Ghent University Faculty of Arts 2014 - 2015

Terrorism in American cinema: A call to stand united?

Political analysis of African Americans in terrorist fiction movies

A Literary Approach

Thesis presented by Nikki Peeters

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Rob Kroes

Dissertation submitted to obtain the academic degree of Master in American Studies.

  ii  

Declaration I, Nikki Peeters, certify that this thesis is my original work and there is no previous submission for a degree or other purposes, which have been made here or elsewhere. Other sources of information used in this work, are acknowledged in the bibliography to the corresponding authors. Permission for consulting or copying parts of the thesis for personal use is given by the author and the promoter. Use of the thesis for other purposes is subject to the copyright laws, more specifically it is obligatory to cite the source when using thesis’s results. This thesis was written under the guidance of Professor Dr. Rob Kroes at Ghent University.

  iii  

Preface For finishing this dissertation, I would like to thank Professor Rob Kroes and the Master Program in American Studies in general. The courses have truly opened my eyes to new perspectives and knowledge on the complexity and diversity of the American nation-state. In addition, I am very grateful to my brilliant sister, always there to help, guide and inspire me. I would also like to thank my parents and grandparents for believing in me and supporting me throughout every endeavor.

  iv  

Content

0. Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...1 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….2

1.1. 9/11 and terrorism……………………………………………………………..3 1.2. Terrorism and cinema…………………………………………………………6

2. Conceptions of patriotism, national idenity and unity ……………………………….12 2.1 Patriotism and war……………………………………………………………13 2.2 Patriotism and national identity………………………………………………14 2.3 Patriotism and unity…………………………………………………………..15

3. Responses after 9/11….………………………………………………………………17 3.1 General response ……………………………………………………………..17 3.2 African Americans’ response…………………………………………………19

3.2.1 As seen after World War II..………………………………….19 3.2.2 As seen after 9/11 …………………………………………….21

4. Cinema as an interpreting and influencing medium………………………………….26 4.1 Politics in cinema……………………………………………………………..26 4.2 Fictional terrorist movies……………………………………………………..27

4.2.1 Vantage Point (2008) ………………………………………...28 4.2.2 Unthinkable (2010) …………………………………………..31 4.2.3 Olympus has Fallen (2013)…………………………………...33 4.2.4 White House Down (2013) …………………………………...36

4.3 Our transatlantic understanding………………………………………………40 5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………42 6. Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………43

  1  

0. Abstract This dissertation examines the cinematic representations of terrorism after 9/11 and during the War on Terror. It takes up the notion that American popular culture offers a lens through which certain events and opinions are perceived. Therefore, it is needed to address the validity of cinematic representations relating to actual conditions and political stances and gather possible influences for persuasion and interpretation. Within this perspective, I have examined the reactions of African Americans after 9/11 and the War on Terror by their military commitment. These responses offered a deeper understanding of internal responses to terrorism in the United States. By researching the conceptions of patriotism, national identity and unity, it is researched in what way a racial group could differentiate from a general response. After having gathered African Americans’ reaction to the War on Terror by their enlistments and public polls, I have been able to benchmark their involvement by discussing four fiction movies that exploit the theme of terrorism. I made use of political theory in my political analysis of the movies by observing political content and intent. This has shown that although African Americans are provided with a lead role, they remain to be overshadowed by the white hero. Moreover, a deeper analysis shows that their characters remain to deviate from American conservative policies. The movies released in theaters reflect influences of persuasion and interpretation by including patriotic references and 9/11 allegories. The effect on an African American public concerns the choices made in depicting terrorism. Patriotism and 9/11 references recall an “us versus them” dialogue to which African Americans do not feel connected. In addition, the simplification of the terrorist enemy and victimizing and legitimizing own actions reflect the ease by which “the other” is reduced. These notions will cause an African American public to deviate even further from a national identity. A wider implication concerns future generations who will come to understand terrorism after 9/11 by these simplified representations of terrorism. In a transatlantic understanding, the Unites States reveals its own failure to recognize its enemies and grasp the stereotyping effect of movies on its own “melting pot”.

  2  

1. Introduction We live in an age of information. Our continuous accessibility to news and images from around the world feeds our hunger for knowledge, whether their accuracy is proven or not, our interpretations of reality are mediatized. American images crossing the Atlantic provide us with an idea or perspective on specific events. Cinema is able to take up these events and add new storylines and ideas. However, Hollywood’s rendering of sensitive issues needs to be addressed as Americans “rely on mass media to inform, educate, and entertain themes about contemporary political issues”. (Dodds, 2008, 2) As movies, television series and documentaries find endless material in historical and actual occurrences, my research concerns the accuracy of cinematic representations and its ability to reflect or shape interpretations of reality. Within a cinematic context of actual events, I examine the representations initiated by an event that has already reached every part of the world in images, namely the attacks on September 11th, 2001 (these events are referred to thereafter as "9/11"). The moment when the planes struck the WTC towers was a moment of international astonishment. The obsolete imperialistic strength of the United States was evidently marked on every local and national news channel. It took long for American cinema to overcome their reluctance and portray the events in films as United 93 (2006) and World Trade Center (2006). With the commencement of the War on Terror, several fiction and non-fiction movies were made that underlined the consequences and threats of terrorism. President Bush stated in his Address to the Nation on September 11th, “America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism. (…) This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace”. As wars and external threats seem to unite people against a common enemy, cinema is a valuable medium in pursuing this. If national unity is represented in cinematic representations of terrorism, would this be a reflection of reality or rather an attempt in shaping our interpretations and actions? In this perspective, I examine possible sentiments of African Americans and their depiction in cinema. Therefore, I research their reactions towards 9/11 and the War on Terror by their willingness to join forces. When their reaction corresponds to their portrayal in fictional terrorist movies, it is a reflection of reality. However, if not, it could be examined as a potential form of patriotism and propaganda. In this case, our transatlantic readings of these movies distort our image on reality and may be considered as cultural diplomacy to justify their actions.

  3  

I will begin this dissertation with outlining the conceptions of terrorism and giving a brief history of their representation in fiction and non-fiction movies. Afterwards, I will focus on the statement that patriotism and national unity are strengthened during external threats or war. I will then discuss the responses of African Americans to 9/11 and the War on Terror. In the last part of this thesis, I will analyze a selection of non-fiction terrorist movies for their political intent, reflect on their portrayal of African Americans and argue whether these representations fit with reality or not. More specifically, I will research in what way they deviate from reality, shaping a viewer’s understanding, and how this can be seen as a potential form of propaganda or soft power.

1.1 9/11 and terrorism

Before discussing the parameters of national unity and the accompanying behaviors, I will first elaborate on what has been set in motion after 9/11. I will describe some of the conceptions concerning terrorism, as these definitions reflect the setting in which cinema became fueled with diverse material and ideas. On the 9th of September 2001, the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda committed four terrorist attacks on the United States in New York City and the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C., ending the lives of 2,996 people. The attacks severely shattered America’s self-belief and seeming invincibility. As previous terrorist attacks did not occur on their own territory, Americans had been feeling inviolable (Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver, & Browner, 2007). However, their dedication to interventionism presented them with a bitter consequence and made them face a suppressed reality. The failed understanding of other nations and preserved national identity that they were trying to uphold in their actions proved self-destructive once more. On September 11th, 2001, the rooted irony of fighting for freedom and righteousness of others and the consequential restriction of America’s own was marked on every television screen in the world. Historians, politicians and academics continuously reiterate the reason for what happened on that day. Was it a clash of civilizations? Was it an emotional act of revenge, rooted in the United States’ persistent involvement? Was it a result of the East’s impaired security and identity? As Cole stated that 9/11 was not a clash of civilizations, but a clash over policy, the debate continues on the misconceptions around terrorism and the meaning of 9/11 (Cole, 2006, 30). No matter how deeply America continues to strive for progress and liberal ideals, their conservative innateness always prevails in determining the course of future policy, which is constantly attempting to safeguard their national security and international identity. By putting a name on the perpetrators of evil, America sought to define its enemy. The word “terrorism” was given a different interpretation that became deeply connected to the emotions

  4  

of 9/11. However, subsequent divergent definitions of terrorism highlighted differing approaches and interpretations of the event. Crenshaw (1995) underlined this aspect of a social construction within terrorism and its subjective fashion. Hoffman (2006), Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver and Browner (2007), and Lutz and Lutz (2005) referred to the complexities of defining “terrorism”. Jackson (2005) defined the War on Terrorism as “a set of actual practices – wars, covert operations, agencies and institutions – and an accompanying series of assumptions, beliefs, justifications and narratives (…)” (8). The complex nature of terrorism is what implicates the reactions to it. In addition, terrorism is sensitive because of its close connection to a certain ideology. Lutz and Lutz (2005) contributed in defining terrorism by distinguishing between the actual practices of terrorism and the presence of terror.

Terrorism involves political objectives and goals. It relies on violence or the threat of violence. It is designed to generate fear in a target audience that extends beyond the immediate victims of the violence. The violence involves an organization and not isolated individuals. Terrorism involves a non-state actor or actors as the perpetrator of the violence, the victims, or both. Finally, terrorism is violence that is designed to create power in situations in which power has previously been lacking (i.e., the violence attempts to enhance the power base of the organization undertaking the action). (Lutz & Lutz, 2005, 7)

Ideology differentiates terrorists, but political power remains their goal. Terrorism is a means for sending a message to political leaders and government by creating fear and installing power and influence. It is therefore further described as political violence. Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver and Browner (2007) similarly highlighted terrorism as a means to establish power and argued that it is “the preferred and practically exclusive weapon of the weak against the strong” (9).

(…) Terrorism is the most violent form of psychological warfare, and its psychological impact is commonly understood to be greater than its physical effects. (…) Terrorism is a way of creating power in the hope of seizing from below that which the state wields from on high. (9).

In this perspective, they referred to the basis of psychological influence as “propaganda by deed”. The fear that terrorism installs is used as a means to put pressure on decision makers. By enlarging the scope of terrorism, the audience is increased as well. Terrorists have gained access to a larger amount of witnesses by the widespread distribution of the media (Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver, & Browner, 2007, 42). Although terrorism is an old phenomenon, it has become more intimidating due to these “new technologies of violence and mass communication” (Prince, 2009, 3). 9/11 became a pivotal event for media coverage. Moreover, modern media contributed greatly to the redefining of terrorism after 9/11.

  5  

Hoffman (2006) stated that the media’s hasty attempts in communicating events obstructed a correct defining of terrorism (1). Crenshaw (1995) agreed that news media “simplifies the problem of terrorism by focusing the attention of the public on the newsworthy aspects of the phenomenon, which tend to be its extraordinary or shocking characteristics, rather than any banal or mundane qualities it may possess” (8). The intense images and reporting of 9/11 popularized the event and inspired cultural phenomena to exploit actual sentiments and find recognition in an international audience. Immediately after 9/11, Washington drafted several options for a reaction, of which one was an offensive against Iraq, in spite of any evidence of the country’s involvement (Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver, & Browner, 2007, 414). However, choosing the path of moderate politics, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan would be targeted for harboring the Al Qaeda, and with it, Operation Enduring Freedom was outlined. In his Address to the Joint Session of Congress and the American People Speech on the 20th of September 2001, Bush announced a persistent foreign policy directed against terrorism (Mackiewicz, 2008, 45). Mackiewicz (2008) argued that the combination of the concepts “war” and “terror” was a significant step in marketing the future policy of the United States. The War on Terror was announced without a deadline or specific goal. It was introduced into the world, carrying an emotional message to an emotional audience with words of retaliation, but rooted in fear. This fear did not originate primarily out of the attack on their territory, but out of the attack on their national identity and the international goals that were intrinsically linked to it. The United States was unable to protect its citizens. Fear enables powerful people to take rash decisions without anticipating the consequences. Overall, it becomes a means to validate actions, to use victimization and carry out governmental desires with the consent of the public. It therefore enabled Bush to declare a War on Terror. The words used in his Address, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”, created an atmosphere of “us versus them”, a call to stand “united”. Caraley (2002) stated that 9/11 therefore marked something new, in part because “Americans formed a consensus in back of the President” (17). This was something that had never occurred before, even in previous instances when the nation’s interests were under attack. Bush’s framing of the War on Terror gained significant success and public support hovered between 89 and 90 percent (Mackiewicz, 2008, 46). It left free reign to the “hawks”, the right-wing team members surrounding Bush who were in pursuit of power and superiority, to impose their vision on to the White House, Congress and the public (Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver and Browner, 2007). On September 17th, 2002, the Bush administration introduced its new National Security Strategy of the United States of America, a further elaboration on the Bush doctrine. Mazlish, Chanda, and Weisbrode (2007) stated that this document implied that an “unprecedented threat had to be met with unprecedented methods”

  6  

(153). The strategy that was proposed concerned preemption, which would be undertaken with the approval of other nations (multilateral) or without (unilateral). It enabled the legitimization of unfounded actions. Bush’ team members, with the exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, were eventually able to motivate a war in Iraq by declaring that Hussein defied the UN ban on producing weapons of mass destruction (Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver, & Browner, 2007). Although it became evident that there were no such weapons, they found advantages in increasing military power in Iraq for unofficial reasons as oil interests. Moreover, prevention proved to be a valuable companion to prevention (Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver, & Browner, 2007). From 9/11 onwards, counterterrorism became a central part of U.S. strategy. With the Patriot Act in 2001 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, as well as the empowered National Security Agency, intelligence services were given endless means to track down any forms of terrorism, threatening civil liberties and human rights (Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver, & Browner, 2007). With the beginning of Obama’s presidency, a seeming hope was installed. Starting in 2007, the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq increased further till the formal withdrawal in 2011. In March 2009, the United States Department of Defense officially changed the name from “Global War on Terror” to “Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO)”, leaving the objectives the same (Wilson, Kamen, 2009). As this phrase was not intended for public discourse, it was changed again in 2010 to “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)” (Ambinder, 2010). According to Birkenstein, Froula and Randell (2010), these rhetorical turns revealed the continuous reframing of post-9/11 discourse that highlights their consistent awareness of the events. In May 2013, Obama delivered his presidential speech on counterterrorism at the National Defense University, declaring, “We must define our effort not as a boundless “global War on Terror” but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America” (Coates, 2014). In December 2014, the United States and allied forces formally declared the turnover of combat operations in Afghanistan to Afghan forces (Philipps, 2014). Although the War on Terror might have lost its wording, it certainly has not lost its presence in American society.

1.2 Terrorism and cinema

Popular culture has integrated the events of 9/11 into everyday life. In addition, it offers a reciprocal reading of terrorism: the public expressed its opinion in cultural artifacts and likewise have these artifacts influenced the voice of the public. In the words of  Birkenstein, Froula and Randell (2010), popular culture “has become a creative space in which nuanced participatory debates take place among public citizens rather than with (and between) our elected representatives in Washington, DC” (2). Therefore, popular culture offers some

  7  

insight in the existing discourse on 9/11 by American citizens. It provided them with a means to handle the worries, fear and grief as they try to overcome what happened (Birkenstein, Froula, & Randell, 2010). The government however did interact with these cultural expressions, as they form a means to shape and influence public opinion. Political messages can be identified by revealing the divergences from reality in films with historical and actual subject matter. Therefore, I address the historical and actual occurrences and their sediments in cinema. First, I will discuss the preliminary responses of cinema after 9/11. As American consciousness was scarred with 9/11, it left its marks in popular culture for the world to see. Prince (2009) stated that there seemed “(…) no way out of, beyond, or past the psychological and political spaces that terrorism has established for the modern period” (3). By gathering the cultural approaches towards depicting 9/11, we can identify a development and processing of 9/11 thoughts. Cettl (2009) observed that although terrorism gave way to “numerous pop culture film fantasies” in previous decades, few major terrorist films were released in the short aftermath of 9/11 (1). Instead, there was a tendency to release and produce “family” films and comedies, which could offer the public a form of escapism (Dixon, 2004). In any case, there was no need for more action films that could recall the same illusory images that were spread on 9/11 (Prince, 2009). Moreover, the unbelievable images of 9/11 as rendered by the news and eyewitnesses could have easily been mistaken for a disaster movie. This caused films that employed images of the World Trade Center to be adjusted or postponed (Dixon, 2004; Prince, 2009; McSweeney, 2014). One of these films was Schwarzenegger’s Collateral Damage, which was released four months later than planned, causing considerable losses in financial investment (Morgan, 2009). As opposed to the abundance of action movies after the Vietnam War, people felt they could not mark 9/11 as something that lay in the past. This delayed the creation of new terrorist films for Hollywood considerably. Because terrorism was addressed as a national trauma under the Bush era, it was a too loaded and serious theme to pick up in popular entertainment (Cettl, 2009). The visual record of 9/11 had affected the consciousness of Americans already enough (Prince, 2009). As Ann Kaplan stated that “this event seemed to feed trauma by being so highly visible in its happenings”, the memory of 9/11 was intrinsically linked to imagery and there was an initial fear for Hollywood to further affect that memory (Prince, 2009, 3). As previously stated, the government did interact with the cultural expressions after 9/11. Moreover, Schopp and Hill (2009) and Nelson (2003) argued the Bush administration even engaged Hollywood in their response. In October 2001, at the insistence of the Pentagon, a group of Hollywood scenarists and directors who specialized in catastrophe movies were summoned for their creativity. They were asked to imagine the possible ways of new terrorist attacks and possible responses. A month later, the White House arranged with Hollywood

  8  

executives to engage movies in “sending out the right ideological message about the “War on Terror”, and to determine how Hollywood could “help” communicate – or rather, market – the new War on Terror to the American people” (Schopp and Hill, 2009, 14; Kellner, 2010). The American government therefore did not refrain from awaiting reaction and anticipated in attempting to win the public for their cause. This matches with Croft’s (2006) notion that the meaning of ‘terror’ is constructed and that “what should be done about them, is produced and reproduced by political elites and by the producers of popular culture” (1). The War on Terror has overtly placed itself in American culture, which has outlined the parameters for the discourse on the War on Terror, therefore defining what is acceptable and what is not. In these post-9/11 expressions, political elites and the public’s voice existed side by side. Although it was argued that few major terrorist films as a form of mass entertainment were created in the short aftermath of 9/11, there was a continuous making of “memorial” films and television programs produced after 9/11 to express public sentiment. These ranged from innovating commentaries on existing images to completely new perspectives and reflections (Dixon, 2004). There was a clear difference between reporting the events in a documentary and in fiction. These latter dramatizations were more problematic in finding an audience, as the public did not crave a retelling of what had already been burned onto their memory. Documentaries on the other hand were more valuable as they seek out to portray more information and offered a fitting medium to further investigate the events (Prince, 2009). In addition, there was a wealth of material in photographs and videos to be included in these documentaries. The makers attached their own interpretations and narratives to their documentaries in trying to make sense of 9/11 (Prince, 2009). In 2002, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarrity compiled eleven international short films into the controversial film 11’09”01, reflecting the perspectives of eleven different nations. Each segment lasted eleven minutes, nine seconds, and one frame (Dixon, 2004). In one of the segments, a connection in foreign policy was made between the events on September 11th in 2001 and those on that date in 1973, when Salvador Allende’s Chilean government was overthrown with the support of the Nixon administration (Birkenstein, Froula, & Randell (2010). The parallel between the torturing of Allende’s allies by the CIA with the torturing and interrogating of suspects by the Bush Administration provided a confronting image on the interconnectedness of actions and consequences (Birkenstein, Froula, & Randell, 2010). Several other segments of the film were critical of the current U.S. foreign policy and presented the attacks from their own original perspectives. As well as in the United States, the film remains to be controversial in European countries. The divided reception revealed a lot about how half of the European community believed that U.S. foreign policy is partly to blame for 9/11 (Dixon, 2004).

  9  

As long as the actual movie remained clear as a construct without explicit references to buildings being blown up, the appetite of the American public for violence proved consistent (Dixon, 2004). Films as Black Hawk Down (2001), Collateral Damage (2002), Behind Enemy Lines (2001), The Sum of All Fears (2002) and We Were Soldiers (2002) marked a renewed public interest in storylines of conflict. Dixon (2004) argued that while the American public was in a clear need for action, the 21st century was marked by uncertainty and danger. The events of 9/11 had challenged the ideals of their Western democracy and initiated a climate of fear (Prince, 2009). The American public could therefore find comfort in American cinema to face and irrationalize their fears. As mentioned earlier, movies made shortly after 9/11 were intended to entertain the audience, give them a form of escapism, but also to make sense of what happened. In trying to deal with the War on Terror, movies were made to express opinions and concern. Bush’s attempt to divert the public with his war on Iraq was received with opposing opinions (Dixon, 2004). Forms of criticism were therefore expressed through cinema. When Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, a first clear and striking expression was given on the dissent on Bush’s torture and interrogating methods in popular cinema. This led to other documentaries on the indignation of the measurements taken under the Iraq War such as Taxi to the Dark Side by Alex Gibney and The Road to Guantanamo (2006) by Michael Winterbottom (Cettl, 2009). The critical narratives underpinning these movies reflected the voice of the public that was not unanimous in its response to 9/11. In 2002, the 25th hour by Spike Lee was released as the first American major theater production that explicitly referred to the attacks on 9/11 in its storyline (Rickli, 2006). This psychological drama dealt with 9/11 in a more metaphorical way. It tried to reflect New York City in an aura of loss (Prince, 2009). In 2006, Paul Greengrass’ United 93 was released, which was the first movie to actually portray the events of 9/11. Because of its realistic imagery, the movie received a great deal of criticism. However, it provided a new perspective by focusing on the surviving strength of America when dealing with injustice. Cettl (2009) argued that the film sought to reinstate the self-determination of the American people by emphasizing resistance to terrorist threats and centralizing the fight. Flight 93 and World Trade Center, both released in 2006, also directly focused on the attacks and underlined this similar feeling of strength and triumph (Morgan, 2009). It took until 2007 for American cinema to overtly take up the subject matter of the War on Terror. When Obama started his presidency in 2009, terrorist cinema had reinvented itself as “the most dynamic, exciting and relevant means of socio-political criticism in contemporary American cinema” (Cettl, 2009, 1). Various interpretations and opinions were spread through cinema. Some American movies entailed subtle acknowledgement of their responsibility in

  10  

the build-up to 9/11 and America’s tendency to self-destruction. Schopp and Hill (2009) even argued that the media has been playing out the terrorist threat for years and that, in a way, American cinema with its disaster movies imagined and created such events. The attacks of an iconic monument were unbelievably cinematic (McSweeney, 2014). American director Robert Altman shared this viewpoint and had already argued that Hollywood’s successful disaster movies inspired such attacks (Rickli, 2006). Jean Baudrillard additionally wrote:

The countless disaster movies bear witness to this fantasy, which they clearly attempt to exorcise with images, drowning out the whole thing with special effects. But the universal attraction they exert, which is on a par with pornography, shows that acting-out is never far away, the impulse to reject any system growing all the stronger as it approaches perfection or omnipotence. (Dixon, 2004, 4)

The wave of terrorist films in 2007 offered their own interpretations to the terrorist setting, broadening the political debate on cultural diversity. The public felt at unease with the status of terrorist captives. Bush and Cheney had no problem with ignoring the Constitution in the creation of Guantanamo Bay (Cettl, 2009). The paradox of protecting freedom but likewise confining it from others impeded U.S. foreign policy. The Bush Administration’s resoluteness in finding answers was dominating “cultural, social and even humanistic concerns in such films as Rendition (2007) and Redacted (2007)” (Cettl, 2009, 16). Therefore, a patriotic sentiment in movies was gradually replaced with political criticism on what Bush compromised to execute his War on Terror. According to Morgan (2009), a review in The Atlantic Monthly in 2008 by Ross Douthat on post-9/11 film and television likewise marked that “the war in Iraq has been the most consequential political event for Hollywood” (2). Douthat added that the initial and more prevailing theme of patriotism in movies contrasted with how Hollywood interpreted it. Rather than a return to the 1950s Hollywood of idealism, post-9/11 movies had taken a realistic turn and reconsidered the American government and its institutions. Moreover, movies with conspiracy narratives proved to be rather skeptical in the “aftermath of inconclusive government efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan” (Morgan, 2009, 3). However, Prince (2009) argued that conspiracy documentaries such as Loose Change and 911 Mysteries: Demolitions were a real attempt at explaining 9/11 and could count on a huge and loyal audience. They underpinned the public’s sentiment in their search for answers and truth. According to Douthat, Hollywood remained doubtful in openly exhibiting the influence of 9/11 in its filmmaking. He stated that the “terrorist baddies” were anything but the types of people who committed the attacks on 9/11 (Morgan, 2009, 3). In any case, references to the image of the perpetrators were made with caution. Cettl (2009) argued that in movies as Body of Lies (2008), The Kingdom (2007) and Traitor (2008), the Muslim world and terrorism were therefore approached from a religious and cultural inspired more sensitive approach. The

  11  

cinema of terrorism became a means to exploit political perspectives as Obama became president and made ends with Guantanamo Bay. “Our popular culture consistently reflects an America engaged in a far more complex negotiation of the post-September 11 world than that painted by our government or by the American media (…)” (Schopp & Hill, 2009, 20). After 9/11, it is shown how significant film, television and other media are in the construction of our political realities (Nelson, 2003). While cinema tends to offer a form of escaping, it highly engaged in creating movies with the thematic of 9/11 and terrorism to make sense of what had happened. 9/11 was visualized initially to deal with existing national incomprehension. However, with Bush’s policies and the War on Iraq, visual renderings become more critical and openly. In this research, cinema provides us with knowledge of American society in the aftermath of 9/11, as popular culture embedded the main responses in its genres and narratives. According to Marita Sturken, “We need to ask not whether a memory is true but rather what its telling reveals about how the past affects the present” (Prince, 2009, 14). Moreover, a transatlantic audience perceives the expression of American opinion in film. It is therefore important to gather how movies are reconstructing reality, as meaning is created in this way (Prince, 2009). Moreover, Sturken stated, “(…) thinking about what is forgotten and omitted can be as instructive as looking at what has been selected for inclusion in the cinematic portrait” (Prince, 2009, 14). This remark is of importance to my analysis, where it will be discussed in what way cinema diverts from reality in its portrayal of African Americans. Furthermore, an inaccurate rendering could reveal something about our transatlantic understanding.

  12  

2. Conceptions of patriotism, national identity and unity There is a shared understanding that wars and external threats engage people to stand united against a common enemy. Taking into account the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that existed after the 9/11 attacks, American citizens could find comfort in each other and overcome their differences. Somerville (1981) referred to this existing connection between wars and patriotism. In addition, he argued that participation in wars has been universally considered to be patriotism’s prime form of activity. The love for the homeland and the indignation about an attack on it are strong impulses within patriotism. These patriotic outbursts during external threats are similarly reflected and enhanced by American culture. Moreover, the influence of American society on patriotism is evident, as raised by Somerville (1981), and has rooted patriotism deeply into the minds of Americans as a “moral duty to risk oneself in war” (573). This by-law of military commitment to the homeland legitimizes their identity as an American citizen. I will elaborate on the notions of patriotism and national identity in their connection to external threats, as these understandings form part of our transatlantic perspective on the internal societal manifestations of the United States and offer insights in what way a minority group can or cannot relate to an overall patriotic sentiment. The presence of patriotism is part of America’s debated exceptional nature. This involves that Americans openly assimilate themselves with their country and treat the interests of their homeland as if they were their own (de Tocqueville, 2004, 106 – 107). Patriotism is deeply connected to the nature of being an American citizen and has defined its own national parameters. Huddy and Khatib (2007) referred to the complex definition of patriotism as “a sense of national loyalty, a love of national symbols, specific beliefs about a country’s superiority, and as a crucial ingredient in the development of civic ties to a mature nation” (63). It is intrinsically linked to the values of an American citizen. In a certain extent, patriotism is easily adept in overpowering nationalism. While nationalism manifests itself against other nations, patriotism is more internally focused by relating to own values and beliefs. It dominates an allegiance based on shared national traits by an indescribable, cultural attachment and affinity to one’s nation. It has caused people in historical occurrences to be uncritical of government policies. But moreover, it has a tendency to silence the voice of reason and be upheld as a banner for political urges. In 1176, Revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine already warned about the so-called ‘sunshine patriotism’, a form of patriotism where flag-waving has suppressed the safeguarding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the liberty and ideals for which soldiers fought hard (Crotty, 2005). Teachout (2009) argued that a nationalist impulse is needed to create an independent country. As Americans differentiated themselves from their oppressors, their commercial inheritance

  13  

made them adequate at embedding elements of patriotism in every aspect of American life. Subsequently, American culture exploited the usage of American symbols, with the approval of the government. With a consistent recurrence of patriotic elements, Americans became familiar with its obviousness from generation to generation. As such, the nation that evolved out of trade became attached and vulnerable to the commercial expressions of patriotism. From the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of a class, the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner before sport’s games to the overabundance of stars and stripes flags waving at the homes of American citizens. These consistent reminders tied the commitment to one’s nation into American consciousness.

2.1 Patriotism and war

In defining the origins of patriotism, O’Leary (1999) asserted that private actors in society, such as the organizations for veterans, rather than the state played an important role in the onset of patriotism. The original value attributed to soldiers that fought for their beliefs and their hopes for their country became a banner for patriotism and a marketing tool for the government. The recurring patriotic symbols are a way to unite the people and encourage them to think in benefit of the nation. During wartime, Americans are reminded to live up to their patriotic promise. John F. Kennedy was evident at his inauguration in 1961 when he spoke the words: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” (Teachout, 2009, 7). This nationalist approach to patriotism, along with many others that were uttered by former presidents, reminds the American people of their roles as soldiers within their American army. This return on investment, being able to live in the United States, is demanded at any time and any place. By researching social identity theory, Huddy and Khatib (2007) were able to confirm the interconnectedness between war and patriotism. This theory defines a person’s identity based on the group to which he or she belongs. They argued that although some research has shown that patriotism is unrelated to out-group hostility, international conflict by out-group threats enhances patriotism. Crotty (2005) agreed that a patriotic identity and the public interest prevail over ethnic identities and individual concerns in times of a national crisis. He stated, “in the long run, willingness to make even small sacrifices must be reinforced by popular culture and sustained by governmental institutions that will channel people’s energies into public life” (69). Because individual interests consistently intervene in the focus of patriotism, an appeal to the “greater good” must constantly be made. In its connection to wartime politics, I argue that patriotism could very well be considered as a side effect of war and the need to justify it as being for the benefit of the people. It is an ideology attached to an American mindset to which political leaders can appeal when needing to legitimize their actions. The connection between patriotism and military engagement reflects the United

  14  

States’ desire to exert control as a nation. Own struggles of insecurity and fear are overcome by their values of military commitment. Additionally, the importance of patriotism within America uncovers an internal need for empowerment and a legitimization of warfare.

2.2 Patriotism and national identity

As part of their debated exceptionalist nature, Americans openly assimilate themselves with their country. The “patriotic sentiment is pervasive” and the interests of the father country are treated as if they were their own (de Tocqueville, 2004, 106-107). According to Onuf, this exceptionalist nature is evident in a discourse that reflects their identity as a nation (2012). Linked to the notion of patriotism is therefore the presence of national identity. Huddy and Khatib (2007) defined national identity “as a subjective or internalized sense of belonging to the nation” (65). They also noted that Americans with a strong national identity were more attentive to politics and actuality. Political leaders therefore outline the identity of the nation, ruling out those who do not feel part of it. Huddy and Khatib (2007) also raised the assertion that patriotism implies a civic involvement, as proven by military involvement. This form of patriotism stands in contrast with “sunshine patriotism” or “uncritical patriotism”. A sense of national identity enables a greater national attachment and political involvement. Patriotism could be effective when there is a strong feeling of national identity and could become a powerful medium in legitimizing actions. As such, right- and left-wing political leaders employ their own interpretations of patriotism and therefore reveal differing intentions “for the good of the country”. According to Onuf (2012), the presence of patriotism has marked since the day of independence differences between Americans, calling the opposing party’s affiliates as “insufficiently patriotic, even “un-American”” (78). The low level of tolerance for those who are “unpatriotic” has created minority groups and a consistent lack of understanding. McCartney (2006) noted that identity “both constitutes and prescribes the conduct and beliefs appropriate to the actor (21). He argued that an identity is a part of a culture and that within this culture, there is a mutual understanding. The excessive patriotic encouragement therefore has a counteraction: not every American has a sense of belonging to the national identity. Patriotism therefore excludes them even further. Additionally, McCartney (2006) stated that people respond in a certain way and recognize behavior according to the identity they are faced with in a certain situation: a religious one, racial, national... When wars threat the comfort and security of citizens, they are returned to the very essence of who they are or where they belong. When 9/11 happened, there was an attack on the United States as a nation. Therefore, a reaction from the nation would encourage a patriotic sentiment. As national identity, civic involvement and patriotism are linked, internal groups that do not have a sense of American belonging, will not be part of the reaction. On the other hand, the existing uncertainty after 9/11 could have led to a new understanding of national belonging, reshaping their national identity.

  15  

2.3 Patriotism and unity

Patriotism requires looking beyond internal differences to a politically constructed national identity (Crotty, 2005). But ironically, although the country addresses the American identity when reaching out to the public, throughout history, it keeps on being face with its own identity of being the “melting pot”. Li and Brewer (2004) concluded in their research that patriotism, in the sense of national unity, could not be combined with an acceptance of internal cultural diversity (736). However, if there is an appeal to a common goal in defining American unity, patriotism is “less likely to be exclusionary and at least has the possibility of promoting more inclusive representations of the nation” (Li & Brewer, 2004, 736). Li and Brewer (2004) highlight that when there is a nationalistic tendency, meaning that there is a tendency to differentiate one’s nation from other nations, there is less tolerance for internal diversity. This is a logical outcome as hostility towards other national cultures strengthens the incomprehension of own cultural diversity. Therefore, it is more feasible to unite citizens of different origins when appeals are made to a shared goal and purpose, rather than to similarities of culture and heritage. Therefore, when overarching goals are addressed, patriotism can overcome intergroup conflict. In addition, there is a strong need for a superordinate sense of belonging for culturally diverse groups to feel attached to their nation. Transue (2007) raised that external threats could very well increase internal conflict, as gathered with McCarthyism, but could also unite people. He raised the aforementioned notion that when political appeals are made to a higher purpose and identity, internal cultural conflict is reduced (89). The political approach in uniting citizens is vital to the responses. After 9/11, the approach initiated by President Bush emphasized an “us versus them” discourse. The perpetrators of the attacks were terrorists and all those who did not stand with the United States would stand against them. This discourse was highly emotional and did not define a clear delineation of terrorists, equally leaving out a transparent and well-defined goal. Besides referring to national identity as strengthened when faced with an external threat of war, it is also constructed and expressed after the victory of one. In reference to Roosevelt’s Declaration of the war on Japan, Christie (2008) raised that “if the pursuit of victory is symbolically tied to the attributes of national identity, then the achievement of victory is the ultimate reaffirmation of that identity” (4). However, after the victory, the nation is confronted with new realities that challenge a redefining of national identity and purpose. A new form of discourse needs to be created that upholds the national sentiment of a victory. Furthermore, Christie (2008) stated that victory shapes American identity by addressing past experiences. On the other hand, this would also be the case after a posed threat. When referring to earlier achievements, faith is restored by people’s collective memory of previously overcome obstacles. Crotty (2005) similarly addressed the challenge for political leaders to recall and reinterpret past events in dealing with a crisis. In connection with earlier

  16  

arguments that highlighted the importance of a common goal, the phrasing of the goal could be shaped as the idea of victory (Christie, 2008). Bush attempted to recapture this belief in victory as a way of overcoming the events on 9/11, intending to inspire the people to stand united once more.

  17  

3. Responses after 9/11

3.1 General response

Concerning the aftermath of 9/11, Crotty (2005) stated that “not since 1942 has there been such an opportunity for – or danger of – a massive civil mobilization of the U.S. population on the basis of American national identity” (64). As previously discussed that a “collective trauma” unites the people, the immediate aftermath of 9/11 has shown a stark increase in patriotic consumerism (Crotty, 2005). The sale as well as the visibility of the U.S. flag increased, patriotic slogans were linked to businesses and public contributions rose significantly (Quay and Damico, 2010; Birkenstein, Froula and Randell, 2010; Stout, 2004). In connection to this new wave of patriotism, Crotty (2005) addressed the irony in the public’s tendency to connect with the government and the government’s response telling them to consume. Birkenstein, Froula and Randell (2015) noted this reinforced patriotism that was initiated indirectly by the government:

Analysis of news reports and advertisements suggests that popular culture and mass media depictions of fear, patriotism, consumption, and victimization contributed to the emergence of a “national identity” and collective action that was fostered by elite decision-makers’ propaganda. (15)

The narrative George Bush constructed on his War on Terror clearly adapted to the notions of patriotism, as he stressed the events on 9/11 as an attack on the United States’ “responsible pursuit of liberty and democracy” (Crotty, 2005, 78). In addressing these values imposed by the Constitution, Bush reasons to protect their national interest. In trying to overcome the collective trauma, Americans sought out to make sense of what happened. Their interpretation of 9/11 was shaped by American culture and reflected a return to their patriotic instincts. Television and radio uttered this patriotic spirit. In October, a Newsweek headline in October stated “The New Shape of Patriotism: Still Shocked, We’re All Patriots Now” and the title of an article in the New York Times proclaimed: “Sept. 11 Attack Narrows the Racial Divide” “Harlow and Dundes, 2004, 440). However, Crotty (2005) stated that the public experienced difficulty in describing the War on Terror as an act of patriotism. There were more problems to be solved concerning the future foreign policy of the United States. Schopp and Hill (2009) argued, “”patriotic” identity-building encourages an uncritical acceptance of both media and governmental interpretations of September – and of the cults of personality that those interpretations fostered” (31). The marketing of War on Terror therefore did not meet the felt anxiety by the public. The United States’ need to address their identity in media uncovers their excessive desire in defining it

  18  

and legitimizing their actions. In trying to overcome the existing fear and uncertainty of the American public, popular culture offered their definition of national identity and supremacy that everyone was looking for (Schopp and Hill, 2009). American citizens were eager to portray their membership and legitimacy by means of public symbols and utterance of indignation on 9/11. In creating a national identity the politics of fear was a central element (Birkenstein, Froula and Randell, 2010, 15). This prevailing atmosphere of fear and security was externally positioned by the proclaimed “War on Terror” and internally by a discursive return to their values of freedom and democracy. However, Crotty (2005) noted that internal responses threatened the existence of their very own freedom-state. Risking their open society, citizens immediately engaged in hate crimes against Muslims as wells blaming those who “turn the nation away from God”, such as abortionists, feminists, gays etc. (79). In addition, Americans were equally willing to sacrifice their privacy and enable the police and governmental forces to take up more power (Crotty, 2005). Over time, these xenophobic tendencies would decrease however. By September 2002, the percentage that favored an increased immigration had returned to the same level as before the attacks on 9/11 (Crotty, 2005, 80). Rather than looking for an explanation for the attacks, Americans were encouraged in their feelings of victimization by the news media (Birkenstein, Froula and Randell, 2010). Morgan (2009) argued that “journalists have been the major interpreter of events after 9/11, and their commentary has been criticized for being either too accepting or too disparaging of administration policy” (4). Birkenstein, Froula and Randell (2010) and Morgan (2009) stated that rather than being critical in their reporting, the media increased its role more than ever as government-sponsored public diplomacy by its progressive scope. Those reporters who dared to utter negative thoughts on the causes and reasons of the attack were ousted. When the voice of the young generation reached the news, a national identity emerged through the media that offered and guided the public gradually through new perspectives. As stated in a previous section, patriotism is also connected to civic involvement. Bush favored a return of community service and promoted the expansion of government-sponsored organizations such as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps and the creation of the USA Freedom Corps. After 9/11, there was a boost in volunteerism, enlistments in AmeriCorps and emergency blood donations (Crotty, 2005). Robert Putnam likewise traced a definite change in civic engagement as evidenced in an increase in “trust in government, trust in the police, and interest in politics” (Crotty, 2005, 65). This civic involvement was brief however and highly driven by the stories and images of 9/11’s legacy. Crotty (2005) included evidence from a Washington Post/ABC News poll in which it became evident that almost three-quarters

  19  

of the public would describe themselves as “strongly patriotic”, which was a level only previously registered in the middle of the Gulf War of 1991. In addition, a Gallup poll found:

(…) in the week after the attack (…) over 80 percent of Americans displayed an American flag, 60 percent attended memorial services, almost 75 percent prayed, and an equal number said they were showing greater affection than usual for loved ones. (Crotty, 2005, 65 – 66)

The War on Terror gradually diminished a patriotic awareness with citizens. After the war, polls perceived a rapid decline concerning the popularity of the United States. This sentiment was similarly expressed by Europe. Countries as Britain, Spain and Italy, who previously supported the war, were no longer sympathetic to the American battle against terrorism (Nye, 2005).

3.2 African Americans’ response

3.2.1 As seen after WW II

Before outlining the prevailing sentiment among African Americans towards 9/11 and the onset of the War on Terror, I will briefly elaborate on how this ethnic group reacted to World War II. World War II was similarly initiated by an attack on own territory. The attack on Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941 created an equivalent indignation on the United States’ evident vulnerability. By researching the reasons for African American endeavor in World War II and outlining points of interconnectedness, analogies could be recognized for African American response to the War on Terror. Smith (2005 – 2006) argued that blacks propensity to serve was high during World War II. He included the comment of Earl Ofari Hutchinson on black patriotic sentiment:

During America’s wars, Black protest has always given way to Black patriotism… Patriotic fever among Blacks soared during World War II. Black newspapers carried headlines Buy a Liberty Bond and Win the War. Not only did Blacks buy millions of dollars in war bonds, they also staged victory balls, rallies, and fund drives. (13)

Besides patriotism, black’s willingness to join the forces was also accompanied with the desire to stand up as American citizens and claim a victory for equality (Smith, 2005 – 2006, 13). There were also economic factors, such as their deplorable living conditions inherited from the Depression and the Great Migration. Smith (2005 – 2006) argued that only a scarce amount of blacks disdained the war. Eventually, during 1941 and 1945, the amount of blacks

  20  

“willing to join the T.S. Army far exceeded the amount they would take in” (18). In spite of the consistent segregated environment, blacks felt the drive to join forces. Saldin (2011) posed that the status of African Americans increased considerably during World War II. He referred to their military service, the foundations laid for the Civil Rights Movement and the prevailing intellectual and moral atmosphere, which “made racial discrimination appear particularly hypocritical” (109). The United States is a country created and sustained by war. Its citizens’ legitimacy is likewise tested under these natural states. But some ethnic groups are continuously ruled out for this legitimacy and are not given the chance to prove their citizenship. At the beginning of World War II, Selective Service literacy tests retained African American enrollment, although military branches were supposed to accept blacks in 1942. Saldin (2011) continued that, in contrast with the Vietnam War, African American soldiers were also considered to be unreliable but highly needed due to the shortage in manpower. In the end, 1 million African Americans fought in the armed forces during World War II. Even millions more African Americans served in the extensive defense industry (109). But “although African Americans had participated in all of the nation’s previous wars, they were always subject to segregation and discrimination, and were generally used on a temporary basis” (Saldin, 2011, 109). It was the need for manpower that forced military forces to take on African Americans. In addition, they were unable to uphold segregation policy at all times within the armed forces. Eventually, the increased military service of African Americans during the war changed white opinion. Saldin (2011) stated that also at home, the war enabled unification, “from Hollywood to the Office of War Information, pluralistic conceptions of citizenship were the order of the day” (110). In conclusion, the war provided African Americans with the opportunity to improve racial equality. Asa Philip Randolph, one of the black leaders, announced before the war “(…) we seek the right to play our part in advancing the cause of national defense and national unity. But certainly there can be no national unity where one tenth of the population are denied their basic rights as American citizens” (Saldin, 2011, 111). National unity was something to strive for at wartime. More importantly, at the time of WW II, how could they condemn Nazism if they were racially discriminating on their own grounds? Although other political scientists such as Daniel Kryder may contest the WW II’s influence on African Americans statute rather as a voting and military strategy than as a consequence of dedication and progressive insights, significant changes were initiated (Saldin, 2011).

  21  

3.2.2 As seen after 9/11 Why should we feel patriotic? For what? This is not our America, by no means. It’s not ours. We still fight for rights to vote… (The country is) not united. At al. (Harlow and Dundes, 2004, 439)

Addressing patriotic considerations from an African American perspective after 9/11 and benchmarking these with the general response allows insights in the validity of American unity. Although the media seemed to send the message that American society stood united, regardless of their racial and ethnic positioning within society, findings revealed the opposite. According to the Bush administration and subsequent reporting of the media, the attacks were considered to be an assault on the American identity in its wholeness (Harlow and Dundes, 2004, 440). In addition, Harlow and Dundes (2004) highlighted the attacks on 9/11 as a “unique set of circumstances” for occurring on their homeland, which made it highly personal (441 – 442). Expectations rose that 9/11 would cause a unifying effect because of the collective trauma and bewilderment. Therefore, Harlow and Dundes (2004) posed the following question in their research: is the opposition between ‘the good guy’ and ‘the bad guy’ a more outstanding perspective for African Americans than the ethnic aspect of the event? (440). Would African Americans reach out to their national identity and stand united as Americans against terrorists and their supporters? In answering these questions, Harlow and Dundes (2004) researched how white and black citizens made sense of what happened on 9/11 and what the causes were for potentially different interpretations. Their data however refute the idea that 9/11 united the nation. They argued:

While a new national group consciousness may have arisen among white Americans, a white hegemonic social system long ago produced a sense of group solidarity among African Americans, who have had to continually fight against marginalization in their own country. (453)

Harlow and Dundes (2004) found that not only was the trauma unsuccessful in bridging the racial gap, but it could also have strengthened “existing racial boundaries”. As Americans reached out to their patriotic nature, they readdressed the prevailing white interpretation of national identity, excluding disempowered populations even more (440, 454). This division, as pointed out by Harlow and Dundes (2004), is driven from particular feelings towards a national identity (440). In contrast with World War II, I gather that African Americans did not experience similar sentiments towards patriotism. Their motivations and contributions in WW II were not reconcilable with those after 9/11 as the attacks implicated an ethnic dimension and an unsatisfactory governmental reaction of reinforced patriotism.

  22  

According to Harlow and Dundes (2004), “African Americans are less patriotic than whites, Latinos, and Asian Americans” (441). They argued that patriotism is differently perceived among racial groups. With this notion, I interject the analogy that has been made between patriotism and racism (Gomberg, 1990; Nathanson, 1992 and Primoratz and Pavković, 2008). The similarity found between both concerns a group upholding a specific identity, racial or patriotic, to legitimize advantageous treatment for members of that group (165). Realizing what patriotism actually manifests, it is reasonable that minority groups refrain from identifying themselves as “patriots”. Nathanson (1989) argued that the language of patriotism makes people uncomfortable. It seems to force them to fully adapt to the demands of patriotism, being a good citizen, or be recognized as an outsider. Nathanson (1989) in this perspective advocates a moderate form of patriotism, which he distinguishes from racism. When George Bush started an “us versus them” narrative after 9/11, he retrieved and enforced the excluding power of patriotism. With World War II, African Americans saw advantages and benefits in joining forces. With 9/11, they recognized a reinforcement of patriotism, its tendency to exclude others and capability to suspect those who do not conform. Although 9/11 was not portrayed in mainstream media as racial, it was very much colored by ethnic perspectives and minority groups were painfully aware of this fact (Harlow and Dundes, 2004, 454). African Americans felt alienated even from their American identity as they once again felt the ease in which a minority group was pushed into proving their ‘Americanness’ and corresponding patriotism. One of the African American students in the focus group said:

These people out there, yesterday, they wanted to kill us (black people) because I’m from where they don’t like or I did something they didn’t like. But today we should all get together ‘cause we want to kill the same person. (Harlow and Dundes, 2004, 451)

Bush recognized advantages in focusing on the definition of an enemy by outlining a national goal. This attempt was culturally defined however and did not gain the support of the African American community. Loyalty towards patriotism is enhanced when there are clearly defined benefits to the minority group. The War on Terror did not present such an opportunity, nor did it evoke an emotional affinity to the nation. African Americans did react with astonishment and repulsiveness to the attacks, but they did not continue to uphold this feeling. Harlow and Dundes (2004) included that throughout American history, whiteness has been closely connected to Americanness. Furthermore, Americans themselves have greatly determined which groups are given American rights and privileges (440). By the influence of sociopolitical and economic forces, racial identity has come to denote a means of understanding and behaving. The existence of persistent racist expressions continues to this

  23  

day and the imposing of legal barriers have not been very effective in decreasing them (Harlow and Dundes, 2004, 441). Referring to actual occurrences with severe racial indignation, such as the shooting of African American Michael Brown and following riots in Ferguson, Missouri, as well as the shootings of African Americans by white policemen, cases of racism remain unresolved. Although media have been eager at nationally and internationally spreading instances of intolerable racism, discrimination remains to be unpunished in the subtle unguarded moments (Harlow and Dundes, 2004, 441). The overall white public is and wants to be true to their American nature in toleration and equality. They would openly condemn racism and be repulsive of racial tendencies in media and entertainment. But as the white supremacy is privileged to historically define national identity by their patriotism, it lies in their hands to choose who is not part of it. They are the so-called “gatekeeper of the American in-group identity” (Harlow and Dundes, 2004). The prevailing group in American society therefore dominates feelings of patriotism and its accompanying symbols. In addition, because of their history, African Americans were critical of the truthfulness of patriotism, which equally distances them from retaining a national identity (Harlow and Dundes, 2004, 455). World War II marked a change in their rights but did not provide them with the trust and hope for a continuous improvement. With regards to data on African American enlistments, Philpott (2007) noted, that in 2002, “the Army had 43,400 blacks among its first-term soldiers, representing 21 percent of the total”. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was a shift in enlistees and “by 2006, the number of blacks on their first hitch had fallen to 30,000, down to 14.5 percent”. This occurred while the overall first-term enlistments increased by 2,700 enlistees. In contrast with the African American share, the percentage of Hispanic first enlistments did not alter significantly. Thereby, Philpott (2007) included that from 2000 till early 2005, Army recruiting of African American youth had decreased by 40 percent. A decrease in black representation was similarly registered with the Marine Corps. Dorn (2008) stated that in 2007, the Center for Naval Analysis issued a study on Marine Corps’ recent decline in black enlistment. He also confirmed that since 2001, African American enlistments severely decreased. From the establishment of the all-volunteer force in 1973 till 2000, “blacks have made up about 20 percent of the total military and 30 percent of the Army” (Dorn, 2008, 10). In 2007, African Americans made up of only 14 percent of all accessions and 12 percent of Army accessions.

All services saw declines in the proportion of blacks in their enlisted forces from 2002 through 2006. The overall proportion fell in the Army from 27.5 percent to 22.2, in the Air Force from 18.1 percent to 16.6; in the Marine Corps from 15.2 to 10.8 and in the Navy from 21 percent to 18.6 (Philpott, 2007).

  24  

Dorn (2008) referred to the African American attitude towards the armed forces as one of the reasons for the decline (10). He makes this statement since employment opportunities for African Americans in the enlistment-age have not improved since 2001 and survey data have underscored the decline from 2001 to 2007 in propensity to enlist, for both whites and blacks. Moreover, the black propensity to enlist is reached its lowest point since 30 years. Dorn (2008) used survey data to attribute the War on Terror as a major cause for the decrease. Walsh (2005) raised the same concern in army enlistments among black, referring to the unpopularity of the war. He included a quote from the Defense Department’s Youth Poll:

Black youth reported being more negatively affected… Black youth were less supportive of US troops’ presence in Iraq, less likely to feel the war as justified, more disapproving of the Bush administration’s handling of foreign affairs and more disapproving of its use of US military forces than were whites or Hispanics.

African Americans did not identify with the War on Terror, they were only personally addressed if they lost someone in 9/11 (Dorn, 2008). They saw the war on Iraq as a political war fought for Bush, not as a personal one in which they felt engaged. The African American community, at its roots, was more conservative than portrayed in the media or in popular culture. A second cause was the influence of older generations on their children in discouraging enlisting (Dorn, 2008, 11). In particular, African American adults were highly aware that African Americans did not hold significant or visible positions during Bush’s presidency (11). There were no African American role models or leaders to motivate them into enlisting. Furthermore, Smith (2005 – 2006) included in his monograph that black leaders, influencers and a stringent hip-hop culture enforced an anti-war sentiment in the black community (iii). Along with this social aspect, Smith also researched other causes in political and economic domains for analyzing the decrease of African American enlistment. These revealed that there was no prosperous economy distracting African Americans from enlisting and that partisan politics also played a major role in the propensity for black enlistment. Smith (2005 – 2006) advocated a reversal of the black decline, as he stated, “One cannot effect change in an organization of which they are not a part” (iii). He further addressed the need for African American military leaders, or so-called heroes, to get the community involved again. In conclusion, African Americans experienced the same sentiments of shock and disillusion after 9/11 but lost their motivations under the lead of the Bush administration. The war on Iraq did not gain their support and they were not experiencing sentiments of patriotism. In addition, the reinforced patriotic approach differentiated them from portraying a national

  25  

identity. The racial nature of 9/11 and felt discouragement to reconfirm their Americanness isolated them from an initial wave of national unity.

  26  

4. Cinema as an interpreting and influencing medium

4.1 Politics in cinema

Politics and cinema combined offer a deeper understanding of the American perspective on history by examining the “political messages that movies may transmit” (Christensen & Haas, 2005). However, gaining insights in the deeper political connotations of movies and their effects remains to be complex and requires analyzing them further than independent variables. Nonetheless, cinema engages in the political debate by altering references to actual events or situations. Christensen and Haas (2005) argued that movies are “cultural stimuli that potentially address and modify the political attitudes and behaviors of audiences and society” (4). They are capable of changing our interpretations of reality. Similar to Christensen and Haas (2005), I will include the discussion of some popular American movies, as these offer political importance and are targeted at a large audience that is American, as well as foreign. However, I will also include a movie that was not released in the theaters to gather potential differences in interpretation. As Christensen and Haas (2005) included that movies tend to be generated under external social and political circumstances, influences could be recognized (4). In our transatlantic understanding, these movies generate some distinct political messages in shaping the debate on terrorism. By extent, they are similarly adept at shaping the opinion of the European viewers. To make sense of cinema’s political significance, it is needed to briefly outline the parameters for a political analysis of movies. According to Christensen and Haas (2005), “political films are presumed to be those that depict various aspects of the political system, especially (but not necessarily) political institutions, political actors, and/or the political system” (4). They added that in a way, each movie is politically significant. Besides political content, Christensen and Haas (2005) defined a second approach in identifying political films, namely by their communication of political and/or ideological messages. It remains to be complex to assess the political intent of the filmmaker and/or the filmmaking process. Apart from the film on its own and the interpretation of the audience, the political intentions remain to be important for political analysis. A third approach outlined by Christensen and Haas (2005) discussed the relationship between political films and political theory. As mentioned earlier, cinema has the capacity to creatively use and play with realistic subject matter. In this extent, content and intent, the two dominant dimensions of political films, reflect the two prevailing strands of political theory: empirical and normative (Christensen & Haas, 2005, 7). Similar to “empirical political theory, political content usually helps to describe and explain how politics work” (7). When films abstain from

  27  

a just representation of political reality, they may reflect specific political understandings. Political intent is similar to the normative political theory as it intentionally attempts to reflect certain perspectives and aims to persuade its audience, whether or not the audience receives these understandings or not. Christensen and Haas (2005) distinguished four types of political films on their dimensions of content and intent: politically reflective movies (high content and low intent), pure political movies (high content and high intent), socially reflective movies (low content and low intent) and auteur political movies (low content and high intent). Taking in account different comments, they additionally highlighted that, regardless of our understanding of film and politics, cinema does shape our opinion.

4.2 Fictional terrorist movies and reality

As previously described, the post-9/11 era of movies showed an evolution in their subject matter. A first stage was outlined with the initial dismissal of portraying any allusions to 9/11. Thereafter, there was a continuous atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that inspired moviemakers and directors to make sense of and exploit 9/11 and terrorist subject matter. From 2007 onwards, a huge amount of movies were made that explicitly dealt with 9/11 and the War on Terror in their images and storytelling. These movies represent the shift in American opinions and expectations. For this analysis, I have selected four movies that are situated within a period of cinema’s preparedness to explicitly take up terrorist references and adding imaginary plots. These movies reveal a freedom in addressing terrorist themes but also show the underlining approach to create an understanding of America confronted with terrorism. It shows how Hollywood perceives terrorist threats, but also shapes what the audience can understand by watching them. The deviations from reality shape our transatlantic perception and playfully adapt to the influence of popular culture on our understanding. I will analyze each movie by giving information about the reception of it and by outlining the plot. I will focus on the political content that can be identified first-hand. Furthermore, I will gather political messages and issues that are addressed, as well as an underlying ideology. I will research the political intent or possible motivations for the movie by means of the perspective of the director and references to reality. Throughout my analysis, I record the depiction of African American leading characters in particular.

  28  

4.2.1 Vantage Point (2008)

In 2008, Peter Travis’ Vantage Point was released. Due to the low budget cost of 40 million dollars, it was considered a financial success. However, the movie itself received a mixed review. Vantage Point tells the story of an attempted assassination on the President of the United States by multiple perspectives. With the tagline “8 strangers, 8 points of views, 1 truth”, the movie addresses the multiple interpretations of a singular event that combined give a truthful account of the attack. In the movie, U.S. President Henry Ashton visits the political summit in Salamanca, Spain, for promoting the international coalition on combatting terrorism. Eight vantage points are rendered subsequently by GNN producer Rex Brooks, Secret Service agent Thomas Barnes, proclaimed Spanish policeman Enrique, bystander Howard Lewis, President Ashton, terrorist Suarez, sharpshooter Javier and corrupt Secret Service agent Taylor. Every viewpoint reveals more about the reality of the event. The movie starts with Rex Brooks directing her crew to follow up on the arrival of the President. After a speech by mayor De Soto (Jose Carlos Rodriguez), the President is shot twice upon addressing the public. Shortly after, two explosions occur, of which one happens outside the plaza and one under the podium. Supposed policeman Enrique as an unwanted accomplice cooperates in the attack by supplying a bag to his girlfriend, Veronica, who threw it under the stage, causing the second explosion. Secret Service agent Barnes, who is still recovering from a previous assassination on the President, takes the lead in discovering and tracking down the shooter. He is portrayed as a genuine patriot, having previously taken a bullet for the President. In his chase, Barnes discovers that his fellow Secret Service agent Taylor is an accomplice in the terrorist act. It is also revealed that the President shot was a body double. Sharpshooter Javier, whose brother is being held hostage to ensure his cooperation, haunts the actual President down in his hotel and delivers him to Suarez. Suarez, having already killed Javier’s brother, also kills Javier. After Enrique survived the attack and confronted Javier and Taylor, Javier kills him for mistakenly thinking he was the one holding his brother hostage. Eventually, Barnes survives in several chases and saves the President from being kidnapped by Suarez and Veronica. The political content of the movie is evident throughout a story that is focused on a president and his Secret Service. Being released in 2008, the movie was introduced at the end of the Bush era. President Ashton himself is portrayed as a man of honor who hates the idea of a double and refuses to react hasty upon hearing of the attack. This reaction contradicts with President Bush’s emotional reaction and unspecified military retaliation after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, defined as the War on Terror. Contributing to this reaction may be the notion that the attack did not occur on their homeland. An additional key political issue addressed is

  29  

the promotion of an international treaty against terrorism. The terrorist attack on the political summit comes to validate the American fight against terrorism. A notable role is provided with an African American bystander, named Howard Lewis, who was filming the event when the shooting happened. After a little girl named Anna, who earlier bumped into him, becomes separated from her mother after the explosion, Lewis brings her to a female police officer. At the end, Lewis sees Anna attempting to cross a busy intersection and about to be hit by the ambulance by which Ashton was kidnapped. Lewis then jumps in to save her. These heroic actions adapt to the sympathy from the audience. In addition, in the beginning of the movie, Lewis talks with a man called Sam and tells about his family situation and his wife at home. This personal information enables the audience to relate with him. In the end, after having saved the girl and realizing what he has got to lose, Lewis calls with his wife and children, telling them that he is coming home and that he loves them. Not being connected to any of the perpetrators or policemen, Lewis plays an ordinary American that engages in the action. The selection of his character is questionable, as he only records the events on his camera and saves the girl, without being part of any of the political actors. Lewis records the curtain moving in the window from a near-by building and also witnesses the shooting of Enrique with his camera. He acts as a catalyst by helping Barnes in discovering the truth and moving the plot forward. Furthermore, he chases the Secret Service that was similarly chasing Enrique. It is striking for a common bystander to get involved in such an extent as to chasing policemen. Lewis reflects civic involvement by attempting to contribute to the actions of the Secret Service. Director Travis’ original character of Lewis was non-American but after Forest Whitaker had expressed interest in the project, Travis Americanized the role (Smith, 2013). This decision highly influenced the interpretation of the character. Lewis’ innocence as an American citizen in the midst of all the action seemingly attempts to refer to the notion of American combat. He is portrayed as a hero for saving the little girl and helping the Secret Service in detecting the perpetrators. With Lewis, an additional vantage point could be recognized: that of digital media. The movie in this extent could be regarded as a form of metacinema. It alludes to the way we perceive and interpret reality: through visual media. In addition, it links the movie to 9/11 by referring to the perception of terrorism by professional and amateur recordings. While in reality, media limits our vision and interpretation, in the movie; revelations are made by what was captured on tape. As such, Barnes discovers the disguise of his colleague Taylor as a Spanish policeman by looking at the GNN live feed. He also realizes the presence of a second bomb under the podium by looking at Lewis’ video footage and seeing Veronica throw a bag under the podium. Lewis as an ordinary bystander perceives and records everything by his video camera but is not able to make sense of it all. Similarly, the GNN news crew that is sitting in their van was unable to detect the oncoming threat. However, Barnes discovers elements of

  30  

reality that others do not perceive. He is trained for the interpretations. With this, a deeper political message could be recognized: the justification of technology in detecting terrorist threats. 9/11 installed a connection between terrorism and media. As American citizens and media were filming the fall of the twin towers, likewise were GNN and Lewis recording and trying to interpret the images. It is a governmental force, here represented by Secret Service agent Barnes, that prescribes an interpretation to the images. Barnes ends up being the true hero by saving the president. The happy ending of the movie still reveals the need for America’s self-affirmation in gaining the upper hand. To gather the political intent of the movie, I have to take in account any predetermined motives or intentions of the movie. Vantage Point was adapted from the screenplay by Barry L. Levy, who previously studied Psychology and History. Levy submitted the screenplay already in 2004, for which he was inspired by the assassination on John F. Kennedy in 1963 (Callaghan, n.d.). Placing the movie in a post-9/11 context changes its political understanding. By implementing the element of terrorism, Levy offers a compelling image of what it means to be an American by portraying the intense involvement of a common citizen to protect its President. The preliminary general disagreement of African Americans engaging themselves in a global War on Terror and the portrayal of an African American tourist going above and beyond to get involved imply a political statement for a united response to terrorism. An additional point of analysis is given by the absence of a clear motivation or ideology for the actions of the perpetrators. They are presented as Muslim by the movie’s reference to the Mujahideen Brigade. However, besides the chase scene through a Muslim neighborhood, further references or motivations are left out. This is similar to other movies made in 2008, such as Traitor, that are sensitive to a distinct religious portrayal. Whether there is the consisting lack of understanding other nations or a fear of generating explicit linkages to the terrorists of 9/11, the absence of a clear motivation omits a deeper understanding of the movie. On a surface level, it focuses on the action plot revolving around the Secret Service chasing the “baddies”. On an underlying level, it marks the search for truth and fear of not finding it without the help of committed citizens and technology. In conclusion, Vantage Point takes up obvious political content but leaves it to the public to interpret motivations and political intent. The movie positions itself as a quest for truth in response to the assassination on JFK. However, in the contemporary context of terrorism, it reveals a distinct political message on the role of technology in combination with terrorism. The appearance of the African American tourist offers a small plotline in the story but reflects a distinct American ideology of chivalry and heroism. It renders a message of American dedication that contradicts with reality. Lewis reflects an American citizen that feels

  31  

responsible in recording the chase and getting involved, setting the example to be patriotic when the American identity is under threat.

4.2.2 Unthinkable (2010)

In 2010, Gregor Jordan’s controversial torture thriller Unthinkable was released direct-to-video, which limited the access and awareness of viewers. In this extent, it offers a different reading than movies released in theaters. Brian Eggert (2010) declared in Deep Focus Review that the original benefactors went bankrupt before booking a theatrical distributor and that nobody else dared to release it, as Hollywood feared the politically sensitive subject matter. This notion allows an interpretation of what Hollywood did not want to see internationally expressed. The movie starts with Muslim Steven Arthur Younger recording a video in which he claims to have installed three nuclear bombs in three American cities. The FBI becomes aware of the bomb threat through the media. All television stations simultaneously broadcast the background locations of the video, asking for any recognition of the locations. Perpetrator Steven Arthur Younger, insisting to be addressed under his new name Yusuf Atta Mohammed, easily becomes caught. Thereafter, main character Special Agent Helen Brody is brought to a secret military facility to question him. The military also brings in the cryptic character “H”, played by Samuel L. Jackson, who insists on taking the lead in interrogations, with Helen Brody as the second interrogator. “H” enters the interrogation room and immediately chops off one of Yusuf’s fingers. Although the present officials disagree over “H”’s interrogation methods, they allow them to happen from bad to worse. As time pressure increases, “H” and Brody work together, playing good cop and bad cop in finding out the locations of the bombs. Yusuf eventually reveals his demands. He wants the American President to announce the termination of further financial aid to puppet regimes in Muslim nations and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Muslim countries within a reasonable time frame. After Yusuf’s wife gets killed in front of his eyes and his children threatened to be harmed as well, Yusuf reveals the three locations. After “H” argued that there are four bombs, he is coerced to start interrogating again. When Brody refuses to bring the children back, “H” untightens Yusuf, which enables him to gain control of a gun and commit suicide. The extended version ends with the bomb disposal team feeling relieved after resetting one of the bombs, not realizing a second one in the corner. Throughout the entire movie, there is the atmosphere of mystery that evokes the same anxiety and fear that persisted after 9/11. The music underpins the tension and the terminology is filled with words as “classified” and “top secret”. Furthermore, the viewer is blocked from any knowledge about “H” or the location of the bombs. The movie renders the felt frustration

  32  

in detecting terrorist threats and poses the question whether the end justifies the means. In contrast with the general African American response to the War on Terror, “H” plays the lead in getting answers and demonstrates all criticized interrogation techniques such as water boarding, administering electrical shocks and psychological insults. However, the character can be interpreted with a double feeling. On the one hand, he is presented as an unethical character that violates human rights without much effort. On the other hand, you feel sorry for him as he is constantly pushed further in doing the dirty work that others do not want to do. Sympathy grows as you see him care for his family and children but it likewise disappears when confronted with his interrogation techniques and murdering of Yusuf’s wife. Placing an African American in charge of the torturing of a convicted ethnic group after 9/11 contradicts with the reality of Bush’s disapproved treatment of terrorists. By centralizing the issue of terrorist interrogations, Unthinkable offers a critical stance. Another political issue addressed concerns the United States’ vision not to negotiate with terrorist. Upon presenting the terms, Brody responds that America does not make deals with terrorists to which “H” replies: “Oh please, we do it all the time”. In opposition with others, “H” finds the terms acceptable. In contrast with Vantage Point, there is a greater focus on the personal as well as political motivations of the enemy. Yusuf is a born American who proclaims to love his country but is willing to sacrifice that what is necessary for his religion. America’s continuous interventionism and policy in the Middle East caused him to place the bombs, get arrested and become interrogated. Furthermore, the references to Allah, Mohammed and Muslim nations reflect the director’s boldness in taking up and interpreting the War on Terror. In addition, Unthinkable alludes to the involvement of the U.S. in creating its own terrorists. Thompson explains that Yusuf is “one of us, a specialist, a military, part of Delta force and specialized in the field of nuclear weapons”. Moreover, he includes that he served in Iraq to check out nuclear weapons. The irony of the U.S. training its own enemies and the explicit depiction of interrogation techniques render a critique of America’s own engagement with terrorism. Bush’s policy of interrogation techniques in Guantanamo Bay and counter-terrorist activities in a context of fear and anxiety portray an accurate depiction of reality. Unthinkable does offer an element of patriotism and the desire of being a hero. When “H” talks to Yusuf about doing (to him) whatever is necessary to save the country, Yusuf tells him he’ll be a hero. Thereafter, “H” spits in Yusuf’s face, seemingly feeling questioned for his motivations. Brody also attempts in analyzing the deeper motivations of Yusuf by defining his actions as an attempt to be a hero for his family and religion. The rhetoric of being a hero refers to the motivations of both characters in doing whatever is needed and trying to understand each other’s actions. “H” defends himself for his methods by saying, “If those bombs go off, there will be no (…) Constitution”.

  33  

Similarly to Vantage Point, a connection between the media and terrorism is made. “H” has installed video cameras in his house to safeguard his family, the media spreads images of the terrorist video before the FBI even has knowledge about it and the videotape made by Yusuf itself is easily spread throughout the nation. With these images, Unthinkable refers to mass media’s influence in defining and spreading terrorism. Unthinkable reflects the public’s interpretation of Bush’s treatment of terrorists. Rather than rendering the American people as standing united when met with a terrorist threat, it reflects a rupture in American thinking. The FBI and the military are confronted with each other, instead of complementing each other. This disagreement in authority is evident in their approach as well. Initially, they stand disunited in interrogating Yusuf. However, under time pressure, they struggle with getting results as fast as possible. Although they are initially outraged by “H”’s interrogation methods, “H” is consistently pushed to continue. The movie questions its audience in taking a stand and thinking about what is legitimate and ethical. The title itself, Unthinkable, could refer to the gravity of the threat as well as to the boundaries that are being overstepped in getting answers.

4.2.3 Olympus has Fallen (2013)

Action thriller Olympus has fallen was released in 2013 and directed by African American Antoine Fuqua. Although the movie delivered financial success, it was received with mixed criticism. The movie depicts an attack on the White House by North Korean terrorists. Leading Secret Service agent Mike Banning, played by Gerard Butler, becomes dismissed after the death of First Lady Margaret Judd in a car crash on Christmas Eve when driving from Camp David to a campaign fundraiser. Eighteen months later, Banning is working at the Treasury Department headquarters when President Asher meets with South Korean Prime Minister Lee Tae-Woo. Upon an air assault, the President and some top officials are relocated to the bunker where North Korean terrorist Kang Yeonsak executes Prime Minister Lee on video, holding the President hostage. His demands are the United States withdrawal of the Seventh Fleet and military forces along the Korean Demilitarized Zone, which would remove American resistance against a reunification of Korea. In addition, Kang aims to destroy America’s own nuclear weapons by activating the program Cerberus and detonating them in their respective arsenals. In order to activate the program, Kang forces the government officials to reveal their activation codes. During a ground assault, Banning manages to enter the White House and disable the surveillance provided to the terrorists. Thereafter, he is able to make contact with external officials by the President’s satellite earphone. The Speaker of the House, Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman), has now become Acting President. Banning succeeds in saving the

  34  

President’s son, Conner, and killing Dave Forbes, who was a former Secret Service agent that turned private with the terrorists. Trying to withhold the terrorists, Army Chief of Staff General Edward Clegg enables Trumbull to order a SEAL air assault on the White House, despite Kang’s warning to stand down. Kang’s activation of the American anti-aircraft weapon system, Hydra, demolishes the air attack and attacking U.S. forces. Afterwards, Banning manages to disable the video access to the bunker and saves Secretary of Defense Ruth McMillan when she is about to be executed in front of the White House. Upon request, a chopper arrives at the White House taking in several disguised man. The chopper explodes in the air but Banning is right to assure Trumbull that the President was not inside. During a fight between Banning and the remaining terrorists, Asher is stabbed. Eventually, Banning manages to kill Kang and deactivate Cerberus just on time. Together with Asher, he leaves the White House. The political content of the movie is apparent. It includes several governmental functions, a location set in Washington D.C. and several indications to American beliefs and values, as well as to the political system. Religious phrases as “God bless America” and “God forgive” are repeated frequently. Furthermore, the setting of the movie emphasizes its political content. The beginning of the film is set in Camp David on a Christmas night. The following scene takes place on the 5th of July when there is a remaining abundance of American flags for celebrating the national holiday. In addition, the American scenery in Washington DC is accompanied with slow shots and music. Political issues being addressed concern, similarly to the previous movie, what is legitimate to sacrifice for your country. While in Unthinkable the question concerns what we can do to others to save lives, the question here is reversed and implicates what we can sacrifice of ourselves to save lives. For example, to find out the codes for activating Cerberus, Kang is harming Secretary of State McMillan when President Asher cannot handle it anymore and orders her to reveal her code. Another political reference to the American system concerns the role of the Acting President. The need for a leader enables the Speaker of the House, Allan Trumbull, to become President. With reference to reality, the placement of an African American executive in chief is linked to Barack Obama. But although Trumbull is given the power to make decisions, he initially depends on others. This raises an internal disunity as a consequence of stress and time pressure. Army Chief of Staff General Edward Clegg convinces Acting President Trumbull to launch and air assault, while Banning rightfully urges not to engage. When Banning warns Clegg that Kang has activated Hydra, Tumbull does not know what it is, as that information is classified. Clegg briefly assures him that the SEAL attack will overpower it. The failed air assault causes Trumbull to disagree with Clegg and depend on Banning for further actions. In

  35  

any case, Trumbull is not presented as a hero, unlike Banning. The internal differences and issue of authority complicate the actions to be taken and underpin the individualistic nature. From a racial perspective, Fuqua could have chosen to reinstate an African American as the Acting President to provide the African American community with a leader in a patriotic movie, directing the people in terrorist threats. However, Trumbull has to stand up for himself before being able to manage his power. Trumbull also raises an additional recurring political issue concerning the negotiation with terrorists. Similarly to the African American “H” in Unthinkable, Trumbull is prepared to give in to the demands of the terrorists. Although they are eager to assert not to negotiate, there is disagreement. Trumbull mainly wants to save the life of President Asher, saying, “We’re talking about the President of the United States”. Thereafter, Banning answers that it is about a whole lot more than that. Asher himself is personally approached as a rightful President. The viewer is introduced to his family, the love for his wife and his personal band with his Secret Service agent and friend Banning. Therefore, after the death of his wife, we as viewers could sympathize with him. As mentioned earlier, Secret Service agent Banning is presented as a hero, who single-handedly saves the White House from the terrorists. His boldness and resolution in rescuing the President calls out to patriotism. Moreover, the patriotic references are consistent throughout the movie: from images of the American flag, a discourse of standing “united”, to actions as Secretary of State McMillan being dragged away while shouting the Pledge of Allegiance. In addition, the tagline “When our flag falls, our nation will rise” underpins the supposed unity under threat. In congruence with the upheld level of patriotism, there is the legitimization for America’s actions. The movie ends with a speech given by President Asher on the evil that came to desecrate the American way of life, their beliefs and their freedom. Asher addresses the reunited nature of American, the chance to rebuild itself with honor and dignity and lead with example. During his speech, there is the image of hoisting the American flag. Asher also addresses the patriotic commitment in saying that they will never forget those who serve out of the spotlight, referring to Banning, but also referring to the American people and their patriotism in general. The desire to be heroes and lead others, as part of a desired American hegemony, is reinstated. Fuqua aims for an emotional response when showing images of flags, the Oval Office and the Washington Monument, as well as the destruction of the White House and the bringing down of a ruptured flag. In particular, the plane striking the Washington Monument recalls the attacks on 9/11. To further address the political intent of the movie, we have to take in account the filmmaker. African American Antoine Fuqua confirms the presence of patriotic imagery in the movie and stated in an interview by The Washington Times, “that flag is supposed to represent freedom.

  36  

So why not wave it?” (Suderman, 2013). Additionally, he raises the melting pot nature of the America and the opportunities it provides, with reference to his own career as a moviemaker. Fuqua does not refrain from implementing his own political ideologies and overt intentions of patriotism. A significant change in the terrorist approach of the movie concerns the ethnicity of the perpetrators. The enemies in the movie do not come from Afghanistan, but from North Korea. Choosing to deviate from expectations, Fuqua argued that he did not want to focus on the bad guys, declaring that they “could have been anybody, any number of countries we have issues with — it could have been Iran” (Suderman, 2013). However, by highlighting the patriotic American, Fuqua stereotyped an Asian enemy. This enemy is ready to detonate nuclear weapons and make America “a cold and nuclear wasteland”. This raises the irony of Americans fighting their own weapons. It reflects their victimization when confronted with an unethical adversary. The motivations of the enemy are once more personal as well as political. On a personal level, Kang’s mother was killed by an American landmine and his father was executed by the North Korean government for crimes against the People's Republic. The personal hatred towards America became a political motivation that concerned the U.S. foreign policy on interventionism. The American military presence along the Korean peninsula and stationed Seventh Fleet are acknowledged to be a political motivation for terrorists. Abad-Santos (2013) included the anti-Asian reactions to the film on social media. These racist reactions emphasize the influence of cinema by its emotional appeal and simplified depiction of enemies. In reality, Fuqua diverts from the expectations of not being committed to patriotism. The resilience against injustice and patriotic imagery dominate the movie. The attack on the homeland itself arouses indignation and the time lapse between the production and 9/11 has enabled a creative and free exploitation of terrorism. Additionally, the word “Olympus” in the title strives to underpin the American force. Gathering the reactions, the movie confirms the previous statement that those who are already patriotic will feel approached, while others would feel even more remote and repelled from the American identity (Abad-Santos, 2013).

4.2.4 White House Down (2013)

White House Down by director Roland Emmerich was released as the other movie of 2013 depicting an attack on the White House. With double the budget, it was not as financially successful as Olympus Has Fallen. The movie focuses on US Capitol Police officer John Cale, played by Channing Tatum, and American President James Sawyer, played by Jamie Foxx. Cale is working for Speaker of the House Eli Raphelson after having saved his son’s life in Afghanistan. This immediately draws the viewer’s respect and sympathy. Cale brings

  37  

his daughter to the White House where he has a job interview at the Secret Service. Former college acquaintance Carol Finnerty is the one interviewing him and deems him unqualified for his incapacity to finish things. Thereafter, Cale takes his daughter Emily on a tour of the White House. A man disguised as janitor has entered the Capitol and detonated a bomb, causing Raphelson and Finnerty to go into hiding. Vice President Alvin Hammond is able to escape with Air Force One. For safety precautions, the White House is put under lockdown, causing Cale and his daughter to become separated. Emily succeeds in recording the terrorists with her phone and putting them online before becoming caught. Meanwhile, the President is taken to the volt where he discovers that his retiring Head of the presidential Detail, Martin Walker, is part of the terrorist plot. Cale overhears the two and manages to rescue President Sawyer. Then, terrorists Walker and Stenz engage Skip Tyler to hack the U.S. defense system and kill the Secretary of Defense. Cale and Sawyer make contact with Finnerty who tries to lead them out of the House. By using Emily’s footage, the terrorists are identified. When an explosion is set off, the President is assumed to be dead and Hammond is sworn in as Acting President. Hammond immediately orders an air assault on the White House, ignoring Cale’s warnings for the missiles within the terrorists’ possession. Meanwhile, Tyler was able to upload into NORAD and launch a missile at Air Force One. Immediately after the plane crashed, Speaker of the House Raphelson is sworn in as Acting President and continues the air attack. Walker then reveals that he did not want revenge on the death of his son in a black ops operation, but revenge for the incompletion of the mission. Although there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, Walker argues that they will certainly have them in the future. Walker threatens to kill Emily, but Sawyer refuses to activate the missile launch aimed at the Middle East. Cale manages to distract them by setting of the fire alarm but is not able to prevent Walker from activating the missiles by means of the launch codes from an unknown source. Cale succeeds in killing Walker and is just on time to prevent him from pushing the detonation button. Thereafter, Emily stops the air attack by waving the presidential flag on the lawn. At the end, it turns out that Raphelson was the unknown source that conspired to become the Acting president because of his disagreement with Sawyer’s peace treaty. Cale is eventually employed with the Secret Service. The location of the movie is similarly set in Washington and addresses the same political issue of American interventionism. The character of President Sawyer personifies Barack Obama by depicting a popular pacifist President who wants to withdraw from the Middle East to focus on domestic poverty. By arguing a withdrawal for the benefit of low class American citizens, the movie legitimizes American decision-making by the President. However, the American thinking proves naive by depicting the international acceptance of the peace plan. Sawyer’s underlying ideology is present when he states that “The day we stop believing that

  38  

different people can come together is the day we have given up on the world and I am not ready to do that”. This approach to unity underlines the entire movie. A further analysis of President Sawyer reveals a disempowered president. Although Sawyer has a wife and kids, the focus remains on the President himself and not his personal life. In comparison with Olympus Has Fallen, the African American President in White House Down has a less emotion appeal by his use of humor. Additionally, White House Down renders the attacks rather as a spectacle to the media, than as a national trauma. President Sawyer is reflected as a humorous person, not as a hero. From a racial perspective, it is apparent that, when Walker threatens to harm Emily if he does not get the activation code from Sawyer, Sawyer takes a rational approach. He would be willing to sacrifice one life, even if it is a child, for the lives of many others. In congruence with the other movies’ depictions of African American lead characters; Sawyer abstains from an interventionist approach as well. Although he is not willing to negotiate with the terrorist, his policy already introduced a withdrawal from the Middle East. While President Asher in Olympus Has Fallen is shot but lucky to survive, the bullet aimed at President Sawyer was stopped by a watch in his pocket. This watch belonged to Abraham Lincoln and was given to him by his wife. In a deeper comprehension, Lincoln “saved” Sawyer, which connects its significance to the changes for African American under the Civil War. In contrast with President Sawyer, Cale is represented as a heroic character. Although he is turned down for the job as a Secret Service agent, he does everything he can to take up the role and protect the President during the assault on the White House. Being rewarded with the job at the end reinstates the American value of dedication. This desire of Cale to work for the Secret Service is part of several other inclusions of patriotism. The political images, such as the tour through the White House, images of flags, American symbols and allusions to the American identity are consistently present. As such, historical or mythical references to presidents John F. Kennedy, Carter and Abraham Lincoln are mentioned in the movie. Other patriotic allusions include the hobby of Emily practicing flag twirling and preventing the air assault by waving the presidential flag on the lawn. Moreover, an explicit reference is gathered with Finnerty’s answer as to why she is still alive after all her work: “Caffeine and patriotism, Sir”. Similar to the previous movies, Emmerich also shows allegorical images of 9/11 by a helicopter crash that takes down the flag on the White House and the missile launch on the Air Force One. Instead of foreign perpetrators, the terrorists in White House Down are American paramilitaries and previous members of governmental organizations, such as Skip Tyler, who

  39  

worked for the NSA, and Emil Stenz, who worked for the Delta Force and CIA. These perpetrators are not loyal to each other and have differing goals. One of the perpetrators even embodies a racist character by having blown up the local post office for employing too many African Americans. The assembly of the perpetrators additionally raises criticism to the United States’ counter-terrorism system. The threat matrix that was established to identify possible terrorists was a useful means for Raphelson to collect his team. In general, the terrorists in White House Down are domestic enemies and reflect a right-wing extremist viewpoint. Therefore, the political agenda of White House Down focuses on an internal policy that perceives terrorism from a left-wing viewpoint. Yoder (2013) stated that the choice of depicting the enemies as Americans is highly political. In the inability to recognize America’s genuine enemies, it turns on the right wing, pro-military citizens. The critical depiction of internal politics is an extension of the disappeared focus on an external enemy. Similarly present in this movie is the role of a traitor within the American system. Both Walker and Raphelson prove to be corrupt and part of the terrorist plot. Although the expected motivation for Walker’s involvement was the death of his son in a failed black ops mission, the overarching reason was the frustration for the incompletion of the mission. This remark reflects a radical interpretation of preemption and right-wing extremist notions of patriotism. As Walker stated: “History will judge who the true patriots are here today”. Similarly, Raphelson planned the attack by his intention to be sworn in as Acting President after the assault on Air Force One and by his premise to activate a missile launch on various cities in the Middle East. This cinematic representation renders a drastic interpretation of the National Security Strategy by the Bush Administration in 2002 to anticipate a war in Iraq. Two recurring issues connected to patriotism are the role of the media and the political system of authority. The media is omnipresent in the movie and provides the main source of information. Emily’s videos of the terrorists are the primary means of identification. Additionally, the freedom of the press is present in its open criticism of the President’s peace treaty. The media also acts as the interpreting force of what is going on by reporting linkages to terrorism and saying, “it is clearly not Al Qaida”. The terrorists also engage with their broadcasting by saying, “Apparently we are all Arab”. These utterances complicate the definition of terrorists once more by stereotyping them. Concerning the political system, the Constitution itself problematizes the decision to act, as there is no knowledge of who has the authority. The Secret Service and the Army clash with each other in their response, leaving the “inexperienced” Cale to be the hero.

  40  

4.3 Our transatlantic understanding

A first general observation concerns the depiction of African Americans. Vantage Point, Unthinkable, Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down all portray a leading African American character in charge that is provided with the chance of being a hero. However, each movie abstains from depicting the role of the true African American hero. As Vantage Point, Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down all portray a patriotic image in combination with terrorism, white hegemony continues to define its own hero. Another generalization can be found with the African Americans’ stance to be the first to give in to the demands of the terrorists or withdraw from an interventionist policy. With reference to reality, the choice of this portrayal can reflect African Americans’ exclusion from an American ideology that pursues its foreign policy and “does not negotiate with terrorists”. With regards to the political intent, the references to 9/11 can reflect an appeal to a personal connection of the viewer. In addition, the movies try to reinforce an interpretation of terrorism in close connection to patriotism. As Steuter and Wills (2008) state, “Propaganda is not concerned with disseminating information but with rallying emotion”, the use of images referring to 9/11 could be made as an emotional attempt to preserve the patriotic sentiments and goals that were present early in the War on Terror. As the end of the War on Terror offered a new reality, cinema could attempt to recapture the feeling of a united purpose. Therefore, the three movies that were released in theaters reflect a high level of patriotism in actions, wording and images. Interconnected is the legitimization of ruling political issues that occurs by downgrading enemies and simplifying interpretations of terrorism. The recurring motivation of the terrorist is rendered personal, as well as political. The underpinning notion is that the enemy is simplified and America is victimized: from misunderstood ethnic enemies in Vantage Point, Asian radicals in Olympus Has Fallen and right-wing military addicts in White House Down. This is the case for all three movies, except Unthinkable, which Hollywood obviously did not want to see in theaters. Concerning the effect of the movies on an African American public, I have to take in account the mentioned conceptions of patriotism and minority groups. The patriotic appeal and 9/11 references will actually have an excluding effect by recalling the same “us versus them” narrative that was installed after 9/11. Moreover, the simplification of the enemies in these movies raises an additional concern. According to Steuter and Wills (2008), “The multiple costs of the war on terror mask a broader expense of spirit and community: when we systematically reduce others, we are ourselves reduced” (xviii). By simplifying the motives of “enemies” and victimizing its own nation or ideas, America engages in stereotyping and discrimination. The simplification of an ethnic or ideological enemy intensifies the African

  41  

American stance on the ease of American cinema in choosing to radicalize and utilize an enemy. These movies therefore not only portray an American lack of understanding for its enemies, but for its people as well. Future generations will come to understand terrorism after 9/11 by these simplified representations of terrorism. This understanding also implicates the needed internationalism in combatting terrorism. Joseph Nye stated: “(…) it is the failure to use soft power effectively that weakens American in the struggle against terrorism” (2005). The discourse of standing united when confronted with terrorism truly disguises an internal division in race as well as social class. The element of victimization in cinema is insufficient in using popular culture as a form of soft power to attract others. The values of patriotism and heroism depicted in the movies do not address an overarching goal, but rather act as a legitimization of own policy by those empowered.

  42  

5. Conclusion

In this dissertation, I have examined cinematic representations after 9/11 and the War on Terror and their depiction of patriotism and national unity. Therefore, I have researched the general and African American responses to 9/11 and the War on Terror. By comparing these reactions with four fictional terrorist movies that reflect upon the setting of the War on Terror, I have found that the movies released in the theaters reflect a patriotic and reduced interpretation of terrorism. Taking in account the political content and issues of the movies, I gathered the prevailing notion of America’s failure to understand its enemy and its citizens. The oversimplification of the political issues and enemies complicate the image of terrorism and give a stereotyped image of national unity and patriotism. Cinema aims to set an example of national unity but fails to propagate it. The interconnectedness between reactions on terrorism and the portrayal of it several years after exposes how American cinema wants to recall 9/11. In gathering the American mentality towards terrorism, a national identity is reinstated. Although the beginning of 9/11 initiated a problematic relationship between terrorism and cinema, later years reveal how the public is shown to remember it. A narrative of America’s own legitimization and vivid patriotism overshadow the underlying lack of understanding, racial discord and problem of hierarchy. The allegorical references to 9/11 attempt to recall the sentiments that already faded away under an unspecified War on Terror. Patriotism works for those that already have it. In that extent, the movie aims to propagate unity and address passed feelings of victimization. Furthermore, the cinematic vision reflects the political and social atmosphere in which it was made. Remaining tensions as part of America’s individualist nature oppose the succeeding of a collective identity. Moreover, the choices that were made and legacy within the movies discussed suggest that further generations will be diverging even further from a just account of terrorism. Further research on the effect of European terrorist movies on an American public could offer a deeper understanding of the U.S. perception of terrorism in cinema.

  43  

6. Bibliography

Vantage Point. (n.d.). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443274/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Unthinkable. (n.d.). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Olympus Has Fallen. (n.d.). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2302755/?ref_=nv_sr_1 White House Down. (n.d.). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2334879/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Abad-Santos, Alexander. (2013). “Olympus Has Fallen” Brings Out the Anti-Asian Slurs from Its Audience. The Wire. Retrieved from http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2013/04/olympus-has-fallen-anti-asian-slurs/63742/ Ambinder, Marc. (2010). The New Term for the War on Terror. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-new-term-for-the-war-on-terror/56969/ Birkenstein, J., Froula, A., & Randell, K. (2010). Reframing 9/11: Film, popular culture and the "War on Terror". New York: Continuum. Callaghan, Dylan. (n.d.). Nothing but the Truth. Writers Guild Of America, West. Retrieved from http://www.wga.org/subpage.aspx?id=3026 Caraley, D. (2002). September 11, terrorist attacks, and U.S. foreign policy. New York: Academy of Political Science. Center for Data Analysis. (2005). Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/ Cettl, R. (2009). Terrorism in American cinema: An analytical filmography, 1960-2008. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland and Co. Chaliand, G., Blin, A., Schneider, E. D., Pulver, K., & Browner, J. (2007). The history of terrorism: From antiquity to al Qaeda. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  44  

Christensen, T., & Haas, P. J. (2005). Projecting politics: Political messages in American film. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Christie, K. (2008). United States foreign policy and national identity in the 21st century. London: Routledge. Coates, D. (2014). America in the Shadow of Empires. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cole, Juan. (2006). Think Again: 9/11. Foreign Policy, (156), 26 – 32. Crenshaw, M. (1995). Terrorism in context. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Croft, S. (2006). Culture, crisis and America's War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crotty, W. J. (2004). The politics of terror: The U.S. response to 9/11. Boston: Northeastern University Press. de Tocqueville, Alexis. 2004. Democracy in America. (Arthur Goldhammer, Trans.) New York: Library of America. Dixon, W. W. (2004). Film and television after 9/11. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Dorn, Edwin. (2008) Black Youth Losing Interest in Military Service. Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 10 – 11. Retrieved from http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/Black%20Youth%20Losing%20Interest%20in%20Military%20Service%20-JanFeb2008_1.pdf Eggert, Brian. (2010). Unthinkable. Deep Focus Review. Retrieved from http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/unthinkable.asp Gomberg, P. (1990). Patriotism is Like Racism. Ethics, 101 (1), 144 – 150. Harlow, R., & Dundes, L. (2004). “United” We Stand: Responses to the September 11 Attacks in Black and White. Sociological Perspectives, 47 (4), 439 – 464. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.

  45  

Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51 (1), 63 – 77. Jackson, R. (2005). Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, politics and counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Kellner, D. (2010). Cinema wars: Hollywood film and politics in the Bush-Cheney era. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell. Li, Q., & Brewer, M. B. (2004). What Does It Mean to Be an American? Patriotism, Nationalism, and American Identity after 9/11. Political Psychology, 25 (5), 727 – 739. Lutz, J. M., & Lutz, B. J. (2005). Terrorism: Origins and evolution. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mackiewicz, W. W. (2008). Winning the war of words: Selling the War on Terror from Afghanistan to Iraq. Westport, Conn: Praeger Security International. Mazlish, B., Chanda, N., & Weisbrode, K. (2007). The paradox of a global USA. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. McCartney, P. T. (2006). Power and progress: American national identity, the War of 1898, and the rise of American imperialism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. McSweeney, T. (2014). The 'war on terror' and American film: 9/11 frames per second. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Morgan, M. J. (2009). The impact of 9/11 on the media, arts, and entertainment. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Nathanson, Stephen. (1989). In Defense of “Moderate Patriotism”. Ethics, 99 (3), 535 – 552. Nathanson, Stephen. (1992). Is Patriotism Like Racism? American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and the Black Experience, 91 (2), 9 – 12. Nelson, J. S. (2003). Four Forms for Terrorism: Horror, Dystopia, Thriller, and Noir. Poroi, 2(1), 79 – 107.

  46  

Nye, Joseph P. (2005). Soft Power and The Struggle Against Terrorism. (Lecture at The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London). Retrieved from http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/soft-power-and-the-struggle-against-terrorism O'Leary, C. E. (1999). To die for: The paradox of American patriotism. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Onuf, P.S. (2012). American Exceptionalism and National Identity. American Political Thought, 1 (1), 77 – 100. Philipps, Dave. (2014). Mission Ends in Afghanistan, but Sacrifices Are Not Over for U.S. Soldiers. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/us/mission-ends-but-sacrifices-are-not-over-for-us-soldiers.html?_r=0 Philpott, Tom. (2007) Bush’s War blamed for slide in black enlistments. The Sentinel. Retrieved from https://www.fra.org/ Primoratz, I., & Pavković, A. (2008). Patriotism: Philosophical and political perspectives. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Prince, S. (2009). Firestorm: American film in the age of terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press. Quay, S. E., & Damico, A. M. (2010). September 11 in popular culture: A guide. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood. Rickli, Christina. (2006). An Event “Like a Movie”? Hollywood and 9/11. COPAS : Current Objectives of Postgraduate American Studies, 10(10). Retrieved from http://copas.uni-regensburg.de/article/viewArticle/114/138 Saldin, R. P. (2011). War, the American state, and politics since 1898. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schopp, A., & Hill, M. B. (2009). The War on Terror and American popular culture: September 11 and beyond. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Smith, Emily. (2013). The Forest Whitaker Handbook: Everything You Need to Know about Forest Whitaker. New York: Emereo Publishing.

  47  

Smith, J.M. (2005-2006). Global War on Terrorism – The Propensity for Blacks to Serve in the U.S. Army (Monograph). School of Advanced Military Studies, 1 – 65. Retrieved from www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA450631 Somerville, John. (1981). Patriotism and War. Ethics, 91(4), 568 – 578. Steuter, E., & Wills, D. (2008). At war with metaphor: Media, propaganda, and racism in the War on Terror. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Stout, C. E. (2004). Psychology of terrorism: Coping with the continued threat. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Suderman, Peter. (2013). “Olympus Has Fallen” director Antoine Fuqua: U.S. flag “represents freedom… why not wave it?”. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/22/olympus-has-fallen-director-antoine-fuqua-us-flag-/ Teachout, W. (2009). Capture the flag: A political history of American patriotism. New York: Basic Books. Transue, J.E. (2007). Identity Salience, Identity Acceptance, and Racial Policy Attitudes: American National Identity as a Uniting Force. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 78 – 91. Walsh, David. (2005). Opposition to Iraq war hitting US military recruitment. World Socialist Website. Retrieved from wsws.org Wilson, S., & Kamen, A. (2009). ‘Global War on Terror’ Is Given New Name. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html Yoder, Katie. (2013). The Usual Suspects “White House Down”, Villains Racist Right-Wing Militarists. NewBusters. Retrieved from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2013/07/01/usual-suspects-white-house-down-villains-racist-right-wing-militarists