Imagery of Patriotism

Throughout history, we see the use of film, photography, and sound to invoke emotion in people. When thinking of early imagery that depicts Patriotism we see many scenes that give us a sense of pride and desire to serve our country. One such use of Patriotism is an image of a poster originally created by J. M. Flagg in 1917. This poster is actually based off the original British Lord Kitchener poster 3 years prior which was used to recruit soldiers for World War I and World War II. Flagg used a modified version of his own face for the depiction of Uncle Sam, and Veteran Walter Bolts provided the Pose.

The poster states in bold black letters “I WANT YOU FOR U.S. Army” with the word “You” in bold red color. The words that follow in a smaller text are “Nearest Recruiting Station.” This image is meant to depict “Uncle Sam” as the United States government dressed in a red, white, and blue. He is wearing a hat with blue stripes and stars which is clearly symbolic of the American Flag. He also has a stern face while pointing directly at the viewer to emphasize action needing to be taken.

Since the time this poster was created until the present day, it has served as something that encourages patriotism within people. It serves as a reminder of the past and will continue to remind people in the future of the obligations to the country at any cost. Do you agree with this? Do you think other imagery does this better? Tell me what you think!

Sources: Wnat is Patriotism?

                    My topic for our upcoming writing prompt is that of how the media portrays patriotism and how the U.S. government uses these representations to gather support from citizens or from other countries. In researching a source for this topic, I made an attempt to look through the TAMU library website to locate a journal from Jstor. What I have found is a scholarly journal titled What Does it Mean to Be an American? Patriotism, Nationalism, and American Identity After 9/11. This article comes from the Political Pschology Journal Vol. 25 and was written by Qion Li and Marilynn Brewer from Ohio State University. Before I even read the article, we can safely assume this is a credible scholarly article due to where I found it, (its location on Jstor); it’s documentation of who wrote it, and where they gathered their information. 

  

                 The article itself discusses the psychological impacts of buzzwords such as nationalism and patriotism in the media and how they affect the masses.  The article describes this by stating, “The differentiation between the positive and negative manifestations of national identification is represented in social psychology by drawing a distinction between ‘patriotism’ and ‘nationalism’ with the former connoting pride and love or the country and the latter referring to chauvinistic arrogance and desire for dominance in international relations.” This is a very important point that the article is making to describe the disparity between the two. The article continues to go into pre-9/11 history and how this was consistent throughout history with Presidents such as President John F. Kennedy’s quote, “Ask not what your country can do for your, but what you can do for your country.” This rhetoric itself, which the article concludes, is the reason that we see a sense of “with us” or “against us” mentality in the political spectrum.  Do you believe that this discourse is correct? Incorrect? Tell me what you think!

Cultural and Social Acceptance

            The other night, I was sitting on my couch watching national news when a headline about Texas A&M University came up. This headline described some of the buzz I have been hearing on campus about a bill that was passed by Texas A&M’s student senate this week. The bill which is known as the “Religious Funding Exception Bill” gives students which was originally drafted to allow university students to opt-out of the university fee that funds the GLBT resource center. This has caused a huge outcry from students and many human rights groups across the nation.

            Regardless of who you are, how you feel about particular group, or what religious group you conform to this bill raises a few questions not only about the idea of cultural norms on campus, but sensitivity to minority organizations on campus. 

Firstly, the fact that these senators would single out a specific group based on “religious beliefs” can be very detrimental to the university.  This principle in itself can be used in any regard. If a person claims their religion does not support people of color then would the university allow them to cut funding for African American groups on campus?

Secondly, this issue continues to brand the university as a university deeply rooted in discrimination and bigotry. As one of the few minority aggies on campus, it makes me feel as if we aren’t progressing forward.

Although these are true, a large portion of the student body expressed their concerns with this via social media and wrote to the Student Government President Claybrook to veto this bill. Today, President Claybrook sent out a press release stating that he vetoed the bill and hopes that the senate limits this type of controversial legislation in the future. Through these issues comes optimism for the future. Do you believe that this was the right decision by the president? Do you agree with congress voting this bill in? Tell me what you think!