I realize that class is over, but in case any of you are reading the blog, you might want to check this article out.  On the NYT website, one of the lead articles reads "In a speech to the Israeli Parliament, President Bush said that talking to 'terrorists and radicals' was no different than appeasing the Nazis."  This has so many parallels to what we've discussed throughout the semester.  Given that we concluded our class with a discussion of Reagan's presidency who said the same thing about people who doubted his plans to build $5 billion worth of weapons, I think this article is particularly appropriate.  

Changes in Amtrak Advertisment- 1971-1981

Life Magazine- November 1981, Pg36-7

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Life%20Magazine_November8%201981_Pg36.jpg

Life Magazine- November 1971, Pg.2

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Life%20Magazine_November5_1971_Pg2_pt1.jpg

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Life%20Magazine_November5_1971_Pg2_pt2.jpg

What I originally found interesting about these two ads for Amtrak is there wildly different approaches to marketing. In the ad in 1971, the ad is primarily based in text and is trying to explain what exactly the purpose of Amtrak is. Similar to the older 50s era ads, this ad attempts to explain why Amtrak is a necessary industry, and why it will improve the American way of life. With airline travel becoming more profitable, ground transportation attempted to compete with it. Boasting improved food service, fare schedules, and customer service, Amtrak is truly trying to prove that they’re “making the trains worth traveling again.”

In the 1981 ad, the tactics have changed dramatically. Instead of a text based ad, the advertisement encompasses two full color pages and is only one giant picture. Their slogan has changed as well, now reading “This time why not see America at see level?” The tactic has shifted from competition with the airline industry to a differentiation from it. Rather than boasting itself as an efficient method of transportation, Amtrak emphasizes the leisure involved in its travels. Air travel has won out in terms of efficiency, thus Amtrak has tried to reinvent itself as a unique travel opportunity. This keeps in step with public opinion in the 80s that shifted to a strong need for leisure and vacation in daily life. Amtrak tried to follow this trend by reinventing its marketing campaign to appeal to these leisure seekers.

NYT Article: What does it mean to be an American?

Click here to see article.

Check out this link.  It's an interesting article that unveils how a growing evangelical movement (within the U.S. military) is defining what it means to be an American, a "good citizen."   In defining what it means to be a good American, they are also specifying what is not a part of the "American" model.  The article covers the story of Jeremy Hall, an atheist, who, while fighting in Iraq, was castigated for his irreligion.  One of his superiors is quoted as saying, "People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!"

I recognize that this is nothing new - there are so many stories about evangelism in America, but I thought this article synthesized a number of points quite well.  It's worth a read.

Natural Resources and Environmentalism

"There must be a Hooker somewhere," Hooker Chemical Corp., TIME magazine (Jan. 19, 1968), p. 64.

"There are no simple solutions," Caterpillar, TIME magazine (April 17, 1978), p. 18).

In these two advertisements we can see how the growth of the environmental movement changed the way people thought about and depicted natural resource use and environmental issues. The 1968 Hooker Chemical Corporation advertisement from TIME depicts a sizzling porterhouse alongside a phosphorous mine. The ad brags that cows fed on feed grown in high phosphorous fertilizer grow bigger and need less feed. The chemical company has no qualms about associating food with fertilizer nor does it hide a big crane scooping out a giant mound of dirt. The advertisement aims to show how chemical/technological control of nature leads to a satisfying life for the consumer.

By 1978 this technocentric view of nature had been challenged by environmentalists. Companies involved in natural resource extraction had to be much more cautious and considerate about the way they depicted their relationship to the environment. In the Caterpillar advertisement, also from TIME, the image of a destructive machine plowing through the earth has been replaced with a scenic image of a man and woman chatting by a dam and reservoir. The actual product the company makes is nowhere to be seen. Instead Caterpillar is responding to environmentalists' concerns and trying to appear responsible. They understand that people are concerned with wildlife but want to remind the viewer that dams are providing energy to people. Rather than focus on resource extraction and construction, the advertisement says that Caterpillar is involved in "land conservation and water management". This advertisement shows a shift in attitudes towards corporations and environmental responsibility.

The image also employs traditional assumptions about gender to make its point. The environmentalist is a woman holding a charcoal drawing pad. Her gender apparently prohibits her from seeing the greater picture. She speaks colloquially and emotionally, ("That dam messed up the valley's wildlife.") while the man speaks technically and rationally ("That dam can generate power to light 30,000 homes.").

Cars, Women, and Advertising 1964-1977

Both of these car advertisements were published in Time Magazine, the first in 1964 and the second in 1977. The differences in what the ads emphasize as selling points reflects the contemporary economy and culture.



Dodge ad, Time Magazine, February 1964, p.33

The first ad (1964) shows a lovely woman and her presumed significant other. On the top, the woman poses curled up in the driver's seat, but in the lower section, the man is driving. The shift is mildly sexist, and reminiscent of depictions of women in cars in 1950s (see this earlier post for an example).

The text and sleek image of the car emphasize its luxury and beauty: the text calls it "lavish" and claims that "such fineries" were not just "for the country club set". The ad chooses to show the convertible (a traditionally more youthful/sexy/fun option in a car) rather than the hardtop version of the car mentioned in the text, further accentuating the sexy sleek image the ad is trying to sell.


Datsun ad, Time Magazine, March 1977, p. 97

The second ad (1977) shows a woman with a tennis racket and a dog in the back. This sporty, independent image of a woman corresponds to the rise of feminism through the 60s and 70s.

The most significant difference between car ads in 1964 and 1977 is the emphasis on gas mileage, due to the energy crisis that plagued the US throughout the 1970s, peaking in 1973 and 1979. The efficient gas mileage of the car is heavily advertised, and the features are described as "those other things" and given only a paragraph of description. The ad also mentions the EPA, which was founded in 1970 and started evaluating gas mileage in 1972. The 70s in general were marked by an increase environmental consciousness; combined with the gas shortage, it's no wonder that the ad relies on the car's fuel efficiency as a primary selling point.

Alcohol, the great American vice

Definitions of “Everyone” and “American”: Pluralism, Feminism, Racism, and the uniform American Narrative




“Miller High Life: Pleasure for Everyone!” TIME magazine (May 8, 1965), p. 45.

In this advertisement for Miller High Life, four older white men are enjoying a beer while they take a break from golfing. The image is accompanied by the caption, “Pleasure for everyone!”

The men are gathered closely around a table: their uniform appearance and the intimacy insinuated by their overlapping figures, suggests that the group is closed to outsiders. Their bodies form a kind of wall that acts to keep others out of their gathering and away from the “High Life” which is guarded at the center of their circle. Their backs face everywhere, except the viewer. While there is a space at the table for the viewer to “join” them, they do not engage the reader with their gazes. The viewer is at once privileged to be a part of their meeting, but looking at the image offers a certain sense of voyeurism, like gazing at something unattainable.

This group of men is enjoying a golden beverage; the “High Life.” Everyone in the photograph is a white man, and golf is also traditionally a country club, white man’s game. Thus, the scenario is from a man space, from a boys-club, from the clubhouse, from the country club. These are all elite spaces, where only special, privileged people congregate. To join them and partake in the “High Life,” one would need to be a part of this group. The image demonstrates the social situation at the beginning of the 1960’s; the “high life” was only available to wealthy white men.

Yet, the caption insists “Pleasure for everyone” (emphasis added). In this situation, “everyone” refers to older white men of the upper-middle-class. The four men are taking a break together; this image emphasizes their cohesiveness and unity as a group.
The scene maintains the one-narrative thrust which carried over from the 1950’s, and illustrates the particular Americanism championed in the early Cold War period, that of the elite, governing group.





“Campari: 9 out of every 10,000 Americans prefer Campari.” The New Yorker (July 9, 1979), back cover.

In this advertisement for Campari, nine photos of consumers accompany a studio shot of a full glass and bottle of Campari. The nine “Americans” are pictured individually, each followed by their own testimony, or “Campari Quip.” By picturing the Campari drinkers separately, this advertisement does not attempt to construct a prototypic scenario in which people should enjoy the product, as with the ad for Miller High Life. Since each consumer is pictured with hir “Campari Quip,” the advertisement gives voice to those who are pictured, presenting many narratives.

Also, unlike the previous picture, the people look directly at the viewer, to engage hir and include hir in the conversation about Campari. The advertisement even invites Campari drinkers to send in their own snapshot and “Campari Quip.”

This advertisement, which comes after the Rights Revolution of the 1960’s, reflects the push for individual rights, and the rights of individuals to participate in consumer life. Furthermore, the statistic offered–9 out of every 10,000–is not a statistic that defines a majority but instead a very, very small minority, .0009%. This advertisement demonstrates the movement during and after the 1960’s to recognize minority groups or groups who were previously marginalized as meaningful members of American society.

This advertisement shows a success of the Women’s Liberation Movement. In the earlier image, not only are there no women, but there is no possibility that a woman could join that group. In the second advertisement, of the nine people pictured, six of them are women. Their images fall under the heading of “Americans.” Now we see that women are recognized as representative Americans. As opposed to the America proposed in the first image, women are now included in a term like “everyone.” This advertisement is from 1979, seven years after the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced.

However, neither image includes African Americans or any other racial minority. Despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1964)–as opposed to the death of the Equal Rights Amendment (1972-1982)–black Americans are still excluded from constructions of “Americans” and “everyone.” While I will maintain that the second image shows a shift from the focus on an archetypal and idyllic Americanism to recognition of the multifacetedness of the American experience as it is lived by individuals, the scope of the American remained incredibly small. While the advertisement does recognize and make use of the societal recognition of multiple narratives, it chooses to give voice only to the white narrative.

The Evolution of Drug Use from 1969 to 1989: From Radical Youth Culture to Violent Drug Conflicts in Minority Communities

“Drugs Hit the Young,” Time Magazine, Sept. 26, 1969, Cover

This image was published during the peak of the hippie movement, away from the social activism of the sixties and towards the pursuit of personal pleasures in the 1970’s. The shattered and psychedelic image of the generic America’s youth represents the deterioration of the typical family unit and it points to the social challenges that increasing drug use posed. The drugs most popular during the decade were psychedelics, Marijuana, and Heroin, most of which became tolerated. During the Cold War, a cohesive nuclear family was the paradigm. In the image, America’s youth is represented by a young white woman and can also be interpreted as the emerging breakdown of the nuclear family with the public access of contraceptives and birth control that were restricted until the 1960’s. This precedes the rise in divorce and abortion rates and the shocks in traditional social relations that resulted from the second wave feminist movement in the 60’s.

“The Lonely War,” Time , Sept 11, 1989, Cover.

This image shows significant changes in the evolution of drugs in society. In contrast to the image from 1969, this image assumes that the traditional family unit is much less relevant and has increasingly become a single-parent institution specifically in “drug-infested neighborhoods across America.” Highly ethnic cities like Detroit are beginning to see the ravaging effects of drugs in their communities, most notably with the crack epidemic in the 1980’s. In addition to cociane and crack cocaine, people began using prescription drugs, and cstasy. But the crack epidemic almost strictly hit black and Latino communities across America and as Rantine McKesson's sign suggests, drug epidemics brought considerable violence and the deterioration of black communities. Compared to the drug concerns of the 1960’s and 1970’s, drugs in the 1980’s were considerably more associated with violence and brought to power several ethnic gangs in highly urban communities throughout the US. The themes of feminism and gender are noticeable in this image when compared to the image from 1969 because we are presented with a woman adversary to drugs. The words on Rantine's shirt clearly state that it is up to her to save her community from the violence and human digressions that the crack epidemic, which continues today especially in contrast to the more “clean” drugs used during the 1960’s and 1970’s, has caused in many other communities. In the first image, the question of drug use among the young was just that, a query. However, in this image, drug use is represented as a war being fought on the level of communities. The image also draws a distinction between differently racialized and classified drugs which were not so clear in the first image. Also, this image gives the false impression that extreme drug use is more characteristic of black and Latino communities. Both cocaine and crack cocaine have become stereotypically and demographically characteristic of extreme drug use among whites and blacks respectively. What was the tolerance for drug use during in the 60's and 70's changed drastically once newer and more debilitating drugs emreged.