#us exceptionalism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

irithnova · 10 months

Text

Notes on "Empire of Care : Nursing and Migration in Filipino American History"

Filipino nurse migration to the United States is just one aspect of a larger global flow of predominantly female migrants from the Philippines to over 130 countries.

This migration trend contrasts with early Philippine immigration, which consisted mainly of male labourers to the United States

The migration of highly skilled nurses across borders is both a celebratory sign of their training and expertise but also highlights global power dynamics, where nurses from countries with severe nursing shortages migrate to provide care in highly developed countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Despite the important role of Filipino nurse migrants, little is known about their development and experiences.

Existing studies often group Filipino nurse migrants with other Asian professional migrants, which masks the unique aspects of their migration.

These studies often explain Filipino nurse migration through U.S. immigration legislation and economic opportunities, such as the 1965 U.S. Immigration Act and nursing shortages after World War II.

The "brain drain" theory is commonly used to explain professional migration from Asian countries, suggesting that professionals leave due to a lack of opportunities and economic incentives in their home countries.

Filipino nurse migrants are sometimes depicted as impersonal objects of study, preventing a comprehensive understanding of their multidimensional roles as historical agents, professionals, women, and immigrants.

The migration of highly skilled nurses reflects a global power structure where countries with nursing shortages, including the Philippines, send nurses to provide professional nursing care in highly developed countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The World Health Organization (WHO) report highlights the inequitable distribution of nurses worldwide, with developing countries having only 15 percent of the world's nurses despite housing two-thirds of the world's population (Empire of Care).

The culture of migration, shaped by narratives about the promise of immigration to the United States, including media portrayals and experiences shared by Filipino nurse migrants already in the U.S, plays a significant role in motivating Filipino nurses to seek opportunities abroad.

U.S. hospital recruiters actively collaborate with Philippine travel and recruitment agencies to aggressively recruit Filipino nurses, shedding light on what some researchers call the "institutionalisation of migration." However, these aspects are often overlooked in research, leaving a "critical void" in understanding the dynamics of Filipino nurse migration.

The lack of study about the exploitation faced by Filipino nurses from both Philippine and American recruiters and their American hospital employers is concerning. Additionally, the scapegoating of Filipino immigrants during challenging political times and the absence of professional solidarity between Filipino and American nurses remain underexplored issues.

The studies that include Filipino nurse migrants also marginalise and simplify the complex and dynamic history of the colonial relationship between the United States and the Philippines.

Pervasive myths of U.S. exceptionalism and benevolence persist and influence the perception of colonial history, downplaying the violent conquest of the Philippines and the racialized hierarchies it created. These myths are also perpetuated in contemporary times through media narratives about immigration and the incorporation of the "Third World" into the United States.

Despite their highly educated and skilled backgrounds, professional Asian immigrants, including Filipino nurses, still face resentment and hostility, as exemplified by the case of nuclear physicist Wen Ho Lee.

Foreign nurses, especially Filipino nurses, have been criticised for "taking jobs" from American nurses, leading to debates about their immigration and examination requirements. This criticism often overlooks the complex factors involved in Filipino nurse migration and the collaboration between Philippine and U.S. entities in facilitating the process. It also implies that Filipino nurses exploit the United States, rather than the reality of the situation (the United States exploiting Filipino nurses).

The history of U.S. colonialism in the Philippines perpetuated the interrelated myths of "white love" and "little brown brothers." These myths claimed that Americans embraced their colonial subjects with benevolence and enlightened American systems of education, infrastructure, and public health. Not only does this further promote the myths of American benevolence and American exceptionalism , it portrays Americans as superior to their Filipino counterparts in a racialised hierarchy.

American Exceptionalism in this context means Americans juxtaposing themselves against their "Brutal, European counterparts" in order to paint themselves as a benevolent force in the Philippines.

93 notes · View notes

hussyknee · 5 months

Text

I started listing all the atrocities and war crimes and methods of wholesale systemic slaughter of a defenceless civilian population that's happened over the last two months alone and gave up midway because I lost track. But no, it's not the "ultimate crime". /s

The theory is they're doing this because signatories to the UN genocide convention have a legal obligation to prevent genocide, so if the US recognizes it as such they are required to take action against Israel. A dog being required to hit his own tail for misbehaving.

27 notes · View notes

area51-narutorun · 3 months

Text

Americentrism is when you go to an Australian coffee shop and find American money in the tip jar.

What the fuck are the employees supposed to do with this. Like genuinely. Are they supposed to go to a bank and exchange it for money they can actually use. Are they supposed to frame it as a souvenir. Like what is the reasoning here.

#usamerican tourists stop being Like This challenge #us exceptionalism #americentrism #arghhhhh #australia

5 notes · View notes

inthefallofasparrow · 6 months

Text

youtube

SOME MORE NEWS | Things That America Invented (But Other Countries Do Better)

#cody johnston #us exceptionalism #Youtube #renewable energy #ronald reagan #gun control #democracy

2 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 2 years

Text

Count on one thing: a Congress that can agree on next to nothing Americans might actually want or need will undoubtedly usher through with all due speed President Biden’s recent $33 billion request for arms and other aid for Ukraine. On that (and little else), Republicans and Democrats seem genuinely capable of agreement. Oh, and add that sum to last month’s $14 billion aid package and Congress will have anted up an almost instant $47 billion for the Ukrainians in their battle with Vladimir Putin’s desperately messed-up military that’s already lost, it seems, at least 12 generals (thanks in part, ominously enough, to U.S. intelligence), a record for modern warfare).

I mean, we’re talking about a Congress essentially incapable of passing legislation that would levy such sums for climate change, child care, or almost anything else that Americans might actually need here at home. But weapons for Ukraine? No big deal, any more than it was a problem when it came to funding this country’s disastrous wars in Afghanistan or Iraq or its unending global war on terror — or a Pentagon budget that contains almost unimaginable sums for America’s giant weapons makers, whether what they’re making works or not, is needed or not.

In other words, the horrifying war in Ukraine may be a catastrophe for the Ukrainians and, in the end, the Russians, too, but for the U.S. military-industrial complex it’s clearly going to be a heaven on earth. You can already feel the thrill of it all in President Biden’s pronouncements, in the urge of the secretary of defense to ensure that Russia is “weakened” big time by its invasion, and the commentary provided by Washington Republicans and Democrats alike. As retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and TomDispatch regular William Astore points out today, when it comes to war, the nightmare in Ukraine is proving to be a thrill and a half in Washington. After so many years of disfiguring military disaster globally, thanks to Vladimir Putin we’re finally the undisputed good guys on planet Earth again and what more could you ask for? Tom

----

Why has the United States already become so heavily invested in the Russia-Ukraine war? And why has it so regularly gotten involved, in some fashion, in so many other wars on this planet since it invaded Afghanistan in 2001? Those with long memories might echo the conclusion reached more than a century ago by radical social critic Randolph Bourne that “war is the health of the state” or recall the ancient warnings of this country’s founders like James Madison that democracy dies not in darkness, but in the ghastly light thrown by too many bombs bursting in air for far too long.

In 1985, when I first went on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, a conflict between the Soviet Union and Ukraine would, of course, have been treated as a civil war between Soviet republics. In the context of the Cold War, the U.S. certainly wouldn’t have risked openly sending billions of dollars in weaponry directly to Ukraine to “weaken” Russia. Back then, such obvious interference in a conflict between the USSR and Ukraine would have simply been an act of war. (Of course, even more ominously, back then, Ukraine also had nuclear weapons on its soil.)

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, everything changed. The Soviet sphere of influence gradually became the U.S. and NATO sphere of influence. Nobody asked Russia whether it truly cared, since that country was in serious decline. Soon enough, even former Soviet republics on its doorstep became America’s to meddle in and sell arms to, no matter the Russian warnings about “red lines” vis-à-vis inviting Ukraine to join NATO. And yet here we are, with an awful war in Ukraine on our hands, as this country leads the world in sending weapons to Ukraine, including Javelin and Stinger missiles and artillery, while promoting some form of future victory, however costly, for Ukrainians.

Here’s what I wonder: Why in this century has America, the “leader of the free world” (as we used to say in the days of the first Cold War), also become the leader in promoting global warfare? And why don’t more Americans see a contradiction in that reality? If you’ll bear with me, I have what I think are at least five answers, however partial, to those questions:

* First and above all, war is — even if so many Americans don’t normally think of it that way — immensely profitable. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. military-industrial complex recognized a giant business opportunity. During the Cold War, the world’s biggest arms merchants were the U.S. and the USSR. With the Soviet Union gone, so, too, was America’s main rival in selling arms everywhere. It was as if Jeff Bezos had witnessed the collapse of Walmart. Do you think he wouldn’t have taken advantage of the resulting retail vacuum?

Forget about the “peace dividends” Americans were promised then or downsizing the Pentagon budget in a major way. It was time for the big arms manufacturers to expand into markets that had long been dominated by the USSR. Meanwhile, NATO chose to follow suit in its own fashion, expanding beyond the borders of a reunified Germany. Despite verbal promises to the contrary made to Soviet leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev, it expanded into Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Romania, among other countries — that is, to the very borders of Russia itself, even as U.S. weapons contractors made a killing in supplying arms to such new NATO members. In the spirit of management guru Stephen Covey, it may have been a purely “win-win” situation for NATO, the U.S., and its merchants of death then, but it’s proven to be a distinctly lose-lose situation for Russia and now especially for Ukraine as the war there drags on and on, while the destruction only mounts.

* Second, when it comes to promoting war globally, consider the U.S. military’s structure and mission. How could this country possibly return to anything like what, so long ago, was known as “isolationism” when it has at least 750 military bases scattered liberally on every continent except Antarctica? How could it not promote war in some fashion, when that unbelievably well-funded military’s mission is defined as projecting power globally across all “spectrums” of combat, including land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace? What could you expect when its budget equals those of the next 11 militaries on this planet combined or when the Pentagon quite literally divides the whole world into U.S. military commands headed by four-star generals and admirals, each one a Roman-style proconsul? How could you not imagine that Washington’s top officials believe this country has a stake in conflicts everywhere under such circumstances? Such attitudes are an obvious product of such a structure and such a sense of armed global mission.

* Third, consider the power of the dominant narrative in Washington in these years. Despite the never-ending war-footing of this country, Americans are generally sold on the idea that we constitute a high-minded nation desirous of peace. In a cartoonish fashion, we’re always the good guys and enemies, like Putin’s Russia now, uniquely evil. Conforming to and parroting this version of reality leads to career success, especially within the mainstream media. As Chris Hedges once so memorably put it: “The [U.S.] press goes limp in front of the military.” And those with the spine to challenge such a militarist narrative are demoted, ostracized, exiled, or even in rare cases imprisoned. Just ask whistleblowers and journalists like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Daniel Hale, and Edward Snowden who have dared to challenge the American war story and paid a price for it.

* Fourth, war both unifies and distracts. In this century, it has helped unify the American people, however briefly, as they were repeatedly reminded to “support our troops” as “heroes” in the fight against “global terror.” At the same time, it’s distracted us from the class war in this country, where the poor and working class (and, increasingly, a shrinking middle class as well) are most definitely losing out. As financier and billionaire Warren Buffett put the matter: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

* Fifth, wars, ranging from the Afghan and Iraq ones to the never-ending global war on terror, including the present one in Ukraine, have served as distractions from another reality entirely: America’s national decline in this century and its ever-greater political dysfunction. (Think Donald Trump, who didn’t make it to the White House by accident, but at least in part because disastrous wars helped pave the way for him.)

Americans often equate war itself with masculine potency. (Putting on “big boy pants” was the phrase used unironically by officials in President George W. Bush’s administration to express their willingness to launch conflicts globally.) Yet by now, many of us do sense that we’re witnessing a seemingly inexorable national decline. Exhibits include a rising number of mass shootings; mass death due to a poorly handled Covid-19 pandemic; massive drug-overdose deaths; increasing numbers of suicides, including among military veterans; and a growing mental-health crisis among our young.

Political dysfunction feeds on and aggravates that decline, with Trumpism tapping into a reactionary nostalgia for a once “great” America that could be made “great again” — if the right people were put in their places, if not in their graves. Divisions and distractions serve to keep so many of us downtrodden and demobilized, desperate for a leader to ignite and unite us, even if it’s for a cause as shallow and false as the “stop the steal” Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

Despite the evidence of decline and dysfunction all around us, many Americans continue to take pride and comfort in the idea that the U.S. military remains the finest fighting force in all of history — a claim advanced by presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, among so many other boosters.

All the World’s A Stage

About 15 years ago, I got involved in a heartfelt argument with a conservative friend about whether it was wise for this country to shrink its global presence, especially militarily. He saw us as a benevolent actor on the world stage. I saw us as overly ambitious, though not necessarily malevolent, as well as often misguided and in denial when it came to our flaws. I think of his rejoinder to me as the “empty stage” argument. Basically, he suggested that all the world’s a stage and, should this country become too timid and abandon it, other far more dangerous actors could take our place, with everyone suffering. My response was that we should, at least, try to leave that stage in some fashion and see if we were missed. Wasn’t our own American stage ever big enough for us? And if this country were truly missed, it could always return, perhaps even triumphantly.

Of course, officials in Washington and the Pentagon do like to imagine themselves as leading “the indispensable nation” and are generally unwilling to test any other possibilities. Instead, like so many ham actors, all they want is to eternally mug and try to dominate every stage in sight.

In truth, the U.S. doesn’t really have to be involved in every war around and undoubtedly wouldn’t be if certain actors (corporate as well as individual) didn’t feel it was just so profitable. If my five answers above were ever taken seriously here, there might indeed be a wiser and more peaceful path forward for this country. But that can’t happen if the forces that profit from the status quo — where bellum (war) is never ante- or post- but simply ongoing — remain so powerful. The question is, of course, how to take the profits of every sort out of war and radically downsize our military (especially its overseas “footprint”), so that it truly becomes a force for “national security,” rather than national insecurity.

Most of all, Americans need to resist the seductiveness of war, because endless war and preparations for more of the same have been a leading cause of national decline. One thing I know: Waving blue-and-yellow flags in solidarity with Ukraine and supporting “our” troops may feel good but it won’t make us good. In fact, it will only contribute to ever more gruesome versions of war.

A striking feature of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is that, after so many increasingly dim years, it’s finally allowed America’s war party to pose as the “good guys” again. After two decades of a calamitous “war on terror” and unmitigated disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and so many other places, Americans find themselves on the side of the underdog Ukrainians against that “genocidal” “war criminal” Vladimir Putin. That such a reading of the present situation might be uncritical and reductively one-sided should (but doesn’t) go without saying. That it’s seductive because it feeds both American nationalism and narcissism, while furthering a mythology of redemptive violence, should be scary indeed.

Yes, it’s high time to call a halt to the Pentagon’s unending ham-fisted version of a world tour. If only it were also time to try dreaming a different dream, a more pacific one of being perhaps a first among equals. In the America of this moment, even that is undoubtedly asking too much. An Air Force buddy of mine once said to me that when you wage war long, you wage it wrong. Unfortunately, when you choose the dark path of global dominance, you also choose a path of constant warfare and troubled times marked by the cruel risk of violent blowback (a phenomenon of which historian and critic Chalmers Johnson so presciently warned us in the years before 9/11).

Washington certainly feels it’s on the right side of history in this Ukraine moment. However, persistent warfare should never be confused with strength and certainly not with righteousness, especially on a planet haunted by a growing sense of impending doom.

#US imperialism #military industrial complex #ukraine conflict #us exceptionalism #vladimir putin

24 notes · View notes

hacash · 2 years

Text

I am constantly fascinated by how American centric a lot of posts about cultural Christianity are and what a shitton of irony that involves.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that (or that Christianity across the globe doesn’t have its own issues) but it’s fascinating to see posts going ‘these particular assumptions/beliefs aren’t good, you can’t assume your experiences are universal, and this is a problem worldwide’ while not realising that the assumptions and beliefs they’re describing…are themselves not actually universal. Something something telling someone not to do something while yourself doing that same thing, something something else.

#musings #i find american centricism a really interesting thing because it really defies political views #some of the most radical most lefty most eager for change people I follow on here #are still super blindly us-centric in so much of what they post #and that does affect what they post!#and i'm not condemning anyone for that I'm just fascinated by it #us exceptionalism

9 notes · View notes

oliveroctavius · 7 months

Text

#I hate when something trying to be golden age style uses a campy plot idea for a single cutaway panel #and then goes ''well that just happened''#Do you think I come to vintage comics just for the aesthetics of american exceptionalism?#No I want to know step by step how you defeated the intelligent dinosaur with a rocket launcher using your fists and your wits. Go on.#comics

572 notes · View notes

carnivorous-toothache · 1 year

Text

I definitely think there's Something (TM) to say about the portrayal of "off-human" characters in modern media adaptations as having (particularly facial) deformities and/or learning disabilities.

Robert Louis Stevenson was fully like "this is my OC, Hyde, who represents the impact of a complete apathy toward your fellow man. There is nothing extraordinary about him except that his rancid vibes make people uncomfortable which adds to the core theme of the role of morality in humanity, so its really important that he's physically normal so the audience can recognise that it's what's inside that's most important," and every film adaptation was like "mmkay. Yeah, no, I've got it. We can show that he's evil by using prosthetics and making him non/semi-verbal, which, as we all know, are the True Measures of Evil."

#non-human #jekyll and hyde #doctor jekyll #mr hyde #jekyll and hyde weekly #also frankenstein #the creature is classically beautiful and exceptionally well spoken #the horror comes from the idea of the role of humanity in an act of creation #projecting their idea of the perfect self onto a model #aha yes #this means he should be physically grotesque and have an obvious learning disability #this is where the horror comes from #having never met mary shelly #i can be 100% sure she did not shag on her mothers grave for her work to be used to promote ableism in the media #i would like to clarify that there should be more disabled actors and characters on screen #but this is not it

1K notes · View notes

leonisandmurex · 9 months

Text

𝑨 𝑷𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔...

Wears a Tiara from time to time,

Rocks any style,

Purple and green should never be seen, except on a Princess ;) ,

Has luscious luscious locks,

Is self deprecating,

Happy-go-lucky,

Serious,

But also cool calm and collected when the going gets tough,

Has a MAJOR crush on a Prince named William,

Kisses like she's in a fairy-tale,

Is confident regardless of titles,

And a Jack of all trades,

No for real!! ->

But her greatest & favourite skill is by far hugging,

Dedicates her time to causes close to heart,

Does fancy dinner shit and finds it RIVETING!

Has an exceptionally CUTE! and loyal fan base,

And a very wise mentor,

Deep down she's just like any other girl,

So this morning when i woke up i was Mia Thermopolis // Kate Middleton…but now i choose to be, forevermore....

Amelia Mignonette Thermopolis Renaldi PRINCESS of Genovia // Catherine Elizabeth, The PRINCESS of Wales 🍐♡ 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

345 notes · View notes

uncanny-tranny · 6 months

Text

Big reminder that your country is not immune to bigotry. I've seen so many people, for example, pretend like antisemitism doesn't exist in the USA because we were part of the allied forces in WWII (of course, they conveniently don't remember that we rejected jewish refugees when WWII broke out and we only really joined because Pearl Harbor was bombed, but I digress).

If you think your country is immune from antisemitism, racism (including anti-Indigenous racism), class issues, ableism, whatever else it may be, look deeper because you will find it.

#politics #antisemitism #antisemitism tw #i think if pearl harbor wasn't bombed we would have potentially never declared war #like yes it was better for us to have joined but realistically it wasn't to 'save the jews' like many USamericans think #we did NOT in fact 'save the jews' and we still have huge antisemitism problems ALONG WITH so /so/ much other shit #i can't understate that america isn't so far removed from the world that we just magically don't have problems #ANYway. tangent aside. it just.... annoys me whenever i see usamericans doing this #not because i think they're always malicious but it's a reminder that people aren't truly taught accurate us history #look if american history was taught to you in such a way you only felt warm fuzzy feelings you were FAILED...#...you were *failed* by an education system that was more interested in american exceptionalism than actual factual history #and i don't think america is the only culprit in national exceptionalism but i have the most experience as a usamerican #quick amendment that many jewish refugees were fleeing in the very beginning before war broke out *officially*#but we still rejected them sanctuary from nazi germany as a country (AND ofc america wasn't the only country to have done this!)

163 notes · View notes

mityenka · 10 months

Text

literally begging usamericans to stop making every criticism of their country into a us vs europe thing, death to america and death to europe are in no way conflicting statements they go hand in hand the reason why the death to america slogan is more commonly used is because the us is the greater imperialist and hegemonial power and because the sheer amount of influence the us has on geopolitics extends that of any european country by far. western europe is riding on the coattails of usamerican imperialism (eg in the nato) to secure the future of the capitalist system and continue the exploitation of the global south so it's stupid to waste our time arguing about dumb americans vs entitled europeans like we're back on 2013 tumblr

#it's not about which country is the most predominantly white when one country has the power to meddle in foreign elections #overthrow democratically elected governments and install fascist dictatorships all around the globe #also fight american exceptionalism always. there are way too many ironic patriots on here that get seriously offended when someone makes fun #of the us #pol

216 notes · View notes

ssaalexblake · 1 month

Text

13 is an utter awful rat to Graham in It Takes You Away, she treats him horrifically as she loses her patience and therefore temper with him and never bothers to apologise for it, but nobody notices because she didn't raise her voice and it wasn't in a situation where she'd be expected to mother him, so it sailed over peoples heads. She lost her temper and she got Mean. She didn't get shouty, she got mean. She's not a yeller when she lets her anger loose, she's sharp and cruel and so very deliberate. And that doesn't track with peoples stereotypes of women, does it? Women are shouty and Shrill when they're angry, apparently.

She does it to the master in the timeless children, she's sharp and mean and cruel and never once raises her voice when she does it (she actually lowers her voice when she's being really mean btw). This did Not happen when you're thinking it did. Not in the matrix room. She had no idea she was scoring a hit against him there because she didn't understand what he was thinking (because he'd deliberately mislead her). It was in another part of the episode. She scores a hit and almost makes him cry and nobody cares or notices because it's not in a situation where she's supposed to be mothering him while he's all sad. He was being a jerk, she hit out deliberately below the belt and won that round, the end.

It's no that I think 13 isn't at times objectively shitty as a person, because she IS, she certainly was to Graham in the moment above. It's just that instead of looking at the Actual moments on screen when she sucks and dragging her for being shitty person, people have to resort to making up things to accuse her of that are Very gendered (as in, things women are going to get slammed for in society based upon sexist ideology) that never even happen, simply because they didn't pay enough attention to notice her being a crappy Person to drag her for that/they don't actually care if she's in general a lousy person at all.

Because they don't Want her to be a crappy person, that doesn't achieve anything.

They want her to be a crappy Woman.

#dw shit #i am not going to say when in itya it is. To make a point.#or point out Exactly when it was in ttc either #she also treats Hanne badly in itya by using her as an opportunity to teach ryan things imo!!#you don't leave a scared kid alone with somebody they don't like just to teach that person to play better with others doctor #doing so almost got hanne killed and honestly she could have hurt ryan running away as well #13 is exceptionally callous but despite people slamming her All the time i next to never see it mentioned #there is So much shittiness to 13 but people don't notice bc she's a crap Person not a crap ~Woman~ by values of a sexist society's #version of a crap woman (of which i do not endorse)#so we... make up gendered things to slam her for???#so bonkers #once again if i'm not talking about you i am not talking about you

56 notes · View notes