For the Sake of Colonialism
(sorry in advance for the spelling errors)
The article I found is titled “Alaska Proudly joins the Union”. The main point of this article is to show how Alaska isn’t as “uncivilized” as the Americans at the time thought it was. It talks about the many resources that Alaska has and how other countries have been wanting what Alaska has. To me, this praising of Alaska does not seem to be done out of the goodness of the hearts of the people a part of National Geographic. To me, this is an attempt to intrigue the people you are wondering about the “other” as well as to tap into the American people’s nationalism.
This article was written in 1959. This was during the Cold War, when the US and Russia were in a race to colonize different areas to either convert them to either a capitalistic or communistic ideology. The US was trying to do the same the Alaska. Before it became a state, Alaska was a territory of the US that was bought from Russia. While many people were in favor for making Alaska a state, people were not sure if Alaska could actually contribute to the US. Most people thought it was a barren wasteland that they only wanted because the Japanese were trying to seize it.
The images presented in the article really try to Westernize Alaska. In the article, there are pictures of Alaska that are more modernized and industrial. You see pictures of kids painting a white picket fence and a picture of a busy street that has a sign that says “All American City”. One image that really peaked my interest was the first image that you saw before you even read the article. It was a picture of a seemingly Alaskan boy wearing Eskimo attire. In the photo he has a creepy mask that he partially removes from his face, revealing an adorable smile. This image, to me, sums up the entire article. This article tries to do away with the otherness of Alaska and focus on how Western it is and how useful it is. The article mentions how Alaska has a ton of oil and how much profit hey gain from selling fish. The article tries to prove that Alaska is useful.
The consumer of this article is most likely going to think that Alaska is another score for America. That Alaska’s oil reserves and food will be a great asset to the U.S. and that it was a good thing that the U.S. acquired it. This in turn would make the consumer believe that the U.S. should absorb more countries into their Union. Again, this was during the time when nationalism was high in the U.S. after their victory in WW2. The U.S. thought it was the best and most likely thought they deserved the best. If the article makes out Alaska as a hidden gem that the U.S. acquired, then people will want the U.S. to have more of these hidden gems.
I feel like this article both supports Lutz and Collins argument of National Geographic. It supports it in that people in the U.S. were nationalistic and the National Geographic took advantage of that to boost sales. This article seemed to focus on how Alaska was a benefit to the U.S. and how much of a score they got by making it a state. While some may say that it disproves the argument due to the fact that Alaska is not being portrayed as an otherworldly place. I would argue that the point of this article is to prove that Alaska isn’t one of the otherworldly places. It is not necessarily proving that all places are like this.
