The War Photo No one Would Publish

In “The War Photo No One Would Publish,” Torie Rose Deghett addresses the challenges of wartime photography during the Gulf War. Her argument was that more Americans would empathize with the Iraqi people if the photo taken by Kenneth Jarecke of an “incinerated” soldier was published. The photo continued to go unpublished in the United States; preventing Americans from seeing the picture and feeling empathy towards the soldier. Not seeing this photo did not grant the American people to see the side of the war that was matter-of-fact instead of sterilized. Deghett believes that we all can put aside our core values and empathize with or tolerate another person. In “The Primacy of Practice,” the philosopher, Kwame Anthony Appiah, contemplates the ability to be tolerant of others. He believes that everyone should try to become more involved in other cultures and learn to understand them more and get used to it. He encourages people to learn about others so everyone can live in harmony; many do not need to agree on values, just agree to disagree. However, Deghett;s feelings of empathy and Appiah’s of tolerance will not be felt in every circumstance. The amount of tolerance and empathy people can feel is to a certain extent, as everyone will not support all the beliefs of other people due a difference in core values.

Deghett is uneasy about the media not publishing the photo of the Iraqi soldier. The photo was taken by a war photographer named Kenneth Jarecke. Deghett talks about censorship within the media and how it affected the responsiveness of the American people to the war. This makes her angry because she believes that the censorship of the photograph prohibits the people from empathizing and changing the outcome of the war. She believes that everyone would have felt empathy towards the Iraqi solider if given the opportunity.

The capturing of this photo took place during the Gulf War; the media in the United States refused to publish the photograph taken of the Iraqi soldier and instead published “hardware-focussed coverage” and they “removed empathy” (78). These images had not been published to “ … preserve the dominant narrative of the good…” it kept the persona that the war was “clean” and “decontaminated” (81). The way that the media will not portray the photo shows the censorship sustained within the Gulf War. In reality, it prohibited people from empathizing with the Iraqi soldier. Without this connection to the Iraqi people, it prevented the war from being reported as truthful. Deghett believes that should the public view the photo, they would most likely create an opportunity to reform perspectives on the war. Deghett shows resentment towards the media when she conveys, “[t]he Vietnam War in contrast to was notable for its catalog of chilling and iconic war photography and… had a tremendous impact on the outcome of the war,” attributing the publishing of pictures during the Vietnam War (75). Using this example, she validates how much of an impact photographic proof can have on not only the public's opinion of war but also, when done correctly, how it can affect the outcome of everyday life and what we empathize with.

Each day, people find themselves reacting to different situations in different ways. The ability to tolerate these situations permits people to get tolerate the way others act. Appiah addresses his argument that no matter our personal beliefs, everyone can get used to one another. He states, “I am urging that we should learn about people in other places, take an interest in their civilizations, their arguments, their errors, their achievements, not because that will bring us to agreement, but because it will help us get used to one another” (55). Tolerance is just determined in a matter of seconds as, “… we offer judgements, after all, it’s rarely because we have applied well-thought-out principles, to a set of facts and deducted an answer,” meaning we judge something before we can fully tolerate it, (52). Appiah looks at several distinctive disputive topics as well as homosexuality, religion, abortion, gay marriage, and women’s rights. Appiah claims, “… we can live in harmony without agreeing on underlying values,” meaning that everyone has to be tolerant of one another to have a coexisting environment.

Tolerance is felt on different levels because of the core values of others. Even if we do agree, we find a reason to disagree on it because, “they have clashing conceptions of ‘the good’… conflict often arises when two peoples have identified the same thing as good,” (55). A person’s culture defines who they are, and there are some people who really enjoy most of it, but it can possibly turn people away when it starts to get into more personal topics. An example Appiah uses is Pro-life or Pro-choice, “Both sides respect something like the sanctity of human life,” (56) showing that some can find a common piece in an uncommon view. Kwame Anthony Appiah presumes that, “… the recent history of America does show that a society can radically change its attitudes - and more importantly, perhaps, its habits - about these issues over a single generation,” showing that people can become more tolerant because others do not have to like each other; just be able to stand each other, (58). Appiah believes that being able to accept opinions that differ from your own and behaviors that make you uncomfortable allow this society to fully function as a whole.

Deghett and Appiah both assume one thing: that certain feelings, (in this case, empathy and tolerance), toward specific situations are universal. With Deghett, it is the photo of the Iraqi solider and how if the photo was published everyone would empathize with it. She believed that if everyone related to this photo, it would have tremendously impacted the war. Deghett felt that people’s empathy would have impelled them to try and bring the war to a standstill. Likewise, Appiah believes that we all have certain morals but we are not able to feel a specific way about everything. He also feels that we can not feel tolerant towards everything we experience or hear, but we can try to be accepting of one another and become used to the things that we all do. Each author believes that we all can put aside our core values and empathize with or tolerate another person.

Deghetts argument is problematic because it is not possible for everyone to empathize with the Iraqi soldier if the picture had been published. Everyone can not empathize with the photo due to their own core values; but there is a great chance that lots of people would empathize with the photo and intervene. Some people might have empathized with the photo of the Iraqi soldier, like anti-war groups and others who had lost someone not long ago. Someone who lost a loved one because of an Iraqi soldier, people

...