Ignorance is often accredited as a main source of tension between nations and ethnic groups, as there seems to be an indirect relationship between the amount people know and the concern they foster, regarding certain nationalities’ practices. In the case of the West and the Middle East, the uneasiness, as a result of this unfamiliarity, has led to several unnecessary and bloody uprisings that have only further diminished the bond between the two cultures. While some may view this diminished bond as a just byproduct of Islamic extremism and, in turn, irreparable, others understand that this abhorrence towards Middle Eastern culture is learned and, thus, can be reversed by the teachings of love and forgiveness. In the image below, a Middle Eastern man offers an American soldier a cup of tea in an attempt to bridge the divide. This small and seemingly menial act of kindness acts as evidence that, amidst a world of closed-mindedness and brutality, humanity still persists today. However, it is up to future generations to keep this feeling alive, to perpetuate the ideals of peace and acceptance. This picture, at its very core, captures a moment in time that can be understood and appreciated by all, as it depicts the unthinkable: the supposed enemy, handing his supposed oppressor a metaphorical white flag. The real takeaway from this comes from the three elements that will be expanded upon later: contrast, color, and abstraction. At the end of the day, it is peoples’ differences that bind us, individuals’ willingness to break societal bonds that sets us free. The characteristics of this image serve a multi-faceted purpose, as they act in accordance to inform viewers of the true otherworldliness that these soldiers experience, to show that any real progress starts with a single outstretched palm, and to prove that there is unity in diversity, strength in dissimilarity.

It is easy to spot the differences between the two men upon first glance, as the photographer was purposefully trying to a capture a moment of staunch contrast. The Middle Eastern man bears only a cup of tea, as the American soldier carries a weapon of mass destruction. Here, the gun represents war, violence in general, and the cup of tea, while simply a beverage, represents peace and the ease at which it can be achieved. While it can be assumed that the Saudi Arabian man has little to give, his selflessness serves as a reminder that every person can do his or her part in the global struggle to achieve tranquility. Moreover, the differences between the men’s clothing represent this divide, this cultural gap, as one is evidently more modern than the other. The American dons an administered uniform, as the Middle Eastern sports a more ethnic outfit – a hat, sweater, and drape. The opposing clothing-types juxtapose those accustomed to Westernization and those who have yet to lay down their ancestral ways, those who have yet to assimilate to the new world order. The soldier’s uniform represents unity, as he is one of thousands being made to wear it, while the Arabian man’s plain drapes represent individuality, as he is alone in his attempt to make things right. Hatred is taught; no one is born disliking another based off of race alone. This man’s offering of tea displays his acknowledgement of the obscurity of war. After all, he does not have a personal problem with the man in the camouflage uniform. While the two may only have their humanity in common, that is enough in order to share a cup of tea in quiet gratitude. The element of contrast in this image serves to inform viewers that just because these men come from different walks of life does not mean they cannot still get along, commune in a peaceful manner. The dissimilarities in this piece do more than simply tear the two apart, they bring the world together on the basis of appreciating one another’s differences and the importance of lying down one’s weapon, even if only for a moment.

In the same way the contrasting elements of this piece contribute to a more profound understanding of the image as a whole, the various colors provide insight to the significance of the men’s cultural dissimilarities. The most obvious difference in color comes from the men’s skin, as one is brown and the other is white. This discrepancy shows that the men come from different backgrounds, and therefore aids in one’s understanding of the magnitude of the peace offering, as interactions between the two races is often seen as taboo. While the two men’s skin tones delineate their positioning in the war, the colors present in their clothing items do the same. Though camouflage is used almost universally as a tool of war, as it helps hide and protect soldiers from enemy fire, it also contributes to the idea of there being this overarching and all encompassing blanket of uniformity in the Western World. The West is often criticized, as it seems like their people have lost touch with themselves and given into assimilating with what is popular among the masses. Globalization can be faulted for this loss of individualism. Camouflage, more than a tool of war, represents this discouragement of individual thought, as all soldiers are made to wear the same thing. In a sense, violence promotes dehumanization and monotony. This sameness could be part of the bigger issue at hand: where there is no individuality, there is no room for change or chance for progress, as all people are essentially made to believe the same things. Therefore, the like-mindedness that war promotes could account for our failure to progress, as having a common enemy brings people together and dissuades them from placing blame elsewhere. The Middle Eastern man’s rags represent his humanity, yet it is his culture that is being mangled by Western ideals. The colors in the piece display the distortion of thought and the lack of uniqueness in battle. The more conventionally used and easily interpreted the colors are, the more they contribute to global digression, as people learn to relate them with sentiments, rather than view them as mere identifications of nationality.

Upon further analysis of the piece, one could determine that the shadows, like the colors, stand for more than just coincidental areas of darkness. The soldiers’ bodies are in the shadows, meaning they are metaphorically “in the dark” as to why they are fighting in the first place. The soldiers represent the American people, the West at large, as many cannot identify the key catalysts of the war. While Westerners may like to believe they know why they carry such deeply rooted and pessimistic feelings towards Middle Easterners, it is much more complex than having a son who died in the line of duty or seeing recently deceased soldiers’ names flash across the screen every morning at breakfast. For decades, these separate worlds have been at odds with each other for reasons bigger than the people involved. In many cases, this hatred of Middle Eastern society can stem from the propaganda one hears on a day-to-day basis. These soldiers are in the dark, while the Middle Eastern man is in the light, representing their variance in knowledge. Furthermore, these shadows represent the twistedness of battle, as guns and weapons of mass destruction do nothing but keep the world in the dark, as, oftentimes, killing people is not the answer, as declaring war is not going to solve archaic disputes. The soldier in the background, still in the shadows, stands for a multitude of things. The fact that he is smaller, and thus less significant than the other soldier, goes to show that his on looking, his questioning of the Middle Eastern man’s humanness has been pushed back on the scale of relevance. Humans are impressionable, meaning they mimic what they observe, much like parrots mimic what they hear. Society has failed to teach today’s youth of the glories of peace and love because it is difficult to reverse ancient feelings; therefore this man’s questioning of what is happening in the scene is in the background, as his understanding of the Middle Easterner’s innate goodness is apparently irrelevant. In pushing this level of progression back into the rear of the image, the photographer is essentially revealing the true and unfortunate odds that history is bound to repeat itself, as no one is instructing bystanders of how to reverse this process of acting on hatred. The shadows and scaling of this piece represent the level at which most people are metaphorically “in the dark” on foreign matters as well as the relevance at which teaching onlookers of the importance of reversing this hatred ranks on a relative scale. Though, on the other hand, the two men in the forefront are on the same plane, representing their equality in life, in the grander scheme of things. That is why this picture is so chalked-full of irony. Western-minded people inadvertently see the Middle Eastern man as the enemy, and therefore are surprised by his compassionate actions, when, in reality, he is no different than the man in the camouflage suit, a representative of his country. The only difference between the two, here, is that the Arabian gentleman is going against his nation’s stereotype and overcoming the cultural divide to show the other man that they are not all bad, and that there is kindheartedness in all cultures.

Educating today’s youth on the possibilities of reversing this ancient war on ignorance is more important, now, than ever, as things are heating up between ethnic groups and countries, that were previously uninvolved, are being forced to pick sides. While no common folk may have had a say in how this war was to be fought, and between whom, everyone has a stake in its outcome, as it will affect every little boy and girl, old man and woman alike. Peace cannot be achieved unless everyone is on the same page, however individuality is equally important, as it can determine how people go about promoting this peace. The only way to escape the shadows is by uniting under all peoples’ dissimilarities, as it is peoples’ uniqueness that promotes progression, not globalization or industrialization, as they have been denoted as causes of dehumanization. In order to expunge this ignorance, people must first face the murkiness of war and choose to remain neutral under one common and unifying goal: global evolution and global amity.