Freedom and Fear

The semester is almost over, and I have made it through the first two years of my program. While I'm tired, I also have a sense of satisfaction that I have made some progress as a scholar. My two semester projects came together late in the semester, so I think they probably need work. I'll post about those in the coming weeks; I'd like to get into the habit of writing more frequently.

My spare time - perhaps the hour per week that I have - has been devoted to watching documentaries. Although they aren't end-all, be-all to creating an informed populace, they're at least a start. They bring issues to light by at least presenting issues that people might not know anything about. I guess I could watch Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken, but I'm not sure I'd learn as much.

Atomic Cafe is one of those documentaries; there is no narrator, nor interviews of people. It's simply a number of clips from the 1950s, illustrating how atomic/nuclear weapons became a part of American life. It differs from many that I have seen because other documentaries tend to incorporate the thoughts of major players. For example, after watching Why we fight, I have grave reservations about John McCain. His interviews in the documentary lead me to question his ability to be frank with the American people. The first clip is the trailer for the documentary, and the second is an actual clip.








All too often, we have no one who aims at such honesty. I hear a number of excuses for this: national security, the American people are too dumb, or we just simply won't understand. We've come a long way from the days of the Fireside Chats, when the president felt it necessary to explain the banking crisis to the American people. I might be romanticizing a bit, lamenting the bygone days when the Americans could trust their government.

Or perhaps Americans could trust their government not to conduct itself in ways that were unbecoming. I understand that we need to secure our interests; I understand this is a dangerous world. However, it serves no purpose to distort the truth. American companies have played a role in contributing the instability in many countries, especially in Africa. The U.S. government has supported regimes that were not necessarily democratic in order to serve a larger geopolitical purpose, first during the Cold War and now during the war on terror. It occurs to me that hoping for open and honest discourse might simply be a pipe dream. Watch the progression in the videos below, leading up to the present day.











And here's an example of how people have sampled Bush's speeches:





So how does this tie into Atomic Cafe? I spent a better part of my childhood living in fear of nuclear holocaust. The fear was partially brought to life when my parents would assail me with stories about Soviets, bomb drills, silos, and the like. I would have nightmares of wandering alone through rubble, without my family. The film, at least, was a way for me to explore my parents' psyches about that period of their lives. In many ways it brought them into focus.

Other issues became clear, as well. As a reporter, I would cover emergency management drills. For those who don't know, emergency management is like civil defense 2.0. Civil defense began as a way to get the word out about preparedness in case of emergencies. After the recession of Communism, it went through a gradual metamorphosis to emergency management. It's most well-known government department is, of course, FEMA. And I never understood the idea of the "red alert". For as creepy as the documentary is, it helped me piece together a number of things. While I'm not an expert in collective memory, it seems a good study would compare the propaganda from the Cold War to the ideas circulating with the War on Terror. Here are some clips to at least set the stage for the collective memory that might be operating in the minds of the hawkish fellows using the American military "to fight terror" across the globe:











Is it worth understanding these connections? Absolutely. I think it would be difficult for the government to approach terrorism in the same way that it approached communism. Rather, it's easier to promote distraction and inaction; it's easier to paralyze discourse and promote group think through the common stamp of "unpatriotic". If the country is fragmented and polarized over the shadow-boxing campaign that currently exists, collective action against this war and toward a more positive direction is difficult to achieve. If we are not united, it is difficult to act the best interests of the country. If unity was reached, it boggles the mind what might be accomplished. Otherwise, we are left with what we are given.

Introduction

In August, I will begin the second year of my PhD program, and I am in the process of discovering my areas of interest. As I have begun to unpack what I have read over the past two semesters - a task that I think is more arduous than actually reading the literature - I realize I have many interests, including how news organizations and their audiences exchange, use, and interpret information. I am also interested in how each of these groups interact and make meaning; finally, I am interested in globalization.

I began as a professional journalist in 1996, working in smaller markets in the midwest. I knew the estimated readership of each of the papers, but I always wondered who was reading and how they used the information. I found out through the course of reporting who read the local paper as well as what they liked or disliked about the stories, the paper, or just people around town. I eventually left newspapers and returned to school. I have been in higher education now for five years, and my growing awareness of globalization reminds me of these questions, though on a much wider scale.

The purpose of this blog, at least initially, is to write about my academic journey, to gain feedback about my research ideas, and share my struggle of being an American learning of new ideas, cultures and people - all of which involve my attempt to understand the complex process of globalization. How does information flow into the United States? What do Americans - average Americans - know about the rest of the world, or at least what do they learn from the news media? What is the cultural logic that colors their perspective of world events? Conversely, how do average people outside of the United States know about us? Is it through lived or mediated experience? Is it that our views, our perspectives are mediated by others? If mediation is key to our knowledge and understanding of one another, who is mediating?

On a personal level, what do I know, and how do I know it? Hence, the title of the blog, stupid American. Learning more and more about the world is sometimes a difficult feat, especially when I might be confused with those clumsy, clueless creatures traveling carelessly through the world, disregarding local culture and upsetting the sensibilities of many. Unfortunately the precedent has been set. The United States government, my government, has enforced its might on both willing and unwilling participants in a U.S.-dominated global environment. And my fellow Americans sometimes serve to reinforce widely held negative perceptions.

Buying into what we see on the surface neglects the complexity of our world and the process of globalization. I want to push through the surface to penetrate this complexity, to shed light on how communication, specifically news media, serves to hinder, inhibit, oppress, elucidate, liberate, or engage. I do not propose to have the answers now, but I invite you to follow me in my path of discovery.