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 then foster regarding certain nationalities’ practices. In the case of the West and the Middle East, this unfamiliarity has led to several unnecessary and bloody uprisings that have only further diminished ties 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 works 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 key features of this image serve a multi-faceted purpose as well as 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, great 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, while the American soldier carries a weapon of mass destruction, as though it is equally harmless. Here, the gun represents war, violence in general, and the cup of tea, while simply a beverage, paired with the outstretched hand, 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 in comparison to the American man, as, to the everyday Westerner, his, for lack of a better word, “rags” signify a level of economic inferiority, 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, while the Middle Eastern sports a more ethnic look – a hat, sweater, and drape. The opposing clothing-types do more than juxtapose their respected cultures, they pit those who are accustomed to this level of Westernization against those who have yet to denounce 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, whereas the Arabian man’s plain drapes represent individualism, a different sort of unity, 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 a cup of tea displays his acknowledgement of the obscurity of war. After all, he, himself, does not have a problem with the man in the camouflage uniform lying adjacent to him. While the two may only have their humanity in common, that is, evidently, enough 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, emphasizing the good that can come of laying down one’s weapon, even if only for a second.

In the same way the contrasting elements of this piece contribute to a more profound understanding of the situation at hand, the various colors provide greater insight to the significance of the men’s cultural dissimilarities. The most obvious difference in color comes from their skin-tones, as one appears to have brownish skin, while the other appears to have lighter, whiter skin. This discrepancy works to reveal that the two come from different backgrounds, and therefore may aid in one’s understanding of the magnitude of this particular peace offering, as peaceful interactions between these two races are almost unheard of. While the men’s skin-tones, alone, do a sufficient job in delineating their positioning in the war, the colors present in their clothing further reveal whom they are rooting for. Though camouflage is used almost universally as a tool of war, as it helps to hide and protect soldiers from enemy fire, here, it contributes to the idea of there being an overarching and all encompassing blanket of uniformity, most commonly associated with the Western World. The West is often criticized by foreign nations for this metaphorical blanket, as it seems as though its people have lost touch with not only themselves, but also their genealogical pasts, giving way to this widespread cultural assimilation, and, oftentimes, enthusiastically supporting its effects. Needless to say, globalization has been deemed one of the main causes of this loss of individualism. Furthermore, the soldier’s camouflaged jacket may represent the discouragement of individual thought at large, as all American soldiers are made to wear the same thing in wartimes. Thus, in a sense, all militarized violence promotes dehumanization and monotony, as soldiers regularly act as pawns of their respected governments. This sameness, that onlookers tend to associate with the West, could be a part of the bigger issue at hand: where there is no individuality, there is no room for change or hope for progression, as all people are made to believe the same things. Therefore, the like-mindedness that war promotes could account for our failure to evolve, as having a common enemy, historically, brings people together and dissuades them from checking to make sure that they are placing their blame appropriately. The Middle Eastern man’s “rags” represent his humanity, yet it is him, and his culture, that are being mangled by Western ideals, that, more-so than Middle Eastern ones, promote any sort of inhumanity. In summation, the colors in this picture display not only the distortion of thought, characteristic of warring peoples, and the generally accepted perception that other cultures lack the depth of one’s own, but also this sameness, supposedly typical of the Western world, this lack of uniqueness in battle that translates to a lack of individual thought in everyday life. The more conventionally used and easily interpreted these colors are, the more they contribute to a global digression, as people have unfortunately learned to relate them with sentiments, rather than view them for what they are: mere identifications of nationality.

Upon further analysis of the piece, one could determine that the shadows, like the colors, play a bigger role, stand for far more than just coincidental areas of darkness. The soldiers’ bodies are in the shadows, contributing to the idea that they are metaphorically “in the dark,” unaware of why they are fighting in the first place. In this instance, the soldiers represent the American people, the West at large, as many civilians are unable to identify the key catalysts of the war, colloquially referred to as the “War Against Terror.” While most Westerners may like to think that they know why they carry such deeply rooted feelings towards these peoples, their negative preconceptions go much deeper than having a son or daughter, brother or sister, who lost his or her life in the line of duty. This ingrained feeling is much more complex than just that, stemming from something more intricate than the mundane occurrence of seeing 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 far greater than the people involved. In many cases, this hatred of Middle Eastern society stems from the various forms of propaganda that one is exposed to on a daily basis, that, sadly, people have learned to regard as commonplace. These soldiers, in the picture, are on the ground and in the dark, while the Middle Eastern man is crouching down beside them, mostly exposed to the sunlight, representing a variance in knowledge present between the two cultures, not necessarily concerned with the war or the prejudice that surrounds it, but humanity in general. Furthermore, these shadows represent the twistedness of combat, as guns and weapons do nothing but perpetuate this darkness, as, oftentimes, killing people is not the answer, and fighting is not going to help resolve archaic disputes. The soldier in the back, also in the shadows, stands for a number of things, though his positioning in the piece may cause most to overlook the importance of his role. The fact that he is smaller, and, thus, for the purposes of analysis, less significant than the other soldier, goes to show that his on-looking, his questioning of the Middle Eastern man’s intents – really, anyone’s on-looking – has been “pushed back” on the global scale of relevance. Humans are impressionable, meaning that they mimic what they observe, much like parrots do with what they hear. Therefore, one could say that society has avoided teaching today’s youth of the glories of the above values, such as peace and love, simply because of how difficult it is to reverse ancient feelings. Thus, this man’s placement, as well as his reaction to what is taking place before him, could be said to stand for the West’s disinterest in discovering anything positive about the culture of the Middle East, as some seem contempt with remaining “blissfully ignorant,” though this ignorance is, indirectly, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. In having the physical embodiment of progression shoved to the back of the image, the photographer is essentially, and likely inadvertently, revealing the unfortunate truth that history may very well repeat itself, as, clearly, no one is instructing bystanders to take what they learn from situations like this one, and apply it to the real world. As previously stated, the shadows and scaling of this piece represent the level at which most people are metaphorically “in the dark” on foreign matters, while the untended-to man in the back represents the level of importance that the West has placed on teaching its inhabitants to combat feelings of prejudice and hate, and to write a more cohesive future. Simply stated, the man in the far corner serves to reveal the true priorities of the Western World, while the men in the forefront reveal the irony of the racism that has existed for centuries, on both sides, as the two men rest on the same plane.

The men’s similar hierarchy, as shown by the image, works to reveal the falsity of bigotry, as any and all superiority is psychological. Regardless of what one’s government might attempt to bury into the minds of its citizens, no one person or group of people is truly greater or of more substantial value than another. So, while Westernized people may subliminally regard the Middle Eastern as the enemy upon first glance, as they have been taught to by society, and, in turn, feel an immediate sense of shock in response to his depicted generosity, they, essentially, are no better, despite what they might think, despite what may have been drilled into their heads since birth. Similarly, Middle Easterners, who surely experience a comparable level of subconscious judgment in looking at the piece, as, undoubtedly, their governments utilize similar methods of propaganda to achieve greater nationalism, are no better than their Western counterparts. These intuitive judgments, act as evidence that prejudice exists and that one’s government does in fact play a large and unclear role in persisting it. The only true identifiable element that speaks volumes of any one man in this image is the Middle Eastern man’s giving of tea to a stranger, going against any and all stereotypes that have been attributed to his culture. This display of kindness goes to show that humanity spans all ethnicities. So, the next time one is tempted to generalize a group of people as being all bad, they should take a look at this piece, as the actions on display act as irrefutable evidence that this type of mentality, that any one group is better than another, is only deleterious to the improvisation of the world.

Educating today’s youth on the possibilities of reversing this ancient war on ignorance is more important, now, than ever before, as things are heating up between ethnic and religious groups. And countries, that were previously uninvolved, are being forced to pick sides. While no common man or woman 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, elderly man and woman, and unborn child before us. Therefore, in the simplest of terms, everyone should care, and everyone should take an active role in ensuring that nothing of its kind ever takes place again. It is important to note that peace cannot be achieved unless everyone is on the same page, however ensuring the maintenance of individuality is equally important, as it can determine how people go about promoting this long-desired concord. This image shows that the only way to escape the shadows is to unite under all peoples’ dissimilarities, that it is other peoples’ unique qualities and thoughts that fuel any sort of progression, not globalization or industrialization as they are often accredited with driving advancement. In order to expunge any ignorance associated with the ever-growing conflict, concerning the West and the Middle East, people must first face the murkiness of war and choose to remain neutral under one common and unifying goal: to rid the world of its ancestral bias in an effort to, someday, achieve global amity.
