war/military

I saw this bumper sticker yesterday:

Text:

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading it in English, thank a soldier.

It reminded me of when Lisa and I visited the Atomic Testing Museum here in Vegas last year (inspired posts here and here). There was a video about atomic testing in Nevada with a lot of scientists who took part talking about it. Several of them said things to the effect of, “Yeah, ok, so it turns out testing nuclear bombs had some negative effects for people, and we’re sorry about that. But we had to do it, and if we didn’t, you’d be living in the Soviet Union right now!”

I understand that the point of the bumper sticker is that speaking English means we haven’t been taken over by some other country that doesn’t speak English (apparently we don’t have to worry about Britain, Canada, or the many former colonies where at least a large minority speak English or where it is the language used for official government matters) and haven’t been forced to adopt their culture. But I have to say, when I think of things that would worry me if some other country took over the U.S., whether we’d continue to speak English wouldn’t be my top concern.

Ben O. sent in this poster (from Found in Mom’s Basement), which uses images of Native Americans (or First Peoples) to encourage Canadians to contribute to the Canadian Patriotic Fund, which was set up during World War I to support wives and children of enlisted men:

It’s a great example of the white/non-white dichotomy, where whiteness implies morality while darkness/blackness is associated with evil or immorality. In this case, his heart is “white” (i.e., he’s a good, moral being) because he does the right thing by caring for war widows. I guess the morality of his act overpowers the misfortune of his skin tone.

Thanks, Ben O.!

On a side note, I’m off to Oklahoma for the next 12 days. I’ll still be posting–Verizon’s internet access program means I can get a weak signal even at the farm–but I won’t be able to check in on comments as often as usual or update posts with information commenters or readers send in.

You will most likely not notice any difference. Just be aware that when you insult me, it’ll take a little longer before I know about it.

Cheers!

Josh M., Christine F., and Eric Q. brought my attention to the Medal of Honor series of video games. As far as I know, this is every version of the game currently on the market (that’s twelve total; all images found at this Medal of Honor website). In the game, you are a U.S. soldier fighting in World War II. Notice anything? In every version of the game, thus far, a white man is featured on the cover. I suppose it’s possible that some of the people in the far background in a couple of the games might be non-White, but I don’t think so. The image here is that World War II was an all-White war (or that gamers will only identify with a White soldier).

It is true that during most of WWII, Black soldiers were segregated in their own units. Initially they were not allowed to fight on the front lines, but that policy changed.  According to this National Geographic article, Eisenhower desegregated the army for a while toward the end of the war out of desperation for more soldiers on the front lines. Tuskegee Airmen pilots also flew with White pilots on missions. Voice of America says that over a million Black soldiers served in WWII (about half a million were in Europe).

There were also 22 Asian American soldiers fighting for the U.S., according to this New York Times article. Medals of Honor were belatedly awarded to several in 2000 (though at least some had received Medals at the time of the war, unlike African American soldiers). And the Department of Veteran’s Affairs estimates that up to half a million Hispanic soldiers served (the exact number is unknown because the government did not keep track of “Hispanic” ethnicity in the Armed Forces at that time). Finally, 44,000 American Indian soldiers joined the war effort (and according to the Department of Defense, that was out of a population of only 350,000 at the time).

Ok, so it’s a video game. Fine, whatever. It’s probably not a place to look for accurate depictions of anything. And of course there were more White soldiers in the war (though minorities were over-represented compared to their percentage of the overall U.S. population). But not even one non-White soldier on any of the covers? Really?

On the other hand, no African American soldiers were given the Medal of Honor for service during WWII due to racial discrimination. In 1993 the Army commissioned a study on racial disparities in rates of medal awards and concluded that 7 Black soldiers would be given the Medal of Honor, which they received in 1996. So I guess maybe it’s fitting that they’re missing from the Medal of Honor games.

Thanks to Josh, Christine, and Eric!

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.

I used to like whiskey, but after seeing this two-page ad, I feel like I may no longer be manly enough to drink it. My personal high-water mark is somewhere around a sprained ankle or *maybe* a broken finger– nowhere near a sawed-off leg. Besides, the last thing I need is the Man-Police arresting me at my favorite bar for “Drinking-Whiskey-While-Having-A-Low-Pain-Tolerance”…I think the penalty is a stiff fine and 200 hours of Steven Segal movies.

Oh well, I guess it’s vodka cranberries from now on…

NEW: Here’s another 2-page Jim Beam ad, in which the message is clearly that wine is a sissy drink:

Here are some great World War II-era comic book (graphic novels! Whatever!) covers and/or posters (all found at Superdickery’s Propaganda Extravaganza page, thanks to Krystal-lynn M.). They all combine patriotism, pro-war sentiment, and racist images:

The Black kid on this next cover is named Whitewash:

Thanks, Krystal-lynn!

This graph shows the total number of people allowed into the U.S. under refugee status since 1983, by region of the world:

Here is the key to the numbers on the graph (found here):

*Refers to fiscal years with the exception of 2004, for which data ends in June.
1. Large Cuban and Indochinese waves of refugees, prior to 1983
2a. Cold War period, Glastnost/Perestroika, 1985-1991
2b. Soviet Union dismantled, December 1991
3a. Balkans period: Break-up of Yugoslavia, 1992
3b. Balkans period: Expulsions of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, 1998
4. Civil conflict period: Somalia, Sudan, Liberia, Ethiopia, late 1990s-present
5. Terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
Authors’ tabulation of ORR data.

As Mary K. says:

…I doubt if war is a bore for those who are fighting it, those being fought against, or those on either side who’s loved ones are concerned about their safety.

The bag is for sale at Forever 21.

Thanks to Mary for the submission and to her friend, Steph, for modeling!

In this McCain-Palin ad which, I believe, started running yesterday, it is stated that an Obama presidency will bring on international military conflict (at least that’s my reading of the images), while a McCain presidency means no international military conflict.

Sociologically what is interesting about this ad is the way in which danger can be socially constructed. What we fear most is not necessarily what is most likely to cause us harm. Consider, most of us are more afraid of riding in hot air balloons than cars but, even proportionally, your chances of dying in a hot air balloon crash are much smaller than your chances of dying in a car crash. People around us–e.g., our parents and friends, but also politicians–try to shape the degree of fear we have for any given situation. Politicans, especially, are not necessarily doing it out of a concern for our well-being.

What do we really need to fear in the next four years? This McCain ad nicely tries to draw our attention away from the fear of, say an economic depression or climate change, in favor of an international military conflict. Though he doesn’t say so explicitly, it seems obvious to me that he’s implying a terrorist attack. It’s not obvious to me, though, that a military conflict or terrorist attack is more likely to cause extreme and extended suffering than any other potential crisis, but it would useful to McCain if I thought so, because it’s the one sphere in which it is widely agreed that McCain is superior to Obama. Thus, as an extremely powerful figure, he attempts to shape our collective understanding of what is (most) dangerous, what we should (most) fear, and win the presidency through the cultivation of a culture of fear.