Revision: TIME Magazines from the 1950's

Note: I suppose pride is an aspect of most personalities, including writers. With that in mind, many writers can feel hurt, angry, and even disheartened when they recieve bad marks on even the most trivial of assignments.

It's not a new phenonmenon for me. I would like to think that, as a Senior at age twenty-four, I could avoid investing personal attachment (and my ego) into everything that I write and submit. I still cannot.

Below is a revision of my most recent post, on TIME magazines I read for my Senior Seminar course: 1950's American Culture. I don't think my original copy was awful, by any means, but I was very upset (with myself) when I recieved the proofessor's marks. Most were very simple, stupid mistakes: using an adjective in place of a noun, using "amongst" instead of "among," and the awkward sentence structure of a handful of lines.

Even though I imagine few, if any, read this blog I still devote my time and effort to make this as professional as possible, just for my own sake. Therefore, when I see blatantly silly mistakes in a published post, I become upset with myself.

Instead of just editing the existing post, I think openly admitting my mistakes, and showing my revision, is a far better idea. No one is perfect. We often learn more from our mistakes then we do from our success. I could be looking a bit too much into this, but my writing, any writing, means a lot to me. I would rather admit to faulty writing and be open to learning from failures then to hide them. Sometimes a wounded ego can be good for the mind.



The cover of the January 1, 1951 issue of TIME showed an artist’s depiction of an American soldier. TIME decided that, most likely in light of the remnant glory of U.S. soldiers in World War II and the growing confrontation between Communism in Korea, G.I. Joe should be the “Man of the Year.” I found it interesting that the “Man of the Year” award—still vital to the magazines current publishers—dated back so long. In fact, the annual award has been around since the 1920’s. However, the more significant statement of the 1951 award was the focus on U.S. involvement in an escalating and international crisis—Communist containment. In my reading of TIME issues between January and February of 1951, I could not escape the earnestness that Communism had among the publishers of the magazine and, I would venture to conclude, the public at large.

Unlike modern issues, the 1951 counterparts did not contain the volume of unique articles by various staff reporters and freelance writers that the modern issues have. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see concise news coverage in the 1951 issues, notably with regard to foreign states. Although the issues lacked the depth of a modern issue of, say, The Economist, there was information on countries such as Iran, Ireland, Italy, France, Nepal, Germany, Indonesia, and Cuba, among others. The blurbs mentioned key figures and events to give the readership a more global awareness. In addition, the layout of information was very simple: National news separated by sections focusing on the Presidency, Congress, Military, etc., followed by International news and insights.

I imagine the prevalence of international examination reflects this era of American history as one in which isolationism was becoming an outdated global philosophy. World War II, I imagine, countered the isolationist view, and the “Great Debate” pushed the U.S. to engage the world’s actors, obviously as a means to counter Communism. I found the term “Great Debate” in a few of the issues. It was a term that regarded two international perspectives: isolationism v. proactive involvement. Former President Hoover was quite outspoken against the latter approach to international relations during the Truman administration. “Any attempt to make war on the Communist mass by land invasion, through the quicksands of China, India, or Western Europe, is sheer folly. That would be the graveyard of millions of American boys” (January 1 issue of TIME). One cannot help but consider this quote as a rather accurate piece of prophecy, considering the outcomes of both the Korean and Vietnam wars.

In the January 1 issue, Truman addressed accusations against then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson, saying he had been “…shot by the enemies of liberty and Christianity.” The Acheson criticism focused on his effectiveness as Secretary of State. This seemed to embody how divisive Communism, and its containment, were for the country. There was no unanimous decision, as I imagine there seldom is, among a broad, governing body.

The cover of the January 8 issue was a life-like artist’s rendering of Acheson, in addition to the statement below his name “A Time for Re-Examination.” That issue reported that many in Congress were uncertain as to the focus the U.S. should place in their broad international policy. TIME held the opinion that the U.S. had no policy at the time, in part because of the large, on-going “Great Debate.” Some leaders felt that Europe was the key, and the Asia was not as significant. Hoover, who largely represented isolationists in the country, had his ideas referred to as the Hoover Doctrine—with the nickname “retreatism.” One cannot help but see some semblance of contemporary Iraq war hawks “cut-and-run” phrase placed on dissenters of the current conflict. Many seemed to view isolationism, from my reading, as an international relations paradigm that was very close to a “defunct” label. Most, if not all, articles and stories did not have an underlying question of “should we pursue Communism abroad?” Instead the apparent attitude represented in the magazine was the more proactive, “how should we pursue Communism?” This corresponds to observations that TIME magazine, at the time, was a more conservative publication.

Later in that issue, TIME published a small map to aid an article describing MacArthur’s troop movement. The title of the map was the clever “Seoul at Stake,” which then referred to Communist forces as “200,000 Reds;” a clear indication that TIME held Communism as a full-fledged antagonist to the country and its interests.

The January 15 issue reported the intra-country debate on “…effectiveness, practicality, and logic” with respect to U.S. involvement on the Asian continent. This underscores, again, the lack of unanimous consent for military actions.

I did find an advertisement in the January 29 issue to be an interesting representation of 1950’s technology. The Zenith corporation advertised a television set with an accompanying “Turret Tuner” (a remote control) that was exclusive to the particular Zenith model.
The February 5 issue contained an interesting quote from Gen. Douglas MacArthur: “I’ll spend the rest of my life, if necessary, fighting Communism. Democracy—the American way of life—is the most wonderful thing we have and it is worth fighting for when it is threatened.” Hard to imagine a more succinct phrase to represent those who favored containment. The issue also had an article titled “Background for War.” It examined the possible outcomes if Russia were able to topple a fragile Iran. Most notably, the article mentioned the vast oil resources in the Middle East, which could come under dominating control should Russia exercise its might.
Not surprisingly, TIME editors devoted much of the magazines I read to the U.S. conflict in Korea and the global “War on Communism” (to alter a common adage used by current politicians when referring to terrorism). However, I noticed a decrease in the conflict’s immediacy in the later January issues. It seemed as though the Korean War and Containment became an ordinary part of American lives. Perhaps, much the same that the Iraq conflict and the “War on Terror” have for the country’s current population.

A suitable way for me to end this brief reaction essay would be to quote a few lines from an article in the February 26 issue. The article from which I derive the following quote had the title “The U.S. Gets a Policy.” The purpose of the article was to commend the quietly established policy among then-government officials, as heard from TIME reporters. “If the atomic umbrella continues to protect a united free world, if the U.S. strengthens Europe and Asia fast enough, if Communism is rolled back, the West can confront the Kremlin with the conditions for peaceful coexistence.”

If only history could have been more cooperative.