Fox’s Underlying Hatred and The War in Afghanistan

Fox News’s article on the 10 year mark of the United States’ war with Afghanistan was an interesting mix of resentfulness towards the White House for the lack of acknowledgment they had for the ten year anniversary and a strange denial of what they were supporting a little over 10 years ago.  The entire article seemed like it was an attack on the Obama administration without actually saying that it was. The article does not have a definite author except that it was produced by Associated Press but many would not be surprised about this. The article isn’t really news for those that have followed Fox’s track record of how they decide to report on things; but it is a clear example of the pseudo yellow journalism that they take part in.

In this particular article there is a lot of language that is used to convey a negative image of the current presidency.  By using the recent elections as an example of why the Obama administration is doomed for failure, it takes a biased approach on the entire situation.  They state that since there is an election year coming up, the Republican candidates might be willing to call President Obama out on the war in Afghanistan and foreign policy but those issues might be overshadowed by the economy.  It’s as though they are forgetting the ten year anniversary of the war with Afghanistan and completely focusing on national politics.  For the most of the article, the issue of president Obama failing at appeasing Americans seems to be the main concern with Afghanistan in the background.  That’s not premise for a news story that’s actually sticking to what’s happening, but instead a news story with personal biases as the main message to persuade readers to think a certain way.

The comment of the economy being President Obama’s main concern is a jab at his presidency and how the authors of the article feel like it the war in Afghanistan should have been remembered in a less muted manner.  There however was interesting data on the amount of people that were for the war in the 2001 in comparison to the amount of people that are now against the war.  What I did find interesting is that there wasn’t that much mention of why the war started in the first place.  They did mention the 9/11 attacks on this country and how that started the idea that we should be fighting the war on terror but they didn’t mention all of the “save the women” propaganda that occurred in the beginning of the war.  There were many people that believed that it was our duty to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq to liberate the oppressed women in those countries and simultaneously fight those that attacked us.  These weren’t mentioned at all nor were the rights they previously had and the rights they have now listed.

As much as the Obama administration had promised that they would bring the troops back home from Afghanistan and Iraq, which they have done only in Iraq thus far, people can’t expect wars to end overnight.  It’s especially hypocritical when it’s coming from a news source that strongly supported the U.S. occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.  While I too would like to see the war in Afghanistan come to an end, bashing the presidency for not ending a war that was widely supported under another president’s time in office is not the most productive way to go about reporting things to the public – it creates hostile political arena.

This is continued in the interviews that they included.  In an interview with a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations said that if we want to leave behind a Afghanistan that will actually function well, they are going to have to make some changes to how things are going politically.  He goes on to say that they have been doing well on the military front but not so well on the political part.  This was an interesting way to end the article because not only is the reader left with statistics about how many people want the war with Afghanistan to end but also that it isn’t as close to happening as many might have imagined.

The war in Afghanistan has been taking place for over 11 years now without any idea of when it might end.  Even though there are many people that think that the war should end, it is irrational to think that wars can end whenever a population wants it to end.  There is always a matter of rebuilding and stabilizing the country before leaving it; if we disregarded this we would be leaving Afghanistan in shambles which some might consider being even more immoral.  This article doesn’t do anything but try to shove numbers into the readers face without really informing them about what is actually happening.  It is almost as though they are trying to infuriate Americans by telling them about what a terrible job, even though there isn’t actual evidence to back that claim up, the current administration has been doing without explicitly stating that.

It’s ridiculous and a great example of the bias “news” Associated Press and Fox News present to us.  These media outlets brainwash us and make us believe things without providing information to back up their claims.  Their anti-Obama rhetoric adds to this and makes their message even more absurd.  This makes me wonder if others think that these “news” organizations should be held accountable for the evident biases.  I definitely think they should be – their representation of the news just gives people a misconstrued understanding of the world.  And if they are affecting the way people think and understand, which they clearly are, what negative impacts can that have on our society.  If Fox News is the only news source many Americans follow, the way that they learn about the world might only be through the eyes of conservative businessmen.  Utterly terrifying but sadly what’s actually happening.

— Ifath N. Iftikhar

Read between the lines: A media analysis

Trayvon Martin’s death has become a national topic and although it doesn’t center around globalization it still seems quite relevant to discuss as it has become such a buzz story in our popular media about racialized violence. Many different media outlets are covering this story and a lot of different analyses are being written and talked about. The article I looked at in particular Justice, not revenge, for Trayvon by LZ Granderson.

George Zimmerman, Left and Trayvon Martin, right

The author addresses the matter of the New Black Panther Party in his article and describes the statements made by the new party’s leader, Mikhail Muhammadf. Stating that they may feel empowering but the reality it “digging your own grave”.  Although LZ Granderson is not alone in this viewpoint on the separatist party one thing the article is missing is the reality that media is now bombarding this group for their opinion and viewpoint then condemning them when it is shared. Many of these mainstream media outlets are using these interviews and repeatedly playing or talking about certain segments of statements that have been made. This distortive reporting is beneficial to news outlets because it makes the story more interesting. The one thing a news article will never address is their tactics for higher ratings and the constant barrage of media coverage on this topic jacks up the ratings.
Granderson repeatedly addresses that revenge is not the solution, that trying to hunt down Trayvon’s killer will only cause yourself and others harm. Yet, he never talks about a solution. There is no discussion of what a person should do with their anger instead of acting on violence. There could have been discussion on the community events that have been taking place in honor of Trayvon or spark some discussion about the reality of oppressions that people face in that community. The author gives a lot of judgment calls on what he believes a person should feel about this situation. His sentiment is that you get mad but not that mad cause anger is risky. Yet, anger can be power when you’re fighting against an injustice, why should Granderson’s readers tame themselves because he is worried about the results of people’s emotions?
He then addresses the language used when discussing this case and although as a writer he makes points that are relevant about the prevalence of violence in our society and the language we use that is associated with that. However he disregards the reality of oppression, stereotypes, racism. He writes in a way that disempowers these words and makes them less real. I perceive his discussion about the language used as a very unrealistic view of how people discuss oppressions in our society, and it seems ineffective to say this language makes the case lack “togetherness” and “healing”.Grandersons biggest blunder in this article is his comparison of Trayvon Martin to Ryan white, a boy who was diagnosed with AIDS at the age of 13. The author call Trayvon Martin the “new Ryan White” while simultaneously denying the similarities other have brought by between Martin and Emmett Till, a 14 year old boy who was murdered in Mississippi.

Ryan White

Ryan White was an white teenager from Kokomo, Indiana, who became a national poster child for HIV/AIDS in the United States. During the time when White contracted AIDS it was a diseases that was only though to effect the gay community. White was one of the first faces in the public media that started to change people perception of this and gain a better understanding. He was expelled from middle school after his diagnoses; he and his family went through a legal battle with the school, and media coverage of the case made White into a national celebrity and spokesman for AIDS research and public education. The similarities between these two boys are few and far in between. White contracted this illness as a result of a blood transfusion, although that is quite unfortunate it is not the same as a young black man getting shoot. Granderson is trying to relate Whites story of contracting HIV and being put on public media as a new face of HIV to racial profiling. Stating that both HIV and racial profiling are things only those directly affected would talk about and because of that these cases both give leeway to talk about these things. The author is really stretching the connection here, Trayvon being a black teenager who was murdered as a result of a hate crime, a white middle class boy who received a bad blood transfusion is completely different.

Emmett Till

Granderson then denies the similarities of Emmett Till and Trayvon Martin, I question his reasoning for doing so as a reporter. Because clearly the raw facts show more of a resemblance between these two cases then Martin and White. Both Till and Martin were young black men who were murdered for because they were black. The similarity of the two boys although in different time periods is unquestionable.Whether you believe Trayvon was shot through an action of self-defense or because of racism, is not directly addressed in this article. Granderson talks around the subject when he lectures to his readers about justice vs. revenge but he avoids this direct dialogue of the topic. Another condition of this article that seemed a bit misdirected was his discussion of how he and another CNN analyst discussed this topic and how positive it was because they talked about it, they didn’t fight or debate. but talking about the issue. Granderson is saying a lot with what he is not saying. His remarks on this show how he believes we, his readers and others should talk, debate or discuss an issue. It seems to me as a reader that he’s making a point to show how much better it is to not get angry or question another’s viewpoint about an issue because in the end leads to uselessness and harm.



Peace Process, not exactly Peaceful!

Nepal is a small country between India and China. For the past 10 years and it still continues to suffer from a great Civil war that took place between the government forces (Nepal Army) and the Maoist fighters. The Civil War started in 1996-2006, by overthrowing of Nepalese Monarchy. ( The Maoist party wanted each individual to have equal freedom and rights as a result this lead to the greatest Civil War till now in Nepal, which is also popularly known as ‘People’s War’.

The civil war has ended but the aftermath doesn’t look so bright. Citizens still suffer the same consequences and it keeps me wondering what actually has this achieved by destroying almost all the properties and not to the mention the uncountable number of deaths. The Maoist fought and won the war, but why weren’t they successful in bringing changes to the system even after gaining so much of political power? So with this question in my mind I found an article that really connected with my thoughts which got me to a lot of analyzing part.

The Growing fragility of Nepal’s peace process by Joanna Jolly ( is a very interesting article; it gives you broad information about the peace process in Nepal. The article talks about Maoist leaders in such a way that I felt that it indirectly tells that the Maoist rule would eventually be unsuccessful. What I agree most about this article was that writer highlights the main problem, it proves that both the parties were responsible for the war. The message is clear to the readers that peace process is something that needs both the parties to agree on. I feel most of the articles tend to ignore this part, as they just focus more on writing well about one party and blame the other one.

“Although neither side says it wants a return to conflict, neither is also taking part in the negotiations needed to shore up the peace process”.

The article highlights many perspectives of the war in depth. For me the article showed how both the government and the Maoist parties are more interested in properties (the whole land issues) rather than real democracy for people. It is a true fact as all the citizens are in dilemma even the article is raising questions regarding both the parties and their real intention. But the part which made me sad was that the article gave me the image of hopelessness. As I read more I felt that what the writer was saying was true but me as reader didn’t see any hope towards a brighter future of Nepal.

As I studied the article I felt that it makes the negative image of the Maoist party to be stronger. She puts a lot of emphasis and quotation on the Maoist groups when it comes down to trust them and their acts, which I would agree with to what I have seen till today. And raising such question highlight’s this article because, this is the same question that is haunting thousands of Nepalese till today.

“The main reason is that the Maoists are not sincere. They are not honest in implementing the process,”- Ram Saran Mahat, a member of the Nepali Congress.

The article really puts a spot light on the military forces which I like because it was the main source that the war lasted so long. The military part of the article shows that the Civil war has not only separated the political parties/leaders but overall it created huge gap between the citizens. Like how she talks about the Nepal army not accepting the Ex-Maoist fighters to be a part of army. As both of the troops are equally trained yet there is a huge gap between the fighters. It has created a difficult situation for them to reconcile everything and work together. The article reflects that Nepal is divided amongst its own people.

“Meanwhile the army looks increasingly unwilling to accept any Maoist fighters, expect at the lowest entry level, into its ranks.”

          Talking about India was another eye catching part of the article. For most cases many tend to believe that all the major political movements are backed up by India. And the article mentioning about India has just hit the right target for discussion. Though it points out that India supported the Nepalese government, it is a very controversial topic itself and I wouldn’t agree with  all of it. As many believe India was the breeder for the Maoist groups, where as some believe they helped the government. The matters now go beyond the national boundaries as always connected to India. And I agree to most of the connection being done because India really does have huge impact on Nepal, as they say if India sneeze’s Nepal catches cold. But for most part I like how India has been included in this discussion. It gives another perspective to look into.

“Many analysts believe its strong stance is backed by India, which maintains close ties to the national army, providing training and equipment.”

Over all she has done a great job, but I felt this article was lacking more on talking about the normal citizens besides the leaders, military forces and neighboring country. Half of the population doesn’t fall under any of these three categories. Including more viewpoints of the citizens rather than political leaders regarding the different parties would have been more fruitful. The other part which I thought could have been better is if she talked more about humanity. She talks about it in the last paragraph but would have been great if she would have inserted the questions about humanity in each new topic as everything about this war was related to humanity. She could have cut down more on military and the parties and focused a little more on humanity area.

“Not one person has been prosecuted for crimes against humanity committed during the 10-year conflict, during which more than 13,000 people were killed.”

Shaima Al Awadi, a Hate Crime? CNN Makes the Case.

In recent news, a media debate centering around the murder (or unfortunate death as some people put it) of Trayvon Martin in Florida has been circulating. People have been asking, “Is it a hate crime or not?”

Meanwhile, another brutal murder has taken place on the opposite side of the country that is not gaining as much media attention, but is also being questioned over whether or not it was a hate crime. This news article talks about the murder of an Iraqi woman, Shaima Al Awadi, in her home on March 21st. The authors mentions that Al Awadi will be flown home to Iraq for her burial, and then goes in depth about what happened.

The authors talk about what the police are doing, which from the way it is talked about, seems like a whole lot of nothing. They have the police investigators being quoted as saying the note found with her (telling her to go back to Iraq and calling her and her family “terrorists”) “threatening”. They then go on to point out that the police have note ruled this an official “hate crime” but that they have ruled it an “isolated incident”.

“Based on the content of the note, we are not ruling out the possibility that this may be a hate crime,” city Police Chief Jim Redman said Monday.

“Other evidence,” however, leads investigators to remain open to other possibilities, he said. “The possibility that this is a hate crime is just one aspect of what we are examining.”

I think that pointing this out about the police is the author’s way of trying to influence the reader (which I am completely influenced) to believe that this should be perceived as a hate crime and to be angry that it has yet to be. The way that the authors of this article present the investigator’s reports makes it seem as though there is little being done in order to figure out what has really happened to this woman in her own home. Redman does not say what the “other possibilities” are in this quote, and it sticks out because of all the evidence that the authors give about it being a hate crime. Without the evidence of the “other possibilities”, it just sounds like an excuse.

The authors use quotes by Shaima’s daughter:

“A week ago they left a letter saying, ‘This is our country, not yours, you terrorists,'” she said over the weekend. “So my mom ignored that, thinking (it was) kids playing around, pranking. And so the day they hurt her, they left it again and it said the same thing.”

The author chose to include this quote because it shows that this was a premeditated attack on a woman based on the fact that she was Iraqi. Other authors that were trying to convey the argument that this wasn’t a hate crime would probably have chosen to leave this part out, because this seems like pretty key evidence that it was in fact a hate crime. I think that the authors are trying to make the point that the evidence is so very obvious with this case that the police must not be doing their jobs very well.

What the article doesn’t talk about is the possibility of the  police’s own prejudice against this Iraqi family, and the possibility that this prejudice could be why they are hesitant to call this a hate crime. When looking at the comments sections, one person wrote that “it was the family who killed her, I’ve seen this happen many times”. This prejudice could very well be in the minds of the police, who may believe that this is just another case of an “honor killing” gone wrong.

Despite the amount of modern Muslim families that have lived in and moved to America, the stereotypes and prejudices that exist often see Muslim men as abusive towards their wives and daughters. This prejudice is furthered by all of the media surrounding isolated cases of honor killings of women in the United States. No one talks about all of the families who have moved here from their original countries that live completely normal “American” lives. People see the hijab and assume that the woman wearing it is a “servant of her husband”, rather than someone who chooses to wear it as a symbol of her faith (much like a kippah cap a Jewish Man might wear).

Globalization has brought the Muslim community to the United States, but it certainly has not explicitly helped broaden the minds of United States citizens about Muslim families and how they are no different than any other family (most of the time).

This article does not talk about the ways in which Muslim women in particular are also often targeted for hate crimes on the Muslim community because of the way in which it can be skewed to look like an “honor killing” committed by the family. Even given such explicitly obvious evidence as the note (which I admit, could have been fabricated and since I don’t know the whole story I should not say for sure that it is a legitimate piece of evidence) it seems as though this knowledge of honor killings in Muslim families could very well be what the police called “other possibilities”.

At the end of the article, the authors even liken the murder of Shaima Al Awadi to the murder of Trayvon Martin, likening Shaima’s hijab to Trayvon’s hoodie. By doing this, the authors are able to give their opinion that both cases were in fact hate crimes.

What do you think about Shaima Al Awadi’s murder? Do you think it should be seen as a cut and dry hate crime, the way these CNN author’s do? Do you think that globalization and America’s view of Muslim women have anything to do with the way the police are acting in being reluctant to call this a hate crime? And can we compare Hijabs to Hoodies ( Shaima to Trayvon) or are they cases that should be looked at as very different cases?

A Coalition Following War: The European Union

World War II was probably one of the most devastating wars that the world has ever seen.  Millions of deaths, millions more displaced, cities in shambles, and the great uncertainty that came with it were some of the outcomes of the war.  While World War II was bloody and awful in almost every way possible, there was still light at the end of the tunnel: a coalition amongst European nations.

The formation of the European Union came from the great uncertainties Europe faced after the war and from a fear of nationalism.  After seeing what a crazy nationalist leader, Adolf Hitler, could do with a country that was desperate for a change, most European states wanted to stay as far away from that as possible.

No one wanted another evil lunatic like Hitler.

The European Union is an international organization that is now comprised of 27 European nations that have similar governing policies.  While members of the European Union are countries from all over Europe, it was originally made up of Western European nations and formed after World War II.

World War II was a result of the problems that were left over from World War I. Germany especially had many economic instabilities and a lot of resentment from the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.  This allowed extreme nationalists like Adolf Hitler to gain public support and recruit members to The Nationalist Socialist Party (NAZI).   In 1934, Hitler became supreme leader and started spreading his idea of the “pure” race; he considered himself an “Aryan” and thought that members of the pure race should expand.

Hitler allied with Japan and Italy against the Soviet Union.  This later led to the occupation of Austria and the invasion of Poland in 1939 which begun the Second World War.  From the south, Italy under Stalin’s rule decided to invade the Baltic States.

The Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) gained support from other European nations.  Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria joined the Axis powers which lead to the ideology of the “pure” race to be spread around and enforced throughout Europe.

Hitler was against the Jewish race and thought that they “ruined” the pure “Aryan” race.  Throughout World War II, there were raids, captures, and killings that happened towards anyone that identified as Jewish.  There were camps set up to hold all the people that the Nazi’s captured and within these camps people were split up from their families and forced to work in severe conditions.  They were continuously killed through gas chambers or other cruel methods because a pure race was considered to be the ideal society.

People that were considered to be Jewish were not the only ones that were killed.  Nazi Germany exterminated anyone with disabilities (both mental and physical) and the Gypsies.   Their goal for the “pure” race was used to reason all of the murders that they were committing within and outside of these camps.

There were many deaths in Europe as well as around the world at the time.  The Axis powers tried to spread their rule over different countries while the Allied powers tried to stop what the opposition was doing.  The Allied forces fought back greatly throughout World War II and the war was officially over in 1945. 

Following the war, Europe had a great amount of instability.  Germany was separated into occupation zones that were controlled by the United States, The Soviet Union, Britain, and France.  There were 35 million to 60 million deaths that occurred throughout the war which caused there to be a huge impact in the way things were being run worldwide.  There were major losses and the states of many people’s lives were heavily changed after the war.

At the end of World War II six nations, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg and West Germany, signed the Treaty of Paris in 1951 to establish stronger social, political and economic ties with each other.  None of the countries was in favor of any kind of nationalism at the time because of what they saw with World War II.  Nationalism led to extreme measures that resulted in millions of deaths around the world.  No one really wanted that to happen again and Europe thought that it was because of nationalism that it happened.  So instead of only looking after their own national agenda’s, they believed that forming alliances with countries that felt the same way would be a good idea to help their own country without extreme nationalism.

This idea of building an alliance amongst the countries officially took effect in 1952 when the European Coal and Steel Community was created which allowed free trade when it came to economic and military resources amongst these countries.  In result these countries thought that there should be a committee to overlook what was going on within these nations which ultimately led to positions that oversaw just that.  This is considered to be the official start of the early stages of the European Union.

Overtime the European Community, as it was called prior to 1991, introduced many changes in Europe.  This included the first European currency: the Euro, and trying to enforce gender equality.  While there are still many gaps amongst the sexes, the European Union claims that they are working towards a more equal society.  There are yearly reports that document exactly that and there are efforts that are being made to make sure that there’s a brighter future for all the countries that are now a part of the European Union.



Massacre at Kwangju: The suppression of democratization for economic gain

The South Korean city of Kwangju is home to the Kwangju Uprising of 1980, named after the city it took place in. Motivated by the outrage of the newly passed marital law and the general dissatisfaction of Chun Doo-hwan’s military dictatorship, student protesters took to the streets on May 18th. The protesting lasted until May 27th when the militarized forces gained enough power to cripple the demonstration indefinitely.

On the morning of May 18th about 200 students from the Chonnam University began demonstrating and by mid day more than 800 more people had joined them. With the approval of the United States, the military government released paratroopers to put an end to the demonstration. These paratroopers were trained for assault missions and behaved accordingly by brutally beating, and arresting the protesters.  Those of the students that had been forcibly arrested were then piled into various trucks where they continues to be beaten as they were taken away.  The next day, many more people joined the protesters that were still left (http://countrystudies .us/South-Korea/21.htm). Paratroopers once again resorted to brutality, even some policemen were against the incredible force being used against the protesters and when they tried to release captives, they too were bayoneted and beaten by the military forces. The paratroopers used lethal force and opened fire on the protesters with M-16s.


On May 20th, the newspaper Militants’ Bulletin was published for the first time, and reported on the actual events of the uprising. That night the march grew to over 200,000 people in a city with a population of roughly 700,000 ( With the continued failure of the media to report on the situation in Kwangju, thousands of the protesters took their frustration to the media buildings and set them on fire, along with the tax offices and 16 police cars. The following day, in an effort to fight back against the bullets being shot at them, protesters started seizing military vehicles from a local military contractor. They soon had 350 vehicles and started driving these expropriated vehicles around the city, rallying demonstrators together and going to neighboring towns and villages to spread the revolt. Soon the protesters raided police stations and National Guard armories for weapons. The estimated amount of those killed ranges from a few hundred to over 2,000 people killed during the nine day uprising ( During the time of the uprising the media was so censored that nothing was being reported.  Not even any of the deaths; instead, the reports that came out were fabricated stories of vandalism and trivial police involvement (

Women were an integral part of the demonstration, at one point during the protesting seven busloads of women textile workers went to Naju, where they seized hundreds of rifles and ammunition and brought them back to Kwangju. The protesters tried to bring the uprising to Chunju and Seoul, but it was unsuccessful. The military’s control on travel and media was very strong and it prevented the spread of the uprising to the rest of the nation ( By the evening of the 20th the protesters had control of the city.

They kept that control for six days until May 27th when military forces engulfed the city and took power back.

The US supported Chun’s suppression of the Kwangju Uprising in order to impose a neoliberal economic regime. The involvement of the United States was motivated by their desire to advance their economic relationship with South Korea, resulting in a meeting in the White House on May 22 discussing what they should do about Korea.  The result of this meeting was an overall agreement that order had to be placed on Kwangju by suppressing the protesters uprising The U.S. government “decided to support the restoration of security and order in South Korea while deferring pressure for political liberalization” (  The following day in Seoul, U.S. Ambassador William Gleysteen had a meeting with Korean Prime Minister Park Choong-hoon during this meeting Gleysteen acknowledged that “firm anti-riot measures were necessary.” President Carter told a CNN interviewer on May 31 that security interests must sometimes override human rights concerns (  Subsequently, during this time the U.S. decided to allow the president of the US Export-Import Bank, John Moore to go on his visit to Seoul so that he could arrange U.S. financing of large Korean contracts for US nuclear power plants (

At this time the Senior American officer in Korea, General John Wickham “accepted and agreed to the request by the Korean government to allow the use of certain selected Korean armed forces under his operational control in operations to subdue the crowds” (  Furthermore, the U.S. Ambassador Gleysteen wrote in a telegram to Washington “..less concerned over the democratic development, if military leadership can develop an apparently stable structure and invigorate the economy than U.S. business and banking circles will be prepared to go back to business as usual (with Korea)” (

The U.S. was worried that large American corporations wouldn’t want to do business with Korea do to this instability, so the U.S. encouraged Chun to provide stability by ending the protesters uprising. To further the business relationship with Chun and American investors, on June 13 after the uprising in May the U.S. had Chun dine with leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, including the president of 3-M and representatives of Bank of America, Dow Chemical, and Gulf Oil. As well as in September, Chun visited to America where he met Davis Rockefeller; their photo was printed in The New York Times. Then, not but three days later, the Korean government announced new policies about relaxed foreign investments, plus 100% foreign ownership of companies, 100% repatriation of funds invested from abroad, and foreigners’ ownership of land (

It’s important to question the reasoning for the U.S. involvement in Korea during this time. What are some of the rationalities you might come up with for why we became involved with suppression of the Kwangju uprising, do you think it was purely economic gain?

Globalization and World War II

            There hasn’t been any more deadly war than World War II. But has anyone thought about why and how this World War II started, besides the leaders what was the main push factor for it?? Why was Hitler so eager to take over the entire world? How did he have so much power to start a war?? And what kind of power did United States and United Kingdom possess that they were able to defeat Hitler and put an end to this World War II?? When we learn about war we tend to think and see the whole situation in general terms. We see in term of who was the villain with bad intentions that started the war, and who were the heroes that actually stopped the war. But there is more to that. Talking in terms of World War II, I see globalization as a main factor to support this whole war for such a long time. Globalization increases urbanization, industrialization, communication, creation of new technologies, mainly it increases power. And power increases the money, money which is used to achieve and accomplish all kinds of goals. We can see with globalization alot of developmental works are being produced at each step, but it is equally important to remember that globalization is very powerful matter itself. It has the capability of destruction too, and World War II is deadliest destructive example of globalization. Uncountable numbers of lives, properties, places, countries have been destroyed during World War II.


 First World War had created instability in Europe, which lead to another international conflict- World War II. Unstable Germany was rising to power economically and politically, where Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist (Nazi Party) rearmed the nation. Hitler and Nazi Party signed strategic treaties with Italy and Japan to achieve his ambition of world domination. Hitler had long planned to invade Poland, and Poland had been guaranteed military support from Great Britain and France if it was attacked by Germany. When Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, France and Great Britain had declared war on Germany, and then onwards the World War II had officially begun. (

As I have made my point that globalization supported and extended this war for so long, here are some main events and wars fought during War World II where we can actually see the role and contributions of globalization for such massive destruction.

  • Battle of Britain (1940): British and German air forces fought the war over the skies of United Kingdom, locked in the largest bombing campaign. This was a turning point to World War II because the battle ended when Germany’s Luftwaffe failed to gain superiority over the Royal Air Force. It proved that British air power alone was enough to win the major battle. As we can see fighter planes, planes were eventually developed because of globalization. It was the globalization and the development that took the wars on the grounds to be fought in the air.

  • Pearl Harbour (1941): As a shock, on December 7, 1941 hundreds of Japanese fighter planes attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbour. Alot of American naval vessels, battleships and planes were destroyed. More than that 2,000 American soldiers and sailor died and 1000 were wounded in that attack. The day after that attack President Franklin D, Roosevelt declared war on Japan. Soon after three days the Japanese allies Germany and Italy also declared a war on United States. After more than two years into conflict, American had finally joined World War II. As we can see globalization had form connections, support as well as enmity between different countries. It had created such powerful bombs to destroy millions of lives and property within few minutes of its dropping.


  • Battle of Midway (1942): Six months after the attack on Pearl Harbour, the United States had defeated Japan in the naval battles. A great role was played by the code breaking intelligence group who were able to acquire Japanese war plans. Here intelligence groups and code breaking is another contribution of globalization and its new technologies invention. The battle from the ground had now shifted to seas.


The above mentioned points reflect how globalization supported the destructive methods during the war time. But at the same time during the war, the roles of women were taking a new form.

“If you’ve used an electric mixer in your kitchen, you can learn to run a drill press”- American War Manpower Campaign

  • Women and World War II: The women were facing the shortage in domestic resources. Many worked outside their home boundaries; they worked in volunteer organization connected with war efforts. The marriage rates increased and the rate of babies born to unmarried women increased by 42%.


More married women, mothers and minority women had found jobs. They took the jobs that were previously reserved for men. They worked in position that supported military efforts. At every war there were some women spies and resistance fighters.  Many women nurses were used in the war zones. More than thousands of women were pilots and were associated with US air force. Women were affected in some specific and unconventional ways as the “comfort women” of China and Korea, the Holocaust and Jewish women. Prostitution rose dramatically.


“Near many military bases, reputed “victory girls” could be found, willing to engage in sex with military men without charge”.

As a conclusion, we can see that World War II is one of the most powerful and destructive war in the history which has changed how the world is today. It worked as a great platform for women to realize and achieve their power. And some ways I feel the early feminist have surely been inspired and learned alot from the women who fought World War II. It still matters because it has created the difference and hatred for other races and culture which even after so many years has not been fully washed away. Many still tend to look, judge or hold grudge against other cultures and religions on the basis of what happened in the World War II.

Globalization as I have mentioned before can be a improving or a destructive matter, it just depends upon how and for what we use globalization. At the same time we have learned so much from and about globalization that it is now time that we make the best use of globalization creating beautiful world and not to destroy it. If we have invented globalization, we should be able to control globalization.

You could refer to these websites for more information:

World War 2 Timeline 1939-1945. (2006). Retrieved March 5, 2012, from WORLDWAR-2:

World War II. (2012). Retrieved March 5, 2012, from 20th Century History:

Previous Older Entries