In March of 2010, a South Korean warship mysteriously exploded and sank a few mies off the coast of North Korea. In May, a team of international investigators released a report claiming that the only plausible cause of the explosion was a torpedo from North Korea. In the days since this report has been released, the international world has been scrambling to figure out what to do. The US has always thought of itself as the protector of freedom throughout the world. As such, America has stated its support for South Korea and condemnation of North Korea. But many complications confront South Korea and the rest of the world on how to deal with this recent crisis.
One day after the release of the report, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated the US's stance on the situation: "It is important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences". This message indicates that the US will support any reprimands that South Korea or the UN issues to North Korea. Including the recent trade sanctions against North Korea made by South Korea. This reaction makes sense in the myth of America as the defenders of peace. South Korea shares many similarities with the US (modernism, capitalism, democracy), and as such the media portrays them as the worthy victims in this incident. And on the flip side, the media portrays North Korea, the Communist, isolationist country, as the villain (as it has done in the past with North Korea's nuclear program).
But the problem with this approach of cutting off trade with North Korea and pursuing other countries to reprimand them is the poverty of the North Korean people. Starting in the late 90's, South Korean president Kim Dae Jung started the Sunshine Policy. This policy sought to ease relations on the peninsula by providing economic assistance to the North to promote peaceful coexistence, with the hopes that the North would ease its isolationist policies. However since the election of Lee Myung-Bak, the South has taken a harsher aid policy towards the North. And the recent sinking of the Cheonan, seems to indicate the end of this goodwill approach towards North Korea.
The myth of America as the defender of innocents and freedom has existed for years. And as a result, this myth affects how the media portrays events (as seen in the most recent conflict between North and South Korea). However, the reality of situations can be quite difference than the myth. The recent US supported trade sanctions made by the South against the North has been portrayed by the media as a positive. But the reality is that these reprimands could worsen the economic situation of millions of already impoverished North Korean citizens, while also destroying a decade of goodwill efforts.
Works Cited:
The New York Times "Attack Bares South Korea’s Complex Links to North"
The New York Times "Clinton Condemns Attack on South Korean Ship"
The New York Times "Pentagon and U.N. Chief Put New Pressure on N. Korea"
As the largest oil spill in US history continues to spew gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, Obama made a speech admitting his fault. Remorse filled the president's rhetoric, as he regretted allowing the oil industry to go unchecked and dragging his feet on reform. We've seen presidents receive criticism for scandals or how they've handled disasters before: Nixon and Watergate, Reagan and Iran-Contra, Clinton and Lewinsky, Bush and Katrina. And now we see Obama face attacks for how he is handling the oil spill. But what does the evidence have to say about what politicians say and what they really mean?
Obama speaks of regret for past mistakes and a renewed commitment to the future: "In case you’re wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility...It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen right away or the way I’d like it to happen. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to make mistakes...The federal government is fully engaged, and I’m fully engaged". Listening to these words, you may feel full of hope and belief that the government can save us.
Or (more rightly) you may be filled with skepticism. After all politicians are not known for their honesty nor their firm stance on issues. Take John McCain for example. He came under a lot of criticism during the presidential campaign for changing his stance on off shore drilling. Originally against it, McCain claims he changed his mind about the offshore drilling after observing how much Americans paid at the pump. Or maybe it was the campaign contributions that came pouring in after the announcement. Or that he was about to campaign in Texas, notorious for their pro-drilling stance. Even Obama himself, who once claimed to be against off-shore drilling, has changed his stance to ease America's independence on foreign energy. Not that their aren't massive oil lobbyists and industries at his back now.
Maybe Obama will bring change. I'm an optimist and I also love nature. And I would love nothing more than for this oil spill to stop, and have aid brought to the Gulf and regulation brought to the oil industry. But I'm not blind. I know that there is a long history of contradictions between what presidents promise and what they do. So while I've got my fingers crossed, I'm not getting my hopes up.
Works Cited:
The New York Times "Obama Offers Regret Mixed With Resolve"
The Washington Post "Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling"
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and previleges [sic], if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” – George Washington
The America as we know it today has always been a nation of immigrants. Except for the Native Americans, everyone in this country (or their ancestors) have immigrated to America at one point or another. On the one hand we love to circulate this myth of America as the glittering, golden city upon a hill (tracing origins back to the Puritans). But behind the rhetoric, behind this beautiful veil of diversity, lies the reality. While preaching the power and benefits of immigrants, America has passed legislation after legislation controlling and restricting movement into the country-- with the recent Arizona Senate Bill as the next chapter in a long, familiar saga.
Obama's rhetoric continues the myth that America is "the land of opportunity" that will always welcome immigrants into its borders. Obama suggests that America has always been this way, and that the entire world takes this myth as fact: "As a nation, as a people, we can choose a different future. A future that keeps faith with our history, with our heritage, and with the hope that America is always inspired in the hearts of people all over the world". We love the way this sounds, and as such we believe in Obama's words and the stories that have always told Americans that their land is the land of the free.
But despite this myth, whenever immigrants have entered the country, the are faced with opposition and resentment by those who consider themselves to be "natives". This resentment as led to a counter myth. This myth views illegal immigrants (especially Mexicans) as a problem and a threat to stability. The "native" opposition claims that illegals take welfare services like unemployment benefits, Social Security, food stamps, etc. as well as jobs away from natural born Americans. Furthermore, as Ted Hayes argues in his short piece "Illegal Immigration Threatens America", illegals damage America by refusing to assimilate with American culture and retaining their unique culture.
This counter myth of immigrants as a threat has been circulating for centuries and is made evident by immigration legislation. The Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act) established literacy tests for incoming immigrants and sought to limit the amount of asians entering the country. The 1921 Immigration Act established quotas for each country based on their numbers in the 1890 US census. Since there was very little diversity during that period, the quotas allowed for many Western European immigrants, while also restricting immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. The 1965 Act abolished those 45 year old quotas, and established limits for each nation per year at 20,000 immigrants. And finally the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 fined industries for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, but granted amnesty for illegal immigrants who had entered the country prior to 1982. And finally, Arizona passed a bill in 2010, which requires all immigrants to carry their documents and allows police officers to detain suspected illegals. This bill promotes racial profiling of Hispanic-Americans.
But this counter myth fails to acknowledge the fact that illegal immigrants have so often been welcomed into the US. The agricultural business of the southern states and California depends heavily on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants. As Rodolfo Acuna asserts in his book "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos", the US has often adjusted its policies towards illegal immigration based on the current economic condition: "The postwar period brought relatively good times that encouraged more Mexicans to enter the country. However, in 1949, an economic recession caused massive roundups of undocumented workers...The Korean War broke the recession...The end of the Korean War brought another recession, which served as an excuse for the brutal massive roundup of Mexicans". This pattern of flip flopping can be found today as the recession has caused states (like Arizona) to tighten their position on illegal immigration.
Evidence exists which discredits the claims made by those who scapegoat illegal immigrants for the country's economic problems. The US Department of Justice found in 1992, that less than 1% of the immigrants granted amnesty by the 1986 Immigration Act had benefited from or used Worker's compensation, Social Security, or unemployment benefits. And an even smaller number had received food stamps.
America believes itself to be the land of the free. It's in our national anthem, it's woven into the rhetoric of presidents from Washington to Obama, it's engrained in our media and in our very perception of who we are. And we tell ourselves that immigration represents this freedom. That anyone can come from anywhere and through hard work they can live the American dream. But the reality of the situation is that many Americans feel threatened by immigration, which gives rise to counter myths. These counter myths of illegals harming the US (both economically and culturally) have culminated in multiple laws, the one in Arizona being the latest. But in reality these fears have little truth, and the US and its industries simply exploits them to their benefit depending on the economic climate. As James Fallows asserts in his Atlantic Article "How America Can Rise Again", one of the things that will keep America competitive is "continued openness to immigration". It's what's made us the melting pot of the world, and it's will allow us to keep adapting and changing in the future.
During the long arduous voyage to the New World in 1630's, Puritan leader John Winthrop wrote a sermon that came to define and shape our view of America for years to come. Winthrop preached of the future morality and glory of their new society: "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us". America has from its very beginning as a nation been viewed as this special and pure utopia for the world to admired. But while the separatist movement of Puritanism never fully flourished as Winthrop hoped, their values of conservatism and morality still permeate through American culture today.
Take the Miss USA 2010 pageant winner Rima Fakih. One the one hand her story has been pressed into the mold of the "America as the land of opportunity" that we have told ourselves countless times. Born in Lebanon, moved to the United States, embraced America culture, and became Miss USA. Most media sources portray her story with this format. And it makes us feel good about America. That immigrants still flock to this country looking for opportunity, that they can succeed here with hard work, and one day rise to the highest ranks of things so uniquely American such as Miss USA.
But on the other hand, another story about Rima Fakih has been drawing much attention (and outrage). Pictures have surfaced of the 2010 Miss USA winner dancing on a stripper pole. At the age of 24, it is safe to assume that she has done things more sexual (as most people have by that age) than simply dancing on a pole. But this seems to violate the pure and moral image that we like to tell ourselves Miss USA represents (even though the entire pageant is all about the objectification of beautiful women).
Sexuality permeates every aspect of American culture. You simply can't listen to a song or watch television without it being everywhere. And thats necessarily a bad thing. But this idea of strong purity and morality in America is a myth that we love to tell ourselves again and again. Going back to Tocqueville and even further back to the Puritans. And even though the idea of strong morality and purity in America has very little grounding, we still like to believe its true and attack those in the spotlight (especially women) who break this image.
Immigration has been a hot issue for the past few years, and recently brought right to the foreground by Arizona's new immigration law. The law allows officers to demand to see legal papers or visas from anyone, whom they deem "looks like an immigrant". The law has sparked outrage from many different political groups, citing that the law promotes racial profiling. But this new development is just the newest chapter in the long story of US-Mexican immigrant relations.
Immigration has always been and will always be the life blood of America. Except the Native Americans, everyone's ancestors came to this country at one point or another. But people like to forget that fact and declare that they are the "true" Americans, while the newest wave of immigrants are somehow less deserving of living here. But immigrants bring with them new ideas, perspectives, and cultures which contribute to the unique quality of America.
American citizens often claim that immigrants threaten to take away their jobs by providing cheap labor. But during many points in history, the US has welcomed cheap labor from Mexican workers. During times of economic prosperity, such as post-WWII and during the Korean War, the US has eased restrictions on Mexican immigrants and allowed them to work in cotton fields in southern Texas. But during times of economic recession, the US has cracked down on Mexican workers. This happened during the recession of 1953-1955, during which time the US deported more than 2,000,000 Mexican workers. Many Mexican-Americans were caught in the chaos of these raids and deported back to Mexico, despite their US citizenship.
The US has a very bipolar and complex relationship with Mexican immigrants. When times are good, the US couldn't care less about the legal status of Mexican workers. But once the US hits a recession, like the one we are in now, laws are tightened up along with border security.
Works Cited:
Rodolfo Acuna's "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos"
Idealized, prewritten stories circulate throughout American culture, searching and looking for real life events to bend and shape to their image. The media idealizes and glorifies the power of sports every single day. From stories of determination and triumph, to falls from grace and redemptions. The press portrays sports as having the power to do all these things and more. But by looking at how the media portrays sports stories in other countries, perhaps we can shed light on the myths we tell ourselves about sports in America.
A recent New York Times article discussed the corruption in professional cricket in India. The Indian Premier League, created just three years ago, has grown into a multi-billion dollar a year industry. Bringing in movies stars and glamour to a sport mirrored on US professional sports, the league has also faced criticism for corruption. Indian politicians own cricket teams, while owners also sit on the board of directors for the league. The league has also been criticized for its immense glamour and excess, which seems to heighten the perceived disparity between the country's wealthy elite and masses of poor.
But if the media portrays sports in other countries as hypocritical, does it do the same for sports in the US? Not to the same extent. Sure, the press reports sports scandals and rumors everyday (Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger being some of the most recent, highly publicized scandals). America takes these scandals so seriously because it threatens the ideals we tell ourselves about sports. Such as their wholesome, redemptive powers (exemplified by the stories told every Olympics). But there are many stories of corruption and hypocrisy in American athletics. For example the prevalence of performing enhancing drugs in sports (especially baseball). Or the fact that the NCAA has so many rules preventing student-athletes from making or accepting money, even as the organization itself reaps billions of dollars every year from those same student-athletes.
America is ripe with hypocrisy. But thats too depressing a thought to be accepted. So we create these ideals to blind ourselves to reality of things. But while these myths do help us cope with an all too often imperfect world, they can often fuel cover-ups and denials that prevent the truth from being known.
Works Cited:
The New York Times: "As Cricket Grew in India, Corruption Followed"
The New York Times: "Corruption In Big-Time Sports"
You may not be consciously aware of it, but if you open any newspaper in the country, the diction is filled with doom and foreboding. Every headline contains strong, fearful action words, even if the message is far from disastrous. As we saw in Media Studies last term, one headline read "Boston Escapes 2009 with No Fire Deaths". The actual story is positive, but the words in the sentence paint a picture of fate trying to get us, and we're lucky to be alive. But such dramatic headlines can be found all the time, for example by simply scrolling the New York Times webpage.
"A Volatile Day on Wall St. as Officials Seek to Calm Fears". This headline lures one into the story of the stock market's ups and downs over the past couple days. The stock market always goes up and down. That's how it works. But the headline makes the scene more disastrous than it actually is and that people fear another potential drop. The article itself goes even further than the headlines, and suggests that the stock market could face a similar disaster to the 2008 financial crash.
Other headlines trace the sequence of events leading up to the failed Times Square Bombing attempt, and the sebsequent speculations afterwards. While an attempted bombing is serious enough, nobody actually died. Bomb scares happen all the time, especially in major metropolitan areas like New York City. But if you look at the headlines, they try to bring up the same intense, fearful emotions felt by Americans during 9/11.
Every night on local news channels and in newspapers, similar stories and headlines like these cram the pages. But does this foreboding language actually create any fear? Or does it actually serve to numb us to these events? I know for one that almost nothing on the news shocks me anymore. Tragedy after tragedy occurs everyday, and many news outlites report them. But after awhile I feel like these events occur so commonly that it would be difficult on a person to let themselves be emotionally affected by them. And maybe that's the real tragedy, that our deepest sympathies can only be evoked by the most devastating catastrophies.
