Seeking Solace in the Land of Opportunity

"I was sure I'd be raped or killed..." A gay Syrian refugee fleeing from ISIS

Gay Syrian Refugee to Address United Nations

     In bringing our discussions of "foreign," "domestic," "nation," "borders," masculinity, femininity, and how all of the above interlace in the arena of U.S. empire and imperialism, I chose the aforementioned links focusing on the Syrian refugee crisis and the often ignored and underrepresented narrative of LGBT refugees and how their narratives relate to our own historical narrative as a collective.  In bringing our discussion forward from Kaplan's discourse around Puerto Rico, Cuba, Roosevelt and the Rough Riders to the contemporary and present incarnation of U.S. empire, imperialism, and "domesticity," or in this particular case, "domestication," I chose to emphasize the instance of the recent trend of Syrian refugees seeking solace in the arms of European countries or the United States, as the case-in-point of the attached article. Of course, we have all heard the numerous reasons, explanations, motivations, and otherwise "necessary causes" for U.S. involvement in the Middle East, which can be a touchy topic for some, but one that I feel is very relevant to our discourse and dialogue surrounding U.S. imperialism, particularly as it's manifested through these ideas of the "foreign," the "domestic," the "Other," and the need to "domesticate" the aforementioned "Other." Though in this instance, one could make the conjecture that our involvement, as well as the involvement of other "Big Brother" countries such as Russia and the like, was prompted by a combination of domestic policy, foreign policy, as well as a history of bringing our "domestic" to the "foreign" lands of the "Other" in an attempt to "democratize" them as a means of saving them from themselves.  Much like Kaplan's discussion of Cuba and Puerto Rico, with regards to the sentiment that they were too "savage" and thus wild and anarchic and incapable of sustaining a government and system of sustainability for themselves, there is again this sense of the U.S. as a savior to the populace of the Middle East, in attempt to pull them back from their "heathen" ways to use a euphemism of Southern traditionalism and "Christian zeal," which too is part of this ideology.  As Kaplan has shown us, through the various popular culture illustrations of the late 1800s and early 1900s as well as her in-depth discussions of Cuba and the Philippines, there is a deep-rooted connection between U.S. imperialism, empire, and manhood, with this virility, strength, and otherwise, sheer intimidation of others being what drives the very heart of our contemporary political ideology on a global level.  At the same time, the individual whose harrowing tale is attached in the aforementioned article, had his life threatened, not once but numerous times, by a group of individuals who take the idea of masculinity, of virility, of strength, intimidation, and even, in some instances and in some individuals' minds, anarchistic chaos to a place of destruction, desolation, and otherwise genocide, in the name of nationalism of an extremist level. Subhi Nahas was likely seen as being everything that was wrong with his country, everything that, in the 19th century, would likely have been labeled effeminate and associated with domestic ideologies of emotionality and homemaking, as opposed to the aggressive ideologies of conquer and conquest.
     Nahas felt that living in that area, with the limited resources and the hostile environment, he stood an immense chance of ending up raped, persecuted, and ultimately killed at the hands of the extremist Islamic groups in power, thus he, and others in similar situations, have fled the circumstances of their homeland, seeking solace in the Land of Opportunity, the "good 'ole U. S. of A." However, we have learned that everything from words to slogans to symbols to countries only become synonymous with these meanings and associations because we, as individuals, give them that meaning.  The connection between the U.S. and the Land of Opportunity exists because it was constructed to by individuals.  In the case of these refugees, however, as is most often the case with most immigrants here in the United States, thanks to our never-ending imperialist nature and the cycle of "rescuing" the "Other" that has been perpetuated in various incarnations for the last century or so, it is highly likely that these individuals, including Subhi Nahas, will still be treated as "foreign" while on "domestic" soil, due to the fact that he and his comrades are not part of the homogeneous and upstanding empire of the U.S. but rather a potential destabilizing "faction" that could cause undoing in the various pockets of space that they will come to inhabit.  The beacon of freedom and "welcome sign to the Land of Opportunity" as it were, that massive figure in New York, you know the one, which holds a placard that reads "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" from Emma Lazarus' sonnet, can prove to be somewhat of a misnomer.  What, in many cases, both contemporary and historical, it likely should have read is "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...[as long as they are white and can assimilate into our culture with upsetting the carefully constructed balance that we've come to associate with our sense of national entitlement and American exceptionalism in the global economy and arenas of commerce].
     Judging by the fact that we have massive national debt, a continuously questionable economy, an only slightly-improved job marketplace, and a huge debate fueling within the physical and geographic borders of our country regarding the place and appropriateness of immigrant families and workers within the constructed "American Dream" ideology, I think that it's safe to say that the cycle of constructing the "foreign" within the "domestic" and "domesticating" the "foreign" to fit within the "domestic" while simultaneously "Othering" anyone who differs from us in any facet of existence or being through our, what seems to be never-ending, involvement in the affairs of other countries has certainly aided in perpetuating the idea of the U.S. as an empire of anarchy, imperialism, and as a result, oppression.