Close Reading #1

TRUE COLORS OF ISLAMISTS

http://www.onenewsnow.com/michael-youssef/2012/09/12/true-colors-of-islamists

            In current events, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the racial movie Innocence of Muslims. In America, focus has particularly been on the Muslims’ violent responses, such as killing the American ambassador in Libya. While some Americans have been tolerant of the incident, the same cannot be said for Dr. Michael Youssef. In his article “True colors of Islamists," he paints Muslims as evil foreigners and Americans as ignorant bystanders, who have a limited amount of time to wake up and fix the situation. To create this meaning, Youssef uses bold diction, careful details, and syntax.

            Youssef uses diction to create fear in readers. Throughout the article, he chooses to use words such as “death”, “destruction” and “killing” when talking about Islamists in Egypt and Libya. Officials in Washington are referred to as acting “ignorantly” and with “naïveté”. He goes as far as to call Obama’s administration “doggedly colorblind”. In both of these cases, Youssef is using colorful, bold language to exaggerate the actions of Islamists and Americans. This creates a gap between the two, so readers can easily see how Muslims are unlike good, God-fearing Americans. An even more important point to note is the fact that he addresses his readers as “us” and “we”, and Muslims as “they”. By choosing to write “we assume” and “they will never understand”, Youssef succeeds in making Muslims seem even more distant and foreign. All together, his word choice creates a feeling that Muslims are some foreign, murderous villains, while the majority of Americans are little children who are yet to lose their innocence.

             On top of diction, Youssef’s careful choice of details paints the worst possible portrait of Islamists. Towards the beginning of the article, he chooses to include the fact that “we give Egypt $2 billion a year” in money. With a paragraph reminding everyone about the recent bloodshed in Egypt and Libya fresh in readers’ minds, it’s impossible to not feel outrage. This detail makes it seem like we are paying these leaders to kill our own people. Youssef also includes the incident in Iran in 1979, when American citizens were taken hostage “for 444 days”. In a sense, he is paralleling this incident to what is occurring today. By reminding people of how long and terrible the previous incident was, Youssef creates fear and uncertainty about how long the riots in Egypt and Libya are going to occur. The last significant detail in this article is a reference to God in the last line. This detail helps bring readers full circle; from fear and uncertainty, to hope that they just need to believe in God. In other words, it sums up his point that Muslims are the problem, God the solution.

            Finally, Youssef’s use of syntax creates a rushed feeling, that helps get his meaning across more clearly as well. This effect is mostly created through long strings of short, choppy sentence. For example: “We assume that everyone is like us. That everyone responds with gratitude to generous gestures. That everyone respects us with the same respect that we offer them.” These sentence fragments keep the article at a quicker pace than if Youssef would have combined all of those thoughts in to one long sentence. It also helps emphasize what he is trying to say within the sentences. If they had been longer, the meaning might have had less of an impact on readers. In other words, the way he writes it keeps readers more alert as he speeds along through his main points.

            Overall, Youssef’s goal to paint Muslims as the enemy was partly achieved through his choice of diction, details and syntax. Without this, he most likely would not have succeeded in getting his message across so powerfully. Whether one agrees with his view point or not, it would be hard to deny that Youssef didn’t succeed in creating a powerful message.