Critical Essay Response

            In his essay, “Concocting Terrorism off the Reservation, Liberal Orientalism in Sherman Alexie’s Post-9/11 Fiction,” Steven Salaita grapples with Alexie’s attempts to contextualize the convergence of personal and political violence within post-9/11 America, and the ways in which Alexie’s narrative produces, or is affected by, what Salatia calls Liberal Orientalism. Salatia defines Liberal Orientalism as “a matter of representation, of approaching Arabs and Muslims…as humans or barbarians… with the consequence of interpellating into plot and theme a distinctly American moral or existential struggle through their presence” (Salaita). Essentially, Alexie’s Muslim characters serve only as devices to contextualize the issues of modern race relations, of terrorism, and political violence. They act metonymically as symbols that catalyze the discussion of these topics for the reader, and for the other characters, without emerging as fully-fledged characters themselves. In this way, Alexie’s attempts to dismantle prominent ideas of race are complicated by both upholding and relying on the very ideas he questions.

Salatia’s argument rests largely on Alexie’s characterization of the pilot, Abbad. As Salaita notes, Abbad plays heavily into post-9/11 racial stereotypes of Muslim men, and is identified “repeatedly as brown and Muslim,” with a “propensity for destruction, one whose mindlessness always threatens to betray the sort of decorous American credulity that Jimmy embodies” (Salaita). What is notable in this description, and is central to Salaita’s argument that Abbad is not only an embodiment of Muslim stereotypes, but an example of Alexie’s construction of Liberal Orientalism within his narrative, is that Abaad’s flaws are directly contrasted with the strengths of his white, American counterpart, Jimmy. This distinction can be seen most clearly in the discussion between the two of the differences between American and Muslim wives: Abbad chastises Jimmy for not wearing the “big pants” in the relationship, the exchange ultimately characterizing “Abbad’s sexist obstinacy…in opposition to the ostensibly more enlightened Jimmy” (Salaita) who operates under a more “modern,” “American” idea of gender relations and equality. Central to the idea of Orientalism is not only “the other,” but the contrast between the other, and what is “normal” or accepted. In Alexie’s, Flight, this notion is blatantly apparent in the characterization of Abbad, and, more importantly, in the differences between him and his white counterpart.

What makes the presence of such Liberal Orientalism in Alexie’s narrative particularly problematic is that its existence stands in opposition to the goal of Alexie’s writing. While Alexie’s novel aims to break down common perceptions of race and race relations, particularly the ideas of terrorism in a post-9/11 world, his treatment of the character of Abbad in his novel, Flight, relies on the very stereotypes he attempts to dismantle in his effort to dismantle them. Alexie’s treatment of Abbad is then both problematic and paradoxical; while Alexie succeeds in introducing new ideas to the dialogue surrounding political violence (that of the convergence of national and personal violence, seen in Jimmy’s feeling of personal betrayal by Abbad’s political act of violence), he fails to reject the stereotypical ideas of what it means to be Muslim in the process, and instead reinforces them.

While Salaita’s argument focuses largely on Alexie’s treatment of Muslim characters and Liberal Orientalism, the same ideas spread across racial depictions throughout the novel. As Salaita notes, “both Indians and Muslims in Alexie’s fiction question sociopolitical orthodoxies, but both rely on orthodox assumptions about the limits of intercultural engagement” (Salaita). However, Salaita fails to extend this idea beyond these two racial groups, or deal extensively with Alexie’s representation of Native Americans. This idea, however, has a broad application across Alexie’s characters. Salatia notes that the scene between Jimmy and Abbad stands out in the narrative because it is the one scene that Zits travels to that does not revolve around Native-American centered violence or conflict. However, while this is true, I would argue that the reason the scene stands out in the novel is not only because of its anomalous subject matter, but because of how apparent Alexie’s use of racial stereotyping and Liberal Orientalism is. In addition, this can also explain why the ending is so dissatisfactory to many readers. Though dealing now with two separate race groups (Native Americans and white Americans), Alexie treats the characters and their actions in much the same way that he handles Abbad in his portion of the story, tainting the ending of the novel with an unsettling feeling as Zits’ eventual happiness relies on the canonical kindness of his white heroes.

It would be incorrect to say that all of Alexie’s characters adhere to the strict definitions of prominent racial stereotypes. On a whole, Alexie’s characters are varied and complex, their race a secondary, though important, attribute. However, there are certain scenes that are defined by these stereotypes, and the ending is one of them. There are, of course, white characters in Flight, who are flawed. Take, for instance, the foster parents Zits is living with when we first meet him in chapter one: the father is violent and hostile, and neither he nor the mother are particularly caring (Alexie 13). Even Jimmy, who stands contrasted to Abbad’s “Muslim flaws” finds himself in the midst of committing adulterous acts, and is by no means a perfect character (Alexie). Furthermore, Zits tells us that he has experienced the worst of all foster parents, both Indian and white, proving that neither kindness and compassion nor violence and hatred, are inherent to the character of any one race (Alexie).

The issue, then, is not necessarily that when Zits finally finds a home that it is with a white family, but that the family is provided to him by the same tough-but-caring white police officer who has watched Zits on his path to self destruction for many years. Much like the character of Abbad, who’s existence relies on racial stereotypes, Officer Dave reads like the stereotypical white savior who comes into the life of an underprivileged-minority youth, and eventually serves as the source of his happiness and path to a better life. Not only is the ending unrealistic, and decidedly sugar-coated, which contrasts drastically with the rest of the novel, the fact that Zits’ salvation is ultimately handed to him by his white protector echoes Alexie’s dialogue of Liberal Orientalism in its support of the traditional idea that the young, wayward, minority must ultimately be saved by a more affluent white protector who steps in to pull him out of the cycle of violence and poverty. Thus, in his attempts to dismantle traditional racial ideologies, Alexie simultaneously supports them, creating an unsettling and paradoxical tone at the end of his novel.

Works Cited

Alexie, Sherman. Flight: A Novel. New York: Black Cat, 2007. Print.

Salaita, Steven. "Concocting Terrorism off the Reservation Liberal Orientalism in Sherman Alexie’s Post-9/11 Fiction." Studies in American Indian Literatures 22.2 (Summer 2010): n. pag. Print.