons, which preceded them yet carried a similar reputation. Along with the perpetual threat of mutually assured destruction, or MAD as it would be called, came the public’s growing moral opposition to the devastating power of the bomb. However, as many religious authorities have learned, moral prohibitions on sins are rarely effective on their own. After the Soviet Union fell—and its half of the nuclear equation with it—the world has entered a period of perilous uncertainty, witnessing a rise in the use of chemical weapons. With the international community either divided or silent on the subject, it seems inevitable that chemical weapons will increasingly become adopted as mainstream warfare, threatening the existence of entire populations in their wake. While not as massively destructive as nuclear missiles, chemical weapons are much easier to obtain and deploy. Nevertheless, they are still indiscriminately lethal. Typical chemical weapons consist of an agent launched by artillery shells, or recently, on missiles, which disperse a large cloud of some type of gas following impact. The first major battlefield use was in WWI, when Germany, then the rest of the belligerents in response, launched toxic chlorine and mustard gas against each other, in violation of two separate international conventions. Following the armistice, most major powers signed the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which banned the use, but not production, of chemical agents. Despite limited use during the interwar years and WWII, chemical weapons largely joined the same de facto ban on use as nuclear weapons in the Cold War, due to the same principles of MAD.

... Or Writer: Jonas Rowan

The world didn’t see large-scale chemical warfare again until the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980’s, which revived questions about the morality of its use in warfare, or even worse, its use against civilians in the Kurdish town of Halabja. Unfortunately, the international community refused to issue a strong condemnation of the attacks. The lack of repercussions left the door open for more use in the future, threatening to unravel the fabric of MAD itself. After all, threats of destruction mean nothing without the perceived will to enforce them. The next great test of the West’s unwillingness to act came during the Syrian Civil. Despite several NGOs proving Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s culpability in the use of dozens of chemical attacks against rebels and civilians alike, coupled with his clear crossing of the “red line” declared by US President Barack Obama, little action was taken. Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency brought hope that the US could finally act. After all, this was the president who threatened North Korea with “fire and fury” for a mere warning—imagine what he would do to avenge the mass murder of civilians with chemical weapons? As time would tell us, the answer was: not very much. After a sarin attack on Khan Shaykhun in early April of 2017, Trump authorized the launch of nearly 60 cruise missiles, but refused to act further, even after several more reported attacks. The hope for a radical intervention to stop chemical warfare thus continued to dwindle into a small ember. Where does this leave us today? Since the 1980s, the trend has been to increasingly tolerate the use of chemical weapons despite what should be the same deterrence. This leaves the world in a precarious situation; the threat of retribution, which was supposed to have scared off any potential use, was

d Fury”

not? Editor: Laila El Refaie

never carried out, and now rogue leaders carry out such attacks with impunity. Where could this take us? It’s not hard to envision a future in which a seemingly small conflict escalates beyond control with their use. Imagine this scenario: two years from now, strikes from Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Lebanon, and counterattacks from Israel, have been slowly escalating in volume and intensity. This surges until one day, from beyond the pale, a cloud of sarin gas emerges in a provincial Israeli settlement, killing close to 70 civilians and injuring hundreds more. Israeli PM Benny Gantz is furious, and, desperate to reclaim hardliner support after what is taken as a weak opposition to previous attacks, authorizes a retaliatory chemical strike against the targets of his blame in Lebanon, Gaza, and southern Syria the next day, killing hundreds of both militants and innocents. Within a week of the attacks, Iran, predicting US weakness, launches a direct, small scale chemical attack of its own on Israel and openly increases its support to its militias and partner regimes throughout the region. The gamble pays off; newlyelected US President Elizabeth Warren sticks to her campaign promises to prevent the US from joining any more wars in the Middle East, and instead issues a statement “strongly condemning” the attacks, but no US operations are launched. Three days later, the IDF begins an invasion of Lebanon and Gaza on the pretense of “preventing the next atrocity,” but this in itself leads to thousands of deaths. By then, dozens of increasingly powerful missiles, as well as an unconscionable amount of sarin, have fallen on Jerusalem, Damascus, and Gaza, with over a few thousand civilian casualties. Here, full scale war has begun.

This situation is far from improbable. However, you may be thinking, “what’s the point? The region’s peace is balanced on a razor’s edge anyway; a conventional war could break out just like this.” If you did think that, you’d be correct. Unfortunately, it’s the viability of this scenario that makes it alarming; conventional war or chemical, the world still wouldn’t react any differently. The international community, with all its conventions and treaties and disarmament pacts, has grown numb to the use of chemical weapons. Furthermore, following the waves of isolationism in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, even the deployment of weapons as dreaded and appalling as poison gas isn’t enough to shake the West from its isolationist slumber. This scene is certainly avoidable if leaders take care to avoid negligence. The likes of “formal condemnations” or even crippling economic sanctions do little to deter aggressive countries from using force to achieve their goals, as the last two successive American presidencies can attest to. Perhaps it is the distance of the devastating effects from the pristine offices of those making the decisions, or a fear of opening up discourses of criticism that could backfire. Regardless, it is undeniable that chemical weapons are becoming frighteningly prevalent. If rogue states are to be reigned in, their despicable actions must be met with overwhelming force. Many will shun the bloodshed that will inevitably follow such a decision, but such is the price that must be paid to prevent the far more catastrophic death and destruction that chemical weapons will leave in their wake. To quote Voltaire: “history is only the register of crimes and misfortunes,” but it seems the present must pay for them.

Sources: “1925 Geneva Protocol: Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.” United Nations. Brown, Carl. “Public Opinion about Using Nuclear Weapons.” Roper Center, 2015. “Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program”. Central Intelligence Agency, 2007. “Report of the Fact-Finding Mission Regarding the Incident of Alleged Use of Toxic Chemicals as a Weapon in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018”. OPCW, 2019. Schummer, Joachim. “Ethics of Chemical Weapon Research: Poison Gas in World War One”, International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry (HYLE), 2018.

Sally El Fishawy

“Random restaurant in Dahab, Egypt”

16 writer’s bio: Khaled hamza is a writer who tries to dedicate his writings to Islamic interdisciplinary topics and to show Islam’s richness.

CONTRADIC IS UNITY S

hi’ism has been an essential sect of Islam for its representational role of the religion’s ability to envelope people of different mindsets, ethnicities, and cultures. On the other hand, Sunnism was the sect successful in maintaining the Muslim Ummah. This is for the majority of Islam’s followers being adherents to it, and for it, sponsored the rapid expansion of the nation and preserved the theological and exoteric systems of knowledge. Moreover, Sunnism is of importance for the existence of Shi’ism, where the Sunni success in the spread of Islam and the formation of a the theological basis, on which the majority of the Ummah relied upon and continue to do so, is what gave Shi’ite arguments significance. Thus, Shi’ism and its confrontational relation to Sunnism is a mere manifestation of how complementary these two sects are to the heart and soul of Islam. Islam’s merit of encompassment is manifested in the two sects being representatives of dimensions of its soul, each sect being complementary to the other. Shi’ism’s Sunni-rejected statements and Sunnism’s Shi’iterejected statements, being built of each other, are for Islam’s enrichement, and Islam is for their envelopment. For example, the Shi’ite argument setting infallibility and belonging to the blessed household of the Prophet (PBUH) as a criterion for the choice of the successor to the Prophet (PBUH) contradicts what Sunnism sees as the main criterion. However, it is of a complementary role to the Sunni argument of setting the agreement of the majority as the main standard. This example of a polemic between the two sects reflects dimensions within the soul of the Prophet (PBUH), where Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the one who esteemed Imam Ali’s stature multiple times—most famously at the

Ghadir-i Khumm incident, where the Prophet (PBUH) held Ali’s hand up high declaring him a Mawla. On the other hand, the Prophet (PBUH) acted multiple times in correspondence to the idea of Shura. This is evident when the Prophet (PBUH) is seen listening to ideas of his companions on how to prepare for the upcoming battle, which was later named the Battle of Khandaq. Thus, it is crucial to realize that the fact that different interpretations of different evidence extrapolated from the Quran, Hadith, or actions of the Prophet himself act as tools for a broader understanding of Islam. Hence, Islam has to be considered to encompass each of the views of these legitimate sects for them to facilitate the understanding of it. The light of Imam Ali, Hasan, Hussein, and their descendants had to be realized fully within Islamic frames. However, it was hard for the Muslim populace to contain this light considering the ongoing persecution and violence exerted upon the virtuous members of this household. The manifestations of these persecutions commenced by the establishment of a campaign led by the Prophet’s respected companion, Mu’awiyah bin Abu Sufyan, against Imam Ali; a campaign which has been later seen to be Al-Fi’ah Al-Baghiah or the wrongdoing party after the death of Ammar Ibn Yasser (who was in Imam Ali’s army) in the Battle of Siffin. One of the most telling, decisive, and brutal incidents of Muslim history is the battle of Karbala. Imam Hussien and all 72 of his sons, relatives, and followers were killed mercilessly by an army of 30,000 Muslims. This was a great shock to a nation whose Prophet—the grandfather to Hussien—died less than

TION Writer: Khaled Hamza Editor: Youssef Fahmy

50 years prior. Imam Hussien specifically has been the subject of an exalting statement by the Prophet saying: “Hussien is part of me and I am part of him. May Allah love those who love Hussien … ” The battle, therefore, is a strong factor driving groups of realizers of the light of the Household to separate themselves from the populace. The populace didn’t react to it, while the earliest form of Shi’ites did and established the Tawabeen Revolution. Hence, the later construction of Shi’ism is merely an Islamic response to the incidents of injustice and brutality against sacred people. This sacredness is manifested in one of the agreed upon hadiths by Sunnis and Shi’ites, the Hadith-i Thaqalayn, in which the Prophet (PBUH) says: “Verily, I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you: the Book of God and my kindred (`itrah), my household (Ahl al-Bayt), for indeed, the two will never separate until they come back to me by the Pond (of al-Kawthar on the Day of Judgment).” However, it is said that the light of the household of the Prophet was too intense that the Shi’ites couldn’t realize the success of the systems put in place by Al-Khilafah Ar-Rashida and by the Sunni fixed and resilient exoteric systems of religious knowledge. Prioritization of theology and exoteric knowledge systems is, thus, a characteristic of Sunni Islam, while the Shi’ites had Islam’s esoteric dimension penetrating exoteric knowledge orders to the extent of being a part of the Shi’ite theology. This can be explained by a statement made by ‘Allamah Tabataba’i outlining, in his mentioned book, that one of the roles of the Imams is the innovative guidance of the spiritual life of Muslims. Thus, the theological Shi’ite system dictates the sublimation

of the spirit through the Imam’s understanding of the esoteric dimension of Islam. Through the difference, a rare scene of unificatory conflict takes place, where two means of the refinement of the spirit are manifested in the two different sects of Islam. For that it is almost certain that the difference between these two sects serves a higher purpose of constructing a broader, more inclusive, and a fuller image of Islam. The political and social success of Islam in the ages after the death of the Prophet up until the late stages of the Ottoman Caliphate, is to be attributed intuitively to Sunnism. Moreover, Islam’s ability to presist and spread across ages and different historic eras is also attributable to Sunnism, for it formed the majority of the body of the Ummah and the governering body. If modern times are taken into consideration, it is easily perceivable that religion has been marginalized in almost all nations for the spread of Communist and Capitalist ideologies— both being secular. However, Iran, a country with a Shi’ite majority, has been able to construct a relatively successful and advanced Islamic state. The extraction of revolutionary Shi’ism from the prevalent grief-reliant Shi’ism was first done by Ali Shari’ati and named “Red Shi’ism”. Red Shi’ism, in essence and as described by Shari’ati, is the Shi’ism of the first Imam, Ali. Shari’ati goes to describe it as the pure, true, and unfalsified Shi’ism of the revolutionary act and struggle against tyranny and exploitation. At the same time, Shari’ati criticizes the grief-reliant version and attributes to it the betrayal of the revolutionary mission of Shi’ism and the replacement of martyrdom with passive mourning at Ashura and weeping at the graves of the Imams. For this a famous statement of his, in his book Shahadat or Martyrdom appeared on banners in the Islamic Revolution in Iran saying: “Karbala is everywhere, every month is Muharram, and every day is Ashura.” Therfore, In Islam’s broad frame and in its modern political dimension, Sunnism’s natural ability to sponsor perservance and expansion is complemented by Shi’ism’s natural ability to sponsor revolution.

Sources: Shi’ite Islam, by Tabatabai translated from Persian by Seyyed Hossien Nasr Shi’ism: From Religion to Revolution by Heinz Halm Origins and Early Devel opment of Shi’a Islam by S. Hussain M. Jafri

DPRK Propaganda Poster

Writer: Youssef Fahmy Editor: Jonas Rowan Youssef Fahmy is an avid lover of philosophy and examines’ topics from different perspectives while relating them to present times. In 1949, the famous 1984 was published by George Orwell, describing a dystopian world, where The Party, is in control of all aspects of life. The Party’s famous phrase was as follows as printed on the Ministry of Truth:

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The use of this phrase was to promote what is called doublethink, which is to have two contradicting ideas simultaneously embedded in the individual’s mind. Therefore, by undermining the individuality and autonomy of its citizens, The Party is able to install any of their ideas upon society. And through fear, break down the inhabitants’ rationale and install any seemingly impossible contradictory ideas to the populace. When we examine 1984 and other Orwellian (like) literature, we tend to examine the situation of the story itself and not from the start of how this society was formed. This is why many readers of Orwell are surprisingly unable to spot the same totalitarian elements occurring in society to that in Orwell’s work. Since it is not presented to them directly as in Orwell’s writings. If you ask the average Orwellian reader, of totalitarian elements present in society, you will get responses of Donald Trump, Middle Eastern authoritarianism, and how the media fuels violence. While these are all relevant and serious problems, but at this point, they are general knowledge to the public. The origins of totalitarianism is much more complex and deep, to truly understand it, you must delve into deep shit to get it. Doublethink does not stop at authoritarianism or media, but is embedded in the roots of any system, and as it grows and develops, its stem becomes the new social regulator of society. Now in 2019, exactly 70 years later, how relevant are the warnings from Orwell’s novel to everyday life you might ask? The answer is: very relevant.

You, the reader, might believe that doublethink is not present in our societies, but on the contrary, it definitely is; just not in the same obvious, violent, and dystopian world described by Orwell. If you think about the reasons behind some specific wars throughout history, you’d find that Orwell is indeed right. For example, let us take one of the most recent impactful events, the Iraq War. When President George W. Bush talked about “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq, he mentioned that the United States is “fighting for peace”. If we ignore all the context of what happened and the actual behind-the-scenes, or reason of state if you will, isn’t that a clear example of a President implementing two contradictory thoughts to avoid rational discussions? To put it more bluntly, doesn’t this prove Orwell right? That 1984, a book meant to warn society of totalitarianism and propaganda, is actually happening right before our eyes? And for how long as well? After all, it wasn’t just the US invading Iraq, but numerous instances of Kings or dictators who started petty wars to keep their throne stable. The concept remains the same; the difference is the method of implementation. The curious reader might ask: “how do we even say doublethink exists, when we are living in democratic or semidemocratic societies, while George Orwell only talks explicitly of a totalitarian society dominated by one party?” Well the answer is simply that we do not necessarily live in a sort of freedom at all, but more of “given benefits” of the oppressor to the oppressed, just the transitions are different. For example, the world sympathized with the inhabitants who roam the Soviet concentration camps. Today, we sympathize with the Chinese and West African workers, who are working in terrible conditions, to supply us with electronics and products. The difference between our reactions toward the concentration camps and current Chinese and African workers, is that today we are simply only sympathizing, instead of taking action to improve the conditions of these workers or placing sanctions on multinational companies who fail to provide these basic services.

At the same time, we talk about human rights and the basic needs for everyone equally. Doesn’t this beg the question, that we are indeed in a sort of doublethink mindset? For example, I was recently presented with a Digital Literacy presentation, which focused on how acquiring digital literacy and leaving a “digital footprint” are essential for employment. The speaker continued about how having a social media account can be important in the hiring process. The problem arises because the internet is supposed to be a neutral zone that promotes freedom of expression and thought, and not meant for monitoring purposes. If the interviewee has a social media account that is sympathetic to the wrong causes, or has none whatsoever, then the possibility of an employer to consider this a factor in refusing and accepting the interviewee is similar to how the Nazi and Stalinist regimes evaluate individuals based on their forced participation in society, and if one didn’t participate “enough,” they are automatically “excluded” from society. Isn’t this an example of a revolutionised form of doublethink, that we try to promote freedom of expression from the abuse of the state, to in the end be rejected and judged from disagreeing employers?? One that has surpassed the level of authoritarian states and conventional censorship, to a mutated subtle form that is embedded in this Capitalist society? Do we need any more proof that doublethink is the new social regulator that we interact with on a daily basis? If we were to imagine a successor to George Orwell in contemporary society, who would write a modern adaptation of 1984, hypothetically called 2077. Then this descendent of Orwell would not talk about one party systems, small authoritarian figures or totalitarianism, but doublethink, just

how it is implemented from a socio-economic viewpoint and not from one government that has absolute power. This wasn’t the dystopia that Orwell predicted, but that was because his books were a product of their time. The next dystopia is a late stage form of Capitalism that offers itself to us as a saviour, but in the end, as Slavoj Zizek quotes in his book Disparities, it’s merely Capitalism presenting itself with a “Human Face”. For example, both Starbucks and Tim Hortons recently launched a campaign promoting the slogan “For every cup of coffee you pay for, one dollar will be sent to help African children.” At the same time, Starbucks and Tim Hortons were “hesitant” to confirm if their sources of coffee include any sort of child labour. Another example, is how corporations always are in the frontlines of identity politics. It is important to remember they only selectively care about homosexuals, women and minorities as a marketing tactic; trying to expand their reach to the younger generations by proving that they too are woke and “accepting”. This new age of doublethink is not dogmatic as Orwell predicted, but it presents itself in the forms of equality and acceptance. But as Orwell states in Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Sources: 1984 by George Orwell Disparities by Slavoj Zizek Violence by Slavoj Zizek

Hitler parade, Nazi Germany 1935

n i ce

e h T

n e iV ol

e c a e P Writer: Yasser Osama Editor: Asmaa Al-Nagar

Yasser Osama is a graduating senior majoring in Philosophy and Mathematics. His main interests are Social and Political Philosophy and Critical Theory

The feeling of revulsion at violence, from small scale interpersonal violence to warfare, is a common experience. We do, however, hold some moral principles when it comes to justified violence, mostly in self-defense. It is, after all, imperative upon all civilized societies to discard violence or keep it in check. It is only when we let go of barbaric violence that we can claim that we live in peace. Is this understanding of violence sufficient for the well-being and safety of all members of a peaceful society? Anyone suffering under the widespread problems of homelessness, hunger or disease can attest to the opposite when they are barred from life-saving necessities by the current economic system, which most perceive to be functioning peacefully. These are the kinds of systemic—as opposed to individualistic—questions that invite us to interrogate our assumptions on violence and peace.

situations containing the risk of incredible harm, both physically and mentally. If those afflicted try to save themselves by appropriating food or shelter without paying, they will be met with subjective violence, namely the violence of policing.

This threat is not the cause of this suffering, though, despite how its role in maintaining the underlying systemic violence. That violence is the commodification of these necessities under capitalism. We are choosing an economic system in which the fate of a human life is dependent on how much money they have. This betrays the less fortunate, causing countless deaths. Yet, we do not regard these problems as violence, even though we identify them as tragedies. This is because there is no one agent committing these atrocities. Such is the naivety in our collective understanding of violence. We can all agree that societies and countries are peaceful, while knowing fully well that such The philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj tragedies are occurring. Žižek argues in his book Violence that there are two types of violence: subjective and objective. The threat of objective violence becomes a Subjective violence is the type when we can identify powerful tool that enables the peaceful functioning a specific agent or subject performing the violent of society. If you do not contribute meaningfully— act1. For example, a person punching another person identified with having a job, which is identified with or destroying a car is an act of subjective violence. profitability—you run the risk of being deprived of Objective violence is the violence that has no clear basic human necessities. Žižek argues that our naive agent committing the act. One type of objective understanding of violence depends on a background violence is systemic violence, where—among other zero-level of nonviolence. This is the nonviolence we features—there is often no one person or entity to understand as peace. Objective violence can exist blame on its own for the problem. What is astonishing freely without being perceived as violence within about this step in evolving our understanding of this background. The peaceful functioning of our violence is that, despite its mass scale devastation, economic system depends on this violence. objective violence is not categorized as violence. An example of systematic violence is depriving a This threat is unbearably obvious when it human being of basic necessities such as food, shelter comes to sweatshops. The working conditions there or medical treatment. Homelessness and hunger are hazardous and the wages are extremely low— are clearly life threatening situations or, at least, and permitted because of the structural violence

25 of poverty in these countries—to guarantee higher profits. These conditions can cause permanent physical injury, to which workers receive no reparations. There were multiple cases of suicide in the sweatshops that assembled Apple’s products because of the working conditions. The solutions implemented were not a higher pay or more dignifying conditions. The workers were instead forced to sign an agreement not to kill themselves and nets were installed to catch the falling bodies of those attempting suicide! This is the mode of production providing us with our guaranteed commodities of smartphones, clothes, shoes etc. This violence is integral to the functioning of capitalistic societies. Its careful placement in the background guarantees its safety from the category of violence. There are ways in which systemic and subjective violence interact. This is notable in the structural violence of borders and the resultant lack of protection of immigrants. The sexual violence committed against immigrant women in Egypt is rampant and unaddressed. This is common for domestic workers who are forced to work there because there is no other job for undocumented immigrants making reporting more difficult. Their vulnerability is caused by the systemic violence of borders and furthered by capitalism and misogyny. This is but one crisis within the immigration crisis. Notable examples of structural and subjective violence interacting can be found within all vulnerable communities. The treatment of the poorer classes by the police is much harsher than that of the upper and middle classes. The larger systemic violence of the patriarchy, found of widespread misogynistic beliefs. This reinforces the patriarchy that informs these views which further reinforces these views. The existence of this positive feedback loop in the background results in the widespread subjective violence women experience daily. Any intersection of violent structures (e.g. any combination of classism, sexism and racism) only translates to more violence, objective or subjective. Another testament to the naivety of what we perceive as violence is the violence of climate change. In his book Slow Violence and Environmentalism of the Poor, Rob Nixon argues that the gradual nature of the crises of climate change are the reason why they are not viewed as violent, hence the term “Slow Violence.” Climate change threatens complete destruction of ecosystems and would possibly induce a mass extinction event. Evidence for climate change were

kept buried by companies whose profits might have been threatened, if this knowledge becomes public. This violence, even when it has clear subjects performing it, is not seen as violence because it is part of our economic system and its peaceful status quo and because its destruction is gradual. Reserving our indignation to acts of subjective violence—the ones found in revolution, for instance—and perceiving them as the only disruption in an otherwise peaceful reality becomes a morally bankrupt and privileged stance. The retreat into the illusory peace built and maintained with violence becomes an act of complacency. But we are passionate about violence, for better or worse. But we are faced with the naivety of our conception of violence and the lives that structural violence has callously destroyed and will keep destroying. The passionate revulsion we held towards subjective violence must, therefore, be extended to systemic violence. Widespread anger is the only reasonable and ethical outcome.

Sources: 1 Slavoj Žižek, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections 2 Brian Merchant, Life and death in Apple’s forbidden city, The Guardian 3 Nadeen Ibrahim, African refugee women report surge of sex attacks in Egypt, Reuters 4 Rob Nixon, Slow Violence and Environmentalism of the Poor

The Moral and

Writer’s Bio: Kareem Younes Is a writer with interests in politics, economics, law and history; focused mainly on Middle East and Africa “What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation…” -Opening statement of Robert H. Jackson in the Nuremberg trials.

of WWI: “anthropologists feel driven to declare that enemy inferior and degenerate, psychiatrists issue a diagnosis of his disease of mind or spirit.” Those two aspects, formalism in narratives and identification through identity, are symbols that congeal and allow for “racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power” to thrive; the aim here to recognize that war sometimes might be necessary, however, we should not be blind to the blatant violence that often accompanies conflict.

The Nuremberg trial aimed, in the words of British Empire’s representative Sir Hartley, to provide an “authoritative history” of what happened in opposition to Hitler’s “only victory matters” approach. The argument in this article is that both histories, the “unjust” victory of Hitler and the “authoritative” and “objective” history of Nuremberg tribunal are one and the same. In fact, using the same attributes that Robert H. Jackson ascribed to the Nazis, “racial hatreds, terrorism and violence and of cruelty of power,” we can evaluate the performance of the victors in the years following their moral posturing that is justified by an “authoritative history.”

“Lorries used to come daily to the villages with bodies stacked as tall as [points to a muddy house about two meters tall] this house; on days a lot of people had died they would come twice a day.”

There are two facets of importance that go beyond our examination of past atrocities. First the formal construction of history: the need of the British Empire to construct an authoritative history is supported by the meticulous archival system they have/are known of. This formalism allows for the construction of narratives that are deemed “empirical” and “authoritative.” To elaborate on the first premise, we ought to exclude/doubt oral histories, especially when a genocide conducted after the moral postuaring post WWII is exposed. Today, this formalism for example is echoed in the reliance on international standardized news media outlets. Second, Formalism is constituted by a psychological need to identify with one of the parties of conflict, as Freud asserted in an essay published after the outbreak

The previous statement depicts a reality endured by Kenyans during the 1950s, a decade after representatives of Allied powers claimed the moral high ground. Perhaps what is more interesting was the fact that this genocide was mainly conducted against Kenyan soldiers of the Empire, who fought against Nazism in WWII. It is worth noting that the colonial governor leading the genocide in Kenya was the son of Egypt’s Lord Cromer; it seems that it was the mission of one family to reign destruction upon the continent. The genocide in Kenya was only “discovered” or “formalised” in the last two decades. Before we examine the narratives and identity behind the genocide; the following few accounts will help construct an image. Roughly around a million and a half Kenyans were detained in concentration camps; families were separated and the males would operate in death camps resulting in the earlier oral testimony, whereby the lorries move the dead bodies to the sealed villages containing women and children. Men and women in both camps were essentially forced to labor that was subject to acts of daily humiliation and subjugation. Most testimonies included acts of humiliation to break the resistance of the population; men/women often reported being raped with sharp

Just War

Written by Kareem Younes Edited by Habiba ElHadidi objects. A common practice amongst the colonial officials was to force people to drink a bucket of water until water would pour out of their bodies and they would die. The estimates for the killings alone range from 100,000 to 300,000; this figure excludes mutilation, torture, and destruction of communities. There is a reason why those estimates have a wide difference: this entire practice was unearthed, in formal terms, in the early 2000s. The documentation necessary to document this was burned; it is estimated that at least 240,000 documents were burned before the British had left. This “shocking discovery” was often doubted by historians mainly because it relied on fragmented evidence and oral histories. The narrative that allowed for this genocide to occur was that the Mau Mau (yesterday’s freedom fighters in Her Majesty’s Army) were branded as “international terrorists” their practices were described as beyond human. Those “savages” were the focus of British media to incite an intervention that prompted the imprisonment of an entire population to death camps/villages. The professor who highlighted the magnitude of this genocide to international light faced many threats from conservatives within the US to the point that her job was threatened. Luckily, the work of historian Carolin Elkins motivated a lawsuit that unearthed a collection of secret document labeled the “Hanslope papers.” Around 1,500 documents are what remains of the massacre; those documents were deemed too important to incinerate. The genocide in Kenya was “discovered” after nearly half a century; why? This is one of the consequences of conflict/war/occupation, it allows for narratives and identity to intertwine, shielding the world from awful truths. The early documentation of oral histories conducted by Elkins were doubted, the subjects’ honesty was brought into question; they were labeled as “conspirators” and “liars”. The book

that unearthed these atrocities to the global audience was published immediately after the invasion of Iraq; it was a reminder of how grave abuses are conducted in the name of “freedom” and “liberty.” Western ideals were mobilised in colonial Kenya to justify genocide; they were also used to suppress this genocide in order to allow for a new invasion. The victims who were labeled dishonest were vindicated by the new “Hanslope papers,” which were stored in a confidential MI5 facility for over half a century. Those documents did not only include atrocities omitted from British archival records with regards to Kenya, but also from 30 other colonies. In order to avoid humiliation in courts from a history that was not considered “authoritative,” the British government struck a deal with the victims and awarded them 20 million GBP, on average 3800 GBP each. To conclude, it is our duty to learn from these “discoveries.” Those atrocities were not discovered in that sense; they were always known to the Kenyan communities. We do not have to wait 50 years to “discover” the current atrocities in play conducted by those we label the “good guys”; this includes crimes conducted by UN missions, crimes in Yemen, Palestine, Syria, and in the entire region that we live in. War is awful, and perhaps unstoppable by individual efforts. But what an individual might need to do while supporting one side, is not to dismiss the destructive impact on communities that exist beyond the cloud of narratives and identity.

For further reading: Freud “Thoughts for the Times on War and Death” Carolin Elkins “Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya” Marc Parry “Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire” The Guardian. Opening statements of British and US representatives at the Nuremberg trial.

“Random wall in Highfalls, New York”

Sally El Fishawy

Writer: Atlas Editor: Laila El Refaie Atlas is a writer who struggles under the weight of all his unread philosophy and science books. It is a striking paradox that the parts of the world that are most similar to Europe in terms of both population and culture are those which are most far away. A simple explanation would be that over the past 500 years, Europeans have emigrated abroad in droves and displaced many native populations wherever they went; their stunning success being attributed to a superior culture, technology, and weaponry. However, this still does not explain how these “Neo-Europes” were not only Europeanized with respect to human demographics, but also in ecological composition. In the words of historian Alfred Crosby: “perhaps European humans have triumphed because of their superiority in arms, organization, and fanaticism, but what in heaven’s name is the reason that the sun never sets on the empire of the dandelion?” In order to fully understand how these Neo-Europes were transformed ecologically over the past five centuries, we first have to analyze the bioenergetic dynamics of old world agricultural societies and how they have structured the interplay between humans, plants, pathogens, and animals. Both organic and inorganic structures (ie: ecosystems and hurricanes) are crucially dependent on intense flows of energy and materials. Biogeographer Ian Simmons wrote that the “the flows of energy and mineral nutrients through an ecosystem manifest themselves as actual animals and plants of a particular species.” The main form of energy circulation through ecosystems is that of biomass, or flesh, transferring from organism to organism in a complex, heterogeneous mesh of interconnected elements, otherwise known as a food

web. Don’t let the simplicity of the name fool you though; ecologists have learned that the stability of an ecosystem is connected to the degree of species’ heterogeneity in a food web. However, mathematical models of randomly connected food webs tend to become more unstable with the addition of new species. What these models show is that food webs are not randomly connected assemblages of species, but a dynamic self organizing system in which species are connected by certain functional relationships— such as that of predator and prey. In fact, the prime example of a species which significantly restructures its local food web is none other than modern humans. With the development of agriculture in the Old World (Africa and Eurasia) 12 thousand years ago, modern humans have acted to shorten all food chains in the web and focus the flow of energy to the apex. This is done by strongly homogenizing the surrounding ecosystem into a rigid hierarchy. Large swathes of land of a highly heterogeneous species composition are cleared out to be replaced by singular plants. The next level of this hierarchy was populated through the large scale domestication of quadrupeds such as pigs and cattle, which are adapted to readily convert large amounts of plant biomass into flesh and milk. This allowed for a coevolutionary dynamic in which weeds have evolved to opportunistically reproduce in areas overgrazed by Old World quadrupeds. The redirection and concentration of energy through agriculture also allowed for urban centers to flourish in which dense human populations interact closely with domesticated animals. Yet now this dynamic

33 was open to disruption by micro-predators; bacterial and viral pathogens which thrive within densely packed homogenous populations. Contagious diseases and their hosts form complex relationships in which multiple dynamical states are possible. If the population is too sparse, contagion is too difficult and the disease cannot propagate. If the population is too dense or well connected, the disease explosively spreads until it burns itself out in what is called an epidemic. However, when the population density is past a critical threshold and has an influx of new hosts to infect, the disease eventually stabilizes into a steady endemic state after multiple epidemics. This has allowed for European urban centers to act as “Epidemiological laboratories” in which diseases can evolve within dense and homogenous domesticated animal populations, and spread to humans while remaining endemic. It is by this mechanism that these infectious diseases (such as measles and smallpox) are hypothesized to have evolved and transferred to human populations from animal herds. While the Aztec and Incan Empires did have large and populous urban centers, they did not have the required domesticated animals for large scale agriculture. The Incan Empire did manage to domesticate llamas, but llamas do not congregate in dense enough herds to provide the conditions necessary for the evolution of infectious pathogens. Furthermore, the New World (the Americas and Oceania) societies lacked the inter-center connectivity that Europe had with Africa and Asia, which was also crucial for the coevolution of infectious pathogens. With this framework we can begin to understand the asymmetrical transfer of flora and fauna between the Old World and the New World. A prime example is the extreme success of escaped Old World animals which have rapidly multiplied and populated the New World. These fugitive animals not only escaped their masters, but thrived as they disrupted and restructured the local food webs. Old World quadrupeds stripped away the local grasses, which had previously only been lightly grazed. The quadruped fronts spread quickly over most of the continents, leaving bare earth due to overgrazing. This allowed for the European weeds (such as forage grasses) to quickly win out against local plants, forming their own colonization front that preceded the European settlers. As Alfred Crosby poetically put it, “the weeds, like skin transplants placed over broad areas of abraded and burned flesh, aided in healing the raw wounds that invaders tore into the earth.”

The most historically impactful asymmetry however, was in the transfer and deadly impact of pathogens from the Old World to the New World. While lethal diseases such as smallpox, measles, cholera, and tuberculosis ran through urban European urban centers, it was never enough to fully eradicate them. This was due to early childhood exposure, through which many Europeans acquired strong individual and herd immunity in adulthood. The same disease infecting a healthy adult however, would be a death sentence. Thus, these pathogens were planted into the “virgin soil” of the New World and proceeded to ravage the immunologically unprepared native populations. The survivors who managed to flee would in turn unintentionally inflict their fates on others. These diseases were responsible for the absolute decimation of the native populations, and was the main cause of civilizational collapse. In comparison, the worst and most destructive “gifts” ever sent back by the New World were rather milquetoast diseases such as syphilis and pinta. Rather than being the natural Godordained result of natural white superiority, the Europeanization of the New World was brought about by continual disruption; of plowed fields, razed forests, and overgrazed pastures. By twin waves of animals and weeds, disrupting food webs and rapidly replicating. By invisible micro predators, brought forth by the dense congregation of organisms, to wreak havoc among the peoples of a doomed land. The history of the world is not a simple linear history of civilizations and cultures, but a nonlinear history of coevolution, of bioenergetic dynamics, of complex self organizing food webs in a state of continual remodelling. It is by taking a turn towards material reality that we can perhaps begin to understand why the empire of dandelions reigns so triumphantly throughout the Earth.

Sources: Alfred Crosby, Ecological Imperialism:The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 Manuel Delanda, A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History William H. Mcneil, Plagues and Peoples Ian G. Simmons, Biogeography

Victory parade, USSR 1945

Would Would You You Kill Kill

the Fat Imagine you are driving a trolley car, when suddenly, the breaks fail, and you realize that you are hurling towards five unsuspecting workers. In the spur of the moment, you notice a lever that will allow you to shift the course of the trolley onto another track with only one worker on it. What would you do? Would you stay on the original path and kill five innocent workers, or would you change it and kill one? Alternatively, imagine that you’re an onlooker standing atop a bridge, overlooking the scene. You watch in horror as the trolley careens towards five workers, certain that the driver is powerless. That is when you notice an overweight man leaning over the bridge, watching the same scene. If you just give him a tiny tap, he’ll plummet in front of the trolley car, halting its progress with his bulk and undoubtedly saving the workers. Would you do it? Most people would predictably choose to kill the lone worker, but would never dare push the fat person over. This philosophical puzzler was first introduced in 1967 by the English philosopher Philippa Foot, and the fat man version was later added in 1985 by Judith Thompson. The question, upon assuming intentions are identical, is: why? Why do people choose to kill the worker but not the fat person? Two of the theories used to judge the morality of an action are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. The utilitarian approach, created in the 16th century by Jeremy Bentham, specifies that your actions should provide the greatest good for the greatest number, the ‘greater good.’ The Kantian approach argues that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality that Kant dubbed the Categorical Imperative, which is an unconditional principle that must always be followed no matter the situation. In the first variant of the trolley problem, people were mostly utilitarian, focusing on the ‘ends’ where the

biggest number of people would be saved. In the second variant, people found it inhumane to push the fat man, and so thought that the ends didn’t justify the means, a Kantian approach. Considering that both individuals were innocent, why is it that the majority chose to spare one but not the other? It can be agreed that often we find violence inevitable since it is something so deeply implemented in our society that eradicating it has proved impossible without its use. Furthermore, is it even something we can eliminate? After all, we only saw the rise of super bacteria upon using antibiotics. This is demonstrated by one of the media’s most iconic duos, Batman and the Joker. In the film The Dark Knight (2008), Batman’s attempt to exterminate Gotham’s criminals causes the mob to turn to a man they could not understand: The Joker. The plot revolves around the terror inflicted by the Joker, and Batman’s attempts to stop him. However, if you look at it in a philosophical light, you may argue that both characters are opposites of the same coin. Batman used Kantian principles by avoiding killing when securing Gotham. The Joker, on the other hand, used a utilitarian manner to finish the job in a fraction of the time it would’ve taken Batman. He demolished the mob’s influence by literally burning up all their money, revealed the corruption teeming within the police force, gave people hope that, through the darkest of times, there could still be good with his boat experiment, and caused the retirement of the vigilante who deemed himself above the law. Because of him, the police were granted substantially more power due to the example he set with Harvey Dent and for 8 years the city was the safest that it had ever been, proving that he was more effective, albeit inadvertently, than Batman could ever be. According to the principle of the ‘greater good’, the Joker was the hero, no matter what his intentions were. Still, would

Man?

Writer: Hana Shama Editor: Reem Aly

Hana Shama is currently a freshman majoring in computer science but always wanted to be an author you call the Joker a hero? Would you continue calling Batman one, knowing that he could’ve easily chosen to invest his money in projects designed to rebuild the city instead of resorting to violence in the first place? Diving further into the subject, we see many examples where violence is justified in some religions. For example, in the Abrahamic religions Abraham was ordered by God to kill his son to prove his faith in him. His son was replaced by a sacrifice in some versions at the very last second, so Abraham was not forced in the end to commit murder. Still, would it have been acceptable had Abraham gone about the order in a Kantian manner with the argument that murder is wrong? Another example, taken from the Quran, is that of the prophet Moses and his journey with Al Khedr. Al Khedr had divine orders to kill a young boy in order to spare his parents the trouble and misery he would cause them in the future. Here the happiness of two individuals was of greater value than the price of one’s life. Just two! If it had been just one parent, would that have also been acceptable? Where should we draw the line? However, the principle of the greater good is as noble as it is deluding. In WW2, the British used double agents to trick the Germans into aiming their V-1 rockets farther south, deliberately targeting the southern suburbs of London, a sacrifice that saved an estimate of 10,000 people. At the same time, there are many instances where great injustice was caused when some officials claimed to work for the greater good. George W. Bush, for example, justified the attack on Iraq by vilifying the forces there, stating that their objective was to “free Iraq and defend the world from grave danger.” Needless to say, Iraq still suffers from that vision. The problem lies in the ambiguity of the future, something evident in the

bombing of Nagasaki. The Japanese forces’ refusal to surrender at the end of the war forced the allies into a tight spot. To minimize the number of overall casualties, US President Truman allowed the use of the atomic bomb nicknamed the Fat Man. True, it brought about an abrupt end to the war, but was it worth the death of so many civilians? Furthermore, the Fat Man didn’t give the Japanese any room to defend themselves, instead forcing them to succumb to a fiery death. They might have surrendered in the case of a land invasion since it would’ve given them the time to truly review their options. It’s been established that violence is inevitable, but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be regulated. Throughout these examples it became obvious that the two theories of morality are not complete opposites, but much like Batman and the Joker, they are two sides of the same coin; one cannot exist without the other. At the end of the day, everyone has the free will to carefully contemplate the intentions and results of violent actions in a way that maximizes their justifiability. So tell me, in the end, would you kill the fat man?

Sources: “Atomic Bomb History”. History, 2019. Bakewell, Sarah. “Clang Went the Trolley”. The New York Times, 2013. De Vleeschauwer, Herman Jean. “Kantianism”. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2016. “Full text: George Bush’s address at the start of war.” The Guardian, 2003. “Germany Bombs British Towns and Cities”. BBC,

IN the name of peace and progress USSR

“I promise you that this will be the final war —the war to end all wars.” Those were the words of US President Woodrow Wilson during World War I. From the time of that war, and even for centuries beforehand, many people fantasized about the idea of perpetual peace in our world. Ideologies like Liberalism, Marxism, Realism and many others presented their versions of how peace can be achieved, but they required some sort of final conflict or war in order to achieve it. Is it ironic that we have this idea that we must have a war to achieve peace? On the other hand, is it fair to call for immediate peace and maintaining the status quo in this unfair world? It was not until recent times that people waged wars in the name of peace. Waging war used to be primarily for the sake of war itself, and for looting and colonization. Throughout history, various attempts were made to hinder violence. For Arabs and later for Islam, there was the idea of the ‘sacred months’ that limited fighting for extended periods of time. In the Catholic Christianity of the Middle Ages, the Truce of God allowed nobles to use violence for a limited number of weeks. In present times, humans got past the point of the totally unjustified war. Waging war now, in accordance with international law, is prohibited unless it is in self-defense or defense of others. There is no government in the world right now that can start a war without claiming peace and security. This shift in thinking had its grounds in early history, but it manifested in World War I. At the beginning of the war, British writer H.G. Wells wrote in his book The War That Will End War, “this is now a war for peace. It aims straight at disarmament. It aims at a settlement that shall stop this sort of thing forever… [it] is not just another war—it is the last war!” Wells believed that peace cannot be achieved just by calling for it without taking any action, and that war was “The” action that must be taken. Of course, WWI wasn’t the last war, but it was a trigger for the rise of different political leaders and thoughts that sought peace.

TH WA T EN AL WA on each other. A popular idea at the time was that responsible governments were supposed to “promote” commerce and liberal values. The Liberal new world order would force itself to promote democracy since it was theorized that democracies don’t tend to fight each other. Woodrow Wilson saw in joining WWI a chance to implement this liberal internationalism, and he pushed for it after the war. Liberals then were saying that we do not need war to achieve peace, but therein lies the challenge: liberalism was not wide enough for its supposed peace plan to live on, and the only way out for it was through war.

On the other hand, Vladimir Lenin, a Marxist and leader of the Russian revolution, saw that peace can only be achieved in a classless society that emerges from class struggle and the total obliteration of capitalist society. Here we can also see the theme of the war to end war, but in another During the war, leaders like Woodrow Wilson form. Karl Marx himself said that “there is only one and Vladimir Lenin emerged with totally different means to abbreviate, simplify, and concentrate perspectives about peace. They were both against the murderous agony of the old society and the war, and they both had the idea that a final war bloody birth of the new revolutionary terrorism” in a or conflict is needed in order to end the war. From manifestation of the war to end all wars, but for class the perspective of Woodrow Wilson and Liberalism, struggle. Vladimir Lenin also said that violence and peace is theorized to derive from world cooperation. terrorism is the only way for a triumphant socialist A free-market economy is supposed to bring nations revolution, and since the essence of this ideology closer as they become more and more dependent is freedom for all humanity, a successful Socialist

HE AR O ND LL ARS community should intervene to promote those values for all people. For Marxists, war is an organic attribute of capitalist society, and in order to abolish the idea of war, they must abolish capitalist society first. For them, Capitalist imperialists are the most dangerous threat to human peace and security. Both of those two conflicting ideologies claim peace, and there are many other ideologies across the spectrum that claim the same. The question that pops up is how can we end up in peace if all these ideologies can incite various wars in the name of ending all wars. Wells wrote that “our business is to kill ideas.” That is where the problem truly lies. Weapon disarmament is not the way out of wars. It’s the political/ideological disarmament that can do so. But trying to kill ideas in and of itself initiates conflicts, and the cold war is an example of this. The question is who gets to decide which ideas deserve to be eliminated in the first place. Who has the right to decide that a specific approach is the right one and the rest are wrong? No one, of course, except those who claim it. That is why war existed as a method to force ideas. On the other hand, is calling for peace from a pacifist point of view the solution? There are many pacifist movements; however, each of them carries some form of ideology that is in conflict with all the

others in essence. Moreover, calling for immediate peace carries many injustices for people already in disenfranchised positions. Immediate peace means maintaining the status quo, more or less. Immediate peace for Palestinians, for example, means that they have to accept the current status quo of having part of their land occupied. Immediate peace for lower classes means that they have to accept the status quo of being exploited. Peace will always require struggling, as the superior will never cut their privileges for the inferior unless they are forced to. The idea of just war still plays a role in many ideologies. Maybe a war that ends all wars cannot happen, but it still is an attempt to fix problems from the base level. Non-violent movements can achieve their goals sometimes, but conflict, unfortunately, remains central for providing new realities and grounds for new subjective peace terms.

Today, we come across military operations that carry peaceful names. This is the result of that line of thinking, that we need war for peace. However, if this is true in part, it is not true in general. No war can end all wars. There are many perspectives, none of which is dominant enough to do so. Those perspectives are different because we think differently, and we are in constant conflict because our ideas are existentially incompatible. We all seek peace, but on our own terms. The idea of having perpetual peace is sweet, but we all have either explicit or implicit ideologies that drive us into a specific vision of how this state of peace will happen.

Writer: Mahmoud Tharwat Editor: Habiba ElHadidy Mahmoud Tharwat is a writer with interests in Politics, Middle East politics, Political theory, Biology, music, technology, and interdisciplinary research.

Sources: “Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 29 July 1899.” International Committee of the Red Cross, 1900. Hoffman, Stanley.“The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism.” Foreign Policy, 1995. Howes, Dustin Ells.“The Failure of Pacifism and the Success of Nonviolence.” Perspectives on Politics, 2013. Klein, Rebekka A..“Is Pacifism an Ideology?” Studies in Christian Ethics, 2017. Santanche, Gioachinno & Eby, Lloyd.“The Problem of Peace in the World and its Relationship with Ideologies and Social Forms.” International Journal on World Peace, 1986.

ART

IS AN UNCOMMITTED Cecilia Varga is a comparative politics MA student from Romania. Her main interests are populism, political propaganda, and art.

Written by Cecilia Varga

“Art is an uncommitted crime,” says the German philosopher Theodor Adorno, suggesting that art should promote the tools with which we can change society. According to Adorno, through the “culture industry”, are created all the modern films, magazines, music and other forms of entertainment. He criticizes this “entertainment machine” for not always challenging the status quo. Still, for some reason, governments are afraid of art, and they are trying to destroy or censor it even when its topic is not political. Throughout history, art was used by regimes to propagate their ideologies. But sometimes art fought back and criticized politicians, creating counter-movements in the process. Because of this, those in power started wars against art using strategies such as censorship, destruction of artworks, or the use of violent and non-violent repression against artists. But why do political leaders fear art? What makes art so dangerous that even when it’s not criticizing governments it can still become the target of oppression? Because art is powerful. A work of art is created by an individual or a group of artists, but at the same time, it is also emerging from specific societal structures. It is promoting new ideas, perspectives and values which most of the time are in contradiction to the ones accepted by those in power. The avant-garde art of the 20th century was experimenting with nontraditional themes, which were too unorthodox for Nazi Germany. Expressionism, Cubism, Surrealism and Dadaism were all artistic movements which were “insulting the German feeling.” Several (not only Jewish) artists were imprisoned or killed, and thousands of paintings and sculptures were destroyed during the Third Reich. A “degenerate art exhibition” was held in 1937, where

the Nazis ridiculed the new artistic movements calling the artists “degenerates” lacking in artistic skill, who were there only to destroy the new values of the Übermensch. During the creative process besides the artists’ ideas, the historical context, and the values and norms of the community for which the product is created, are also important. Because of this, a work of art is not only depicting the subject chosen by the artist, but it is also reproducing and/or criticizing general feelings present in the society. At the beginning of the 20th century, Socialism was gaining popularity in the US. Workers went on strikes and even some socialist policies were implemented. But for those in power, Socialism felt like a threat against freedom and democracy, leading to the “Red Scare,” and after WWII to McCarthy’s Communist witch hunt. Because of this, during the 20th century in the US, there was a constant fight against Socialist ideas in politics, but also in art. For example, the works of the Mexican muralists Rivera and Siqueiros were destroyed for being critical of capitalism. Also in the McCarthyism period, several movies, actors and directors were subjected to censorship for allegedly sympathizing with Communist ideas. The Hollywood blacklist was created with the purpose of listing the names of those who might sympathize with Socialist ideas and, because of this, should not get funding or employment. Financially control over artists is happening even today. For example, the National Endowment for the Arts in the US refused on several occasions to fund artists who were creating more controversial art.

CRIME Edited by youssef fahmy An artist is just like a journalist, reporting the realities of society, presenting sometimes disputed ideas about beauty, normality, leadership or the future. That’s the reason why countless times, artwork was banned from some countries or regions. The movie Brokeback Mountain was banned in many countries in the Middle East for depicting homosexual relations. The Oscar-winning The Danish Girl was also banned in many countries for depicting “moral depravity”. Like it or not, these taboo topics are part of our society, and just because we bury our heads in the sand, or our leaders are trying to “protect” us from them, they will not stop existing. Art is really powerful in starting conversations. Maybe sometimes a piece of art is too offensive, too sexual, too brutal for our taste, that it will force us to think about some issues which are part of our realities—and that’s definitely something those in power would like to stop from happening. And so art can shape the political discourse, can initiate conversations in the society, and can start political and social movements. Sex Pistols’s infamous song, God Save The Queen, was banned for a very long time from UK radio for containing anti-establishment messages. The singers from the punk band Pussy Riot were, on several occasions, attacked by policemen and imprisoned for their performances which were criticizing Russian oligarchs. Through punk’s nihilistic views, a radical leftist movement was created criticizing social conventions, political idealism and existing power structures. The representatives of pop culture influence consumers more than ever, not only through their work but also using other platforms, such as social media. Also, artists’ personal lives and values

are more public nowadays, which is creating problems when they want to perform in certain countries which are sensitive to some topics. For example, the English rock band Oasis was banned from performing in China in 2009 for sympathizing in the 90s with the Free Tibet movement. These examples show how powerful art can be, even when it’s not centred on political issues. They are showing how every form of art can become political, sometimes because it is discussing taboo topics, while other times because of the artists’ personal values. There is no need for artists to have a political agenda to infuriate those in power, who are then capable of starting wars just to silence the freedom of expression. “All art is an uncommitted crime;” all art is challenging the status quo. Art has the power to fight the political establishment, to change our understanding over some concepts such as normality, to destroy social conventions. Because of this, those in power will always feel threatened by the amazing influence art is having on society. So it is important to bear in mind that art is creating movements, exploring new ideas and reporting realities, and for this reason, it has to be protected so it can continue its work on fighting the status quo and changing the world. Sources: Art Attack with Lizy Dastin and Justin BUA. Spotify. Podcast. Denham, Jess. “ The Danish Girl banned in Qatar on grounds of ‘moral depravity’.” The Independent. History. “The BBC bans the Sex Pistols’ “God Save the Queen”.” History, Jul 27, 2019. McNeil, Legs and Gillian McCain. Please Kill Me. The Uncensored Oral History of Punk. New York: Grove Press, 2006. “ Banned! 22 Musicians Barred From Stepping Foot In Certain Countries.” NME, Dec 22, 2015. Perlman, Allison. “Hollywood blacklist.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Youtube. “How Did ‘Socialism’ Become a Dirty Word in America? | History.” Jan 4, 2019. Video, 5:46. Zuidervaart, Lambert. “Theodor W. Adorno.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, May 5, 2003 revised on Oct 26, 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno/

Writer: Mahmoud Fadel Editor: Laila Ghoneim Mahmoud is an editor and an engineering student who’s interested in politics, history, music, and cinema; probably anything but engineering

“The past is not dead,” William Faulkner once famously said, “in fact, it’s not even past.” This is truly evident in any discussion of war, as one must be mindful of what warfare has done in terms of the constitution of collective memory. Today, this collective memory is undoubtedly shaped by representations of war in popular culture; and one of the most apparent examples of war and its effect on popular culture is the Vietnam War—a long disputed affair that later proved to be one of the United States’ most unforgivable indiscretions. The Vietnam War era was definitely unique in its relationship with art and popular culture; where normally the war would influence films and music, the opposite began to happen around this period. Soldiers, disheveled and overwhelmed by their ruthless surroundings, would find home listening to the music and lyrics of American artists like Bob Dylan, one of the most notable and outspoken musicians in his opposition of war in the sixties. In Doug Bradley’s recollection of the war in his book We Gotta Get Out of This Place, he states that “most GIs who were there estimate that more than half of the troops smoked grass, and a sizable minority dabbled in acid, heroin, and opium… affected by the seismic cultural, political, and racial tensions that intensified after the Tet Offensive which initiated the long endgame of the Vietnam War.” This shows that as the situation in Vietnam escalated, so did the music. By getting heavier and louder, musicians and groups such as Jimi Hendrix, King Crimson, and even the “fab” and largely apolitical Beatles who felt the need to talk about the situation, such as in their hit single Revolution. The musical scene had a large impact on the soldiers, and thus the war. In the

book, Air Force Buck Sergeant Gordon Smith recalls various instances of flying over Vietnamese war zones out of bullet range, getting high, and listening to psychedelic music. These tales of hardship and turmoil would also be told in the cinematic medium. Hollywood constructed the image of a war without a graspable meaning—politically or morally—except for the reality that “it was all a mess.” The ambiguity of Vietnam proved to be the turning point for film representations of war, raising some troubling questions about the nation’s purpose and identity. It has assumed the antithetical role within American culture of a “bad war”, while World War II pridefully maintained the status of a “good war.” WWII has always been an American point of pride, and films such as Saving Private Ryan (1998) and Pearl Harbor (2001), which were produced more than 50 years after the war, just aim to serve the public memory of WWII as one of America’s most glorious and righteous milestones. On the other hand, Vietnam War films such as Coming Home (1978) and The Deerhunter (1979) adopted an approach that shed light on the struggle of the individual soldier during and after Vietnam, rather than on the big picture and nevertheless still controversial image of the war. This idea of the poor soldier suffering from the consequences of the decisions of his superiors was one of the pillars upon which the anti-war movement stood. Cinema and politics have very often been linked to each other, and for good reason. Films have always had a relationship with the production of national identity, which means that films have the ability to shape the audience’s perception of

45 nationalism and patriotism. However, this change could sometimes be manipulated for the benefit of certain parties. Vietnam films such as Apocalypse Now (1979) and Full Metal Jacket (1987) explored the gruesome side of the war. As director Francis Ford Coppola said of the former, “the most important thing I wanted to do in the making of Apocalypse Now was to create a film experience that would give the audience a sense of the horror, the madness, the sensuousness, and the moral dilemma of the Vietnam War.” As such, this film has long been remembered as one of the definitive Vietnam war films for changing the entire perception of war. Films like these echoed the messages of the anti-war movement, which had been present since World War I. Afterwards, US overseas intervention became quite unpopular to the American public. Remember, these are the same people who had not so long ago fought in WWII, and came back a new people with fundamentally new perspectives on America’s place and role in the world. Taking a look at the current situation in Egypt, we will find much of the same narratives to be relevant. El-Mamar is a film mainly revolving around the aftermath of the 1967 Naksa, and the retaliation of a military “suicide squad” whose mission was to destroy the largest Israeli military base in Sinai. It certainly sounds like a riveting premise. But compared to the aforementioned Vietnam movies of the last century, and despite a huge budget and unwavering support from the state, the film fails to uphold any cinematic value. This is mainly due to an objectively poor screenplay, unconvincing battle sequences, and lack of filmmaking aesthetic in general terms. Sure, at times the average Egyptian viewer can’t help but feel a bit emotional, but that is not a credit to the film itself but to the time period it recalls. Instead of “celebrating” Egypt or the Egyptian struggle to recover our land, it glorifies the military, as is the case with all Egyptian war films throughout Egypt’s vast cinematic history. However, one thing that is interesting in this installation is the portrayal of the common Egyptian as ignorant of the sorrow of his/her fellow soldier. In several instances, we see members of the Armed Forces suffering from this schadenfreude—German for “pleasure derived from someone else’s misfortune”; an indispensable Egyptian habit according to the film. As a result, there is an underlying hint or notion of “us and them,” an idea that is very popular with war-glorifying films. The usual “them” in any war film is the enemy, in this case the Israelis, but the inclusion of certain sections of the Egyptian public as another “them” was certainly innovative to say the least. Despite just being released last summer,

El-Mamar is televised on national television on an almost daily basis. So keeping the intent of the film in mind, the purpose of its production, marketing, is unclear: is it to produce a classic that is remembered for years to come, or does it serve another purpose? While American culture, and thus Hollywood had produced both the glorification and condemnation of war, Egypt has yet to achieve that. El-Mamar’s prevalence is an example of how differently American and Egyptian Cinema evolved, and thus reveals much about the past and future of their respective cultures. What we find is that the Egyptian public’s perception of war has never changed because it never had its Vietnam. Possibly, one of the best ways to understand the culture of a country at war is to look at the nature of its cinema. Hopefully in the future, we can look back at what Egyptian cinema has produced, and have some answers.

Sources: - Beidler, Philip D. Late Thoughts on an Old War: The Legacy of Vietnam. University of Georgia Press, Athens, 2004. - Bradley, Doug, et al. We Gotta Get Out of This Place : The Soundtrack of the Vietnam War. University of Massachusetts Press, 2015. - de Carvalho, Benjamin. “War Hurts: Vietnam Movies and the Memory of a Lost War.” Millennium - Journal of International Studies, vol. 34, no. 3, 2006, pp. 951-962. - Reitenger, Douglas W. Paint It Black: Rock Music and Vietnam War Film. Journal of American Culture, 1992, pp. 53–59.

Writer: Yumna Omar

Editor: Laila El Refaie

Yumna Omar is just another writer trying to be a writer.

When we come to think of words or language, we use words and language; that’s how closely words and thought coexist. Words are the building blocks of ideas. In his dystopia 1984, George Orwell posed an interesting question: could the eradication of words result in the eradication of ideas or thoughts? In his wonderfully constructed yet horrifying world, a governmental party does exactly this. Words are removed from vocabulary to create the new, censored language—Newspeak— to limit or eliminate the possibility of rebellion or opposition to the political system. By excessive monitoring and coercion, the party succeeds. The thoughts about rebellion weren’t eliminated because they weren’t expressed in language, but due to psychological pressure that caused people to self-sensor, referred to in the novel as Crimestop. Orwell’s suggested theme raises a lot of questions about censorship in general. Horrified readers begin to wonder: “what thoughts am I not capable of having because of the language I was born to speak?” How different is Orwellian censorship from that of the modern day, and can they ever develop to be the same?” On this matter, science seems to be optimistic: humans don’t only think using language. While language facilitates the interpretation of ideas, it is not the sole parent of thought. In the case of physical objects, words can’t erase such things because they exist in material form—unless such objects cease to exist in the surrounding environment and thus our knowledge. When it

comes to abstract ideas, this strategy will not work to obliterate ideas, thoughts, or concepts per se rather than push our scope of thought or steer it in a certain direction, which is terrifyingly powerful. By shifting the tendencies of thought, you also shift the tendencies of actions. In Orwell’s novel, this was used to shift people’s willingness to rebel or to overthrow the ruling party. In real life, censorship exists to indirectly do the same, primarily in the realm of art. Censorship of certain artistic ideas or themes is used to shift our thoughts away from morally “impure” ideas, such as violence, religious sin, or whatever else is socially frowned upon in context for this piece or work of art. Because art is one of the main methods of internalizing social values, controlling art or the themes of art can steer the general public in a certain realm of thought. This technique was used in Classic art, for example, by emphasizing the gods and religious themes to psychologically implant the superiority of the holy and the promoted religion or “the higher purpose.” In the Victorian era, censorship of literature was done to ensure moral purity; thus, anything outside of acceptable social behavior of the time was omitted. Works such as The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, were highly censored because it contained themes of homosexuality, which was against British law. Nowadays, what aren’t we seeing? We’re the opposite of censored when it comes to arts or artistic expression. Art is not really regulated in most major art-producing countries and can be easily accessed through the

internet. Self-expression, on the other hand, is a whole other story. The introduction of the internet adds an entirely different view on things. It’s open to everyone and unrestrictive—or at least it was. The internet is actually extremely paradoxical as a tool of self-expression. On the one hand, popular sites such as social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are heavily censored to display what is in line with the government’s views. Several Facebook and Twitter accounts are being shut down for inappropriate content that is deemed so either by their respective governments or insulted/ offended individuals. On the other hand, there is the dark web that offers a broad online space for criminal or even terrorist activity. It’s the cause of actual danger, yet is unchanging, uncensored, and mostly undetected or untraceable, which brings me to my next point: the occurrence of danger can only happen not when labeled, when communicated. 1984’s Newspeak is efficient not because of the incapability of people to form thoughts without words that label such actions, but because the inability to communicate stunts the possibility of social change. Words and language aren’t the parents of thought, but they are the heart of effective communication. Without language, one must physically demonstrate an action in order to refer to it which would be a very slow and easily detected process. It is thus rendered practically impossible to communicate abstract ideas. This is why, in Orwell’s dystopia, language censorship can’t work—at least sustainably. Nobody can monitor what’s inside of your head at any given moment; it’s what you say that holds all the power; It’s what you preach and do that can be regulated, monitored, and evaluated. 1984’s Thoughtpolice arrested those whose thoughts didn’t align with the principles of the ruling party, but they can only be detected by what they say or do that represents such thoughts—not the act of thinking itself, primarily because it is harmless to the government. Communication is the heart of rebellion and social change. Nobody can think their way out of policy, but a large group can act against it. Nevertheless, there remains a minor problem: language is and has always been a work in progress. Language develops every day with the emergence of new concepts and inventions, so it is predictable that if words associated with rebellion are deleted from vocabulary through Newspeak and available documentation of history, man will re-discover/re-create the concept again. Whether

47 he/she knows about the previous existence of such concepts or not, the innate development of language will cease to stop because language is mankind’s never ending work in progress. In other words, the man-made hindrance of language development will be overcome by the natural redevelopment of language. Words develop to fit new ideologies, things, and even identities, created to fit the modern wave of social inclusion. This is a great principle at heart, except for a minor problem: the impossible-to-meet standard of appropriate speech. It seems that Orwell’s novel has predicted what is the opposite of the lingual world in structure but equal in application, as words are currently being added to restrict rather than eliminated—otherwise known as political correction. The constant pressure to speak a certain way takes a major toll on freedom of speech. The fear of unintended offence of a person or an entity in reality is equal to the fear of being caught for Crimethink; the only difference is in the consequences—the first being social degradation, and the latter physical torture. Language and liberty are difficult to bring together because they are assessed according to different standards set by different people at each given point in time. Expression of thought is both complicated and simplified by words and language, but at least our thoughts aren’t governed by thoughtpolice. We are free to think, which I believe is the most innate and sacred human experience. And at one point to one philosopher—Rene Decartes—was the proof of his existence. Thought is holy. Thought is identity.

Sources “1984 by George Orwell, Part 1: Crash Course Literature 401”, CrashCourse, 2017. Anastapio, George. “Censorship.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018. “George Orwell’s 1984, Part 2: Crash Course Literature #402”, CrashCourse, 2017. Ivanova, Anna. “Can we think without language?”, McGovern Institute, 2019. Seiferle, Rebecca & Nichols, Kimberly. “Summary of Classical Greek and Roman Art and Architecture.” The Art Story, 2019.

FOOTBALL o r

Writer: Nour El Captan Editor: Mahmoud Fadel In past centuries, when there was civil unrest Nour El Captan is an author with interests in and people were going against the leader of a nation, creative writing, movies, musical theatre, and FC the solution was to increase people’s nationalism Barcelona and to unite them. More often than not, the way to do that was by going to war. This technique was Football can often be the cause of violence. extremely successful. Nowadays, going to war is not The brief Football War of 1969 between Honduras as customary as it once was. It could even be said that wars could have a negative effect on nationalism, and El Salvador was triggered by a football game. since violence tends to be frowned upon in some There was tension between the two nations due to a populations. However, while this notion is perishing, large number of Salvadorans migrating to Honduras. others are flourishing. Football, for example, is one In 1969, they made up 20% of the Honduran of the most prominent ways of stirring loyalty inside population. In 1967, a land reform law gave the Honduran government the authority to claim the a person. lands of Salvadoran immigrants and re-distribute The sense of unity that a certain team’s it to Hondurans. This created hostility between the supporter feels is unlike any other. They share the two nations, which was very evident when they same views regarding their team as millions of other faced each other in the 1970 World Cup qualifier fans all around the world, and they even experience games. The first two games were surrounded by the same emotions at the same exact moment. violence and riots with some Salvadorans having to Supporters watching the same game on different flee Honduras due to their marginalization. Before TV sets and in different time-zones will feel the same the final and deciding game, which El Salvador won, elation when their team scores and the same grief El Salvador cut off diplomatic ties with Honduras. when they lose. Watching games live in the stadium Upon this victory, El Salvador mounted a brief offers an even stronger experience. Most fans are attack on Honduras and started a four-day war in dressed in the team’s uniform, they cheer and boo at which thousands were killed. the same time, and some clubs even have their own There is also a relationship that exists anthems (such as Liverpool’s ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’) in order to further unite their fans by having between football and politics. The most famous them all sing at the same time. These emotions of rivalry in football is the one between Real Madrid belonging are especially heightened when it is not and FC Barcelona. Their games have been named a club that is playing, but a country (especially ‘El Clasico’ due to how iconic the matches often since there is a type of obligation to support one’s are. This is due to the historical conflicts between national team). In more ways than one, a person’s Catalonia and Spain. The name ‘Real Madrid’ football team is part of their identity. It is not unlike translates to ‘Royal Madrid’ and is a title that was a person’s religion or blood type or gender. The sheer given to the club by King Alfonso XIII. Meanwhile, importance of the sport in fans’ lives could explain Barcelona is the capital of Catalonia and has the why some football games have a special degree of slogan ‘Mes Que Un Club’ or ‘More Than a Club’, intensity, and begs the question of whether or not showing how much the team means to the Catalans. Anyone who watches El Clasico can see how extreme football incites violence.

49 these games are. This is due to how political conflicts are translated onto the football pitch. Whether it is the Camp Nou or Santiago Bernabeu, Barcelona and Real Madrid’s respective home grounds, the pitch becomes a battlefield between Spain and Catalonia. In most recent events, El Clasico has been postponed due to the protests taking place in Catalonia and fears that the game will further fuel these fires.

In current times, football in Egypt has never been more eminent. This is largely due to the phenomenal success of Mohamed Salah. To Egyptians, Salah has become a national hero and is arguably the first Egyptian footballer to achieve this degree of international success. Those who support Al-Ahly or Zamalek come together to support Salah when he plays. He is on any form of merchandise that can be thought of, and children idolize him due to the hope he has given them that dreams However, an argument could be made that can come true with sufficient hard work. With every for the most part, football brings people together achievement he accomplishes, Salah gifts Egyptians instead of tearing them apart. Football has been with ambition and endless potential. given the title ‘The Beautiful Game’ because of the George Orwell wrote the phrase, ‘war is sensation it gives its fans. For many, a goal scored gives people the chance to forget about their real- peace’. And so, is football, a type of war in its own life worries and provides a euphoric escape—even if right, peaceful? It would be misguided to suggest for a brief moment. Fans are not forced to support that there is no violence in the sport. Put thousands any particular team, it is their decision to do so. They of opposing fanatics in one stadium and there is decide to attend the team’s games, or buy the team’s bound to be conflict. But it would be equally foolish merchandise, or defend the team in an argument to suggest that football brings nothing but hate between friends. In return, they ask for nothing but and animosity. Football unites people of all races, this aforementioned moment of joy when they are genders, nationalities, religions, and classes. Despite those who tarnish its name, it is entirely deserving of victorious. the label, ‘The Beautiful Game.’ But it is not just the loyalty that a fan feels for their team that makes football ‘The Beautiful Game.’ That fans have created a community within themselves is remarkable. For example, they have been known to come together during tragedy. Most recently, a plane crash resulting in the untimely and tragic death of Argentine football player, Emiliano Sala, has united the community worldwide. Countless football teams, players, and fans expressed condolences through social media and numerous games were preceded by a minute’s silence to honour his death. Closer to home, Egyptian fans come together to light their flashlights in the twentieth and the seventy-second minute of most games in order to honour the death of the twenty Zamalek fans and the seventy-two Ahly fans. In Egypt, football is also ‘The Beautiful Game’ because of how integral it is in Egyptian culture and identity. Most famous of all, the rivalry between AlAhly and Zamalek has had the largest influence on Egyptian football. When Egyptians are introduced to each other, it is not uncommon to ask which football team the other supports. Judgements can be made on your origins, experiences, and personality based on who you support. National Team matches are also huge events, and in case of victory, celebrations in the streets follow.

Sources: El Ghandour, Ahmed. “ ”. AJ+, 2019. Lane, Barnaby. “The biggest match in world soccer, Barcelona and Real Madrid’s ‘El Clasico,’ has been postponed due to fiery protests in Catalonia.” Business Insider, 2019. “Real Madrid CF”. Football History. Simons, Eric. “The psychology of why sports fans see their teams as extensions of themselves.” The Washington Post, 2015.

THE WAR

For hundreds of years, Psychological Warfare has been used to help nations attain a certain level of control over their enemies. While its most prominent uses were during World War I and II, the use of psychological warfare tactics dates as far back as Ancient Egypt. Psychological Warfare is a means of tactfully using methods of psychological control, such as threats or propaganda, primarily for the purposes of misleading, demoralizing, intimidating, or extensively influencing people’s behaviors. Such methods of control were used primarily during times of war or general unrest as a kind of catalyst for chaos. By using such non-violent and indirect means of attack, nations are able to gain some kind of control over their enemies, which wasn’t merely military-centric. That being said, Psychological Warfare, or PSYWAR, was not only used as a method of attack, but it was also used to affect the perceptions and opinions of populations and help governments gain an unexpected advantage. There are several ways through which PSYWAR has been used as a means of influence in the past, many of which have become apparent to people subsequently to their becoming aware of their use. But to the unknowingness of many, a lot of these methods are still used today to influence people’s thought processes and behaviors. The most basic, and possibly most widely used tactic of PSYWAR is the spread of information through news outlets. Whether news channels are independently owned or government run, they have the ability to successfully spread information to large audiences, who are in turn easily influenced by what they see and hear. And since news channels are perceived to be dependable, the number of people who can be influenced through them can reach high levels. Not only does the spread of fake news affect civilians, but it can go as far as having effects on the decisions of governments. With the spread of fake news comes the implementation of false ideas in people’s minds, which can thus have lasting effects on the psychological wellbeing of entire nations.

posts. These manipulative messages could include threats, which inspire fear within the hearts of people, or simply propagandic messages that plant false notions in people’s minds. In fact, these methods of psychological warfare can change people’s opinions of racial groups, governmental leaders, regimes, which can in turn inspire acts of violence such as uprisings and wars. The most notable use of psychological warfare occurred during the First and Second World Wars. Acts of PSYWAR included the distribution of leaflets to convince the enemy of surrendering during vulnerable positions when they could be the most influenced. At the time, psychological warfare operatives would drop leaflets and flyers from planes on enemy camps as well as civilian towns, attempting to convince the people that surrender was the only way they would survive the horrid attacks that were to come. Furthermore, visual representations of disastrous attacks with large troops and advanced weapons were used to create a hyperbole of enemy powers in order to instill fear. Continuous projections of loud sounds near enemy troops were also employed to cause sleep deprivation and psychological discomfort. Tactics of psychological manipulation also included fake threats of usage of chemical weapons, broadcasting propaganda on radio stations, and fake terror attacks blamed on certain groups to shift the opinions of the masses. Such acts, while not as violent or as direct as military attacks, had significant real effects on innocent civilians and troops alike.

With that being said, World War I did not set a precedent in the deployment of psychological warfare tactics. In fact, PSYWAR tactics date as far back as Ancient Egypt. In the Battle of Pelusium in 525 B.C., for instance, Persian armies held cats as hostages as a way to gain a psychological advantage over the Egyptians who, due to their belief that cats were sacred, refused to harm them. Later, in the 13th century A.D., Genghis Khan and his armies used arrows designed to whistle as they flew, inducing a fear of the unknown in Tactics of psychological warfare also include enemy troops. During the 16th century, at the time of manipulative messages on various mediums such the American Revolution, British troops wore bright as posters, advertisements, or even social media red uniforms in an attempt to intimidate George

ON MINDS INDS Washington’s Continental Army, who were dressed rather plainly to remain out of sight. Evidently, the use of psychological warfare could quickly transition from being a non-violent means of disheartening the enemy, to an extreme way of inciting fear in people’s hearts. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the use of psychological warfare, with the reasons for which it was intended in mind, was an effective method to daunt a nation’s enemies during times of war. But, is psychological warfare still in use today? And if so, how?

While it may not be used as directly as it once was, psychological warfare is still prominent even in today’s day and age. Psychological manipulation continues to be a non-violent and more cloaked means of gaining control over not only enemies, but passive citizens in general. It is used today to change or influence people’s values, beliefs, reasoning, motives, and behavior; and is capitalized as a way to gain control over people’s perceptions. That is why being aware of these tactics is extremely important in allowing us to question and overcome what we might believe to be a false narrative.

There are obvious ways in which PSYWAR is used today. A notable use of it can be seen in the military conflict between India and China. Over the past couple of years, with a standoff occurring between both countries in Doklam, China has overtly announced its use of psychological warfare tactics to compel India’s surrender, without the need for violent military attacks. China has employed tactics such as the spread of disinformation through different media organizations, reaching out to the regime’s opponents and attacking the notion of Hindu Nationalism, and daily threats directed towards the Indian regime. These methods were used in an attempt to tame Indian troops without the need for military combat. Such tactics can then be applied to more covert attempts at psychological control. Today, many armies include units that are trained and equipped for psychological warfare against enemies. The spread of disinformation through media outlets is one of the major ways through which psychological manipulation is utilized. On an almost daily basis, the public are spoon-fed information through news channels and advertisements. Additionally, means of indirect psychological warfare could include the use of religious beliefs to invoke certain emotions in people. For instance, the claim that “Muslims are terrorists” to incite acts of violence can count as a method of PSYWAR. During the events of 9/11, the claim that all Muslims were responsible for the attacks induced an anger towards a religious belief, which led to widespread acts of violence targeting Muslims and those who defended them.

Writer: Arwa Hezzah Editor: Raneem Mangoud Arwa is a writer for Avant Garde. She is a Junior at AUC, majoring in Political Science with minors in English Literature and Theatre. Sources Carnevale, Jennifer. “What is Psychological Warfare?”. Study. Chellaney, Brahma. “China Reveals How It Wages Psychological War”. China-US Focus, 2017. Longley, Robert. “An Introduction to Psychological Warfare”. ThoughtCo., 2019. “Psychological Warfare.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2015.

Fall 19, Issue 2: War Is Peace

Articles inside

The War on Minds

Football or War?

War on Words

These Boots Are Made For Walking

Art is an Uncommitted Crime

The War to End All Wars

Would You Kill The Fat Man

An Empire of Dandelions: Ecological Imperialism

The Moral and Just War

The Violence in Peace

War is Peace: Contemporary Totalitarianism

Contradiction is Unity

"Fire and Fury"... Or Not?

This is the Bad Place!

Ain't No Rights for the Wicked