It’s become trite, but nonetheless true, to cite the emptiness captured by ‘America.’ To be an American today is merely to take part in a nationalism that has mires itself in wars, ideological battles, and a post-Cold War history that prizes rhetoric over value. Many look back at the daily pledge of allegiance with a kind of knowing smirk, their pride overshadowed by propaganda. However, this does not mean that there is no truly American bond. It exists in what is missed by patriotic thought: In the place where national unity is broken into true community.

I spent last winter traveling this country–13,000 miles in total–stopping in as many towns and cities as I could find places to stay. If nothing else, I saw the way communities–real communities–exist in this nation. I missed many things, but the murky swamps of Louisiana and the pristine mountain roads of the Pacific Coast Highway all told the same tale: a tale of communities where bonds stem not from images, but from true personal interaction. These are places where social interactions have nothing to do with clichéd identities or a common brand loyalty or imagined culture, but concrete experiences and solidarity. In other words, these are not artificial cultures.

This tale (my new American thesis) came first in a shock while standing on an empty New Orleans block. The Lower Ninth Ward, pockmarked by Katrina’s indifference to a historic city’s past, limped into its sunny, spring-in-winter existence, sagging skeletal homes still labeled with warnings of gas leaks or structural instability. And yet here, in this most forgotten of places, neighbors called out greetings and jokes from homes still broken and those being rebuilt. This neighborhood, ignored as it drowned, stood out as the most removed, isolated place within a city unrivalled in America. And here I found community that grew from the cracks unaided by cultural fads.

Perhaps some parts of New Orleans attract new residents because of an aura they are supposed to have. Perhaps some imagine New Orleans in a particular light that suits them, the images of the French Quarter or the Garden District having been played out on the Real World or in movies. The effect of mass media is the dissemination of manufactured images that create self-fulfilling cultures: the culture put across in media attracts those seeking that culture, and a city is built from artificial images or what were once half-true stereotypes.

The Lower Ninth Ward, on the other hand, does not attract new residents. If anything, its supposed image keeps it from fostering this artificiality. Left out of ‘America’, the neighborhood has been left to grow on its own, shared experiences pushing neighbors together, bringing them closer, cementing and crystallizing the bonds between them.

And there is our truth–only in these circumstances does community exist. Only in being not-American can one find what is American. The forgotten of New Orleans–as well as the mocked in the Tennessee hills or the Utah deserts–find their homes in being separated, cast-off from the rest. Community, in ‘America’, finds the soil to grow only in the spaces declared different from the whole, where the content isn’t filled in beforehand with a cookie-cutter culture. Raised on symbolic flags and soaring eagles, American unity fragments itself into something that is much stronger: community.

Perhaps this is a necessary thing. Perhaps it can only ever be through negation of another that a people can define its borders, its customs, and itself. The birth of a community may only ever come from this trauma. But then the question arises: what does our bankrupted American ideal serve? Our communities exist only on the obverse of the American identity. But then is this identity necessary for the obverse to exist? In other words, must we posit the American whole in order to make community possible?

That is a question that can only be answered with a thorough theoretical investigation. But as a question it serves to mark out an important point. Our American way, unity without community, serves at most to prepare the way for the true bonds to grow behind this totalizing ideal. Mythical America cannot be: we can never exist simply as Americans. We need our hidden communities.

Early last week, British rapper Dan Bull released a rap video entitled “SOPA Cabana,” which accuses the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA or H.R. 3261) of Internet censorship and violating freedom of speech. Bull’s rap is part of the growing anti-SOPA movement, which recently exploded after Internet giants like Google, Facebook, and eBay warned of the bill’s consequences. Opponents of SOPA argue that the law mirrors censorship laws in China, Malaysia, and Iran.

If SOPA is an intentionally and explicitly tyrannical censorship law that threatens to destroy the Internet as we know it, why has it flown under the radar until now?

Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) first introduced SOPA to the House of Representatives on October 26, 2011. The full title of the bill claims:

“… to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. [intellectual] property, and for other purposes”.

The bill grants the government to enforce copyright and trademark protections held by corporations. SOPA emerged a few months after its Senate counterpart, the Protect IP Act (PIPA). The House Judiciary Committee began hearings on the bill on November 16, 2011, giving naysayers ample time to protest.

So, why is there resistance now?

First, the bill considers complicated intellectual property issues that are difficult to understand. The average American does not deal with the intricacies of the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC). Consequently, the general public does not consider how a law like SOPA could interfere with DNSSEC, especially when facing unemployment, foreclosure, and an ailing economy. However, SOPA opponents like politicians Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi and companies like Yahoo and LinkedIn attacked the bill in more general terms. By labeling the bill as “censorship” and an “infrignement on First Amendment rights”, these opponents have successfully made SOPA into an issue that Americans can protest.

Second, when SOPA was first introduced, it was considered unenforceable. For example, after the government shut down the torrenting websites Bearshare and Grokster, which are communities that encourage large-scale electronic file sharing, the torrenting community did not fall apart. Instead, users fragmented, making piracy detection more difficult. It may still be possible for dedicated users to access the same material, but SOPA would make it easier than ever before for copyright holders to sue websites, which distribute copyrighted material. Venture capitalists fear this ease of litigation, believing investment in a web-based company may involve more legal expenditures than business management. According to its opponents, SOPA would decrease investments and limit innovation.

Finally, opponents of SOPA do not hold that the bill is intentionally harmful, but flawed in its construction. SOPA gives copyright holders and the government the power to seek court orders against websites that host or traffic counterfeit or stolen intellectual property. If the bill is enforced, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would decide if a website infringes or enables infringement of intellectual property. Depending on the infringement, the DOJ can bar search engines from listing or linking to it, order domain name registrars to take it down, force service providers to block access to it, and ban payment processors like PayPal to stop working with it.

This lengthy process is SOPA’s main flaw. H.R. 3261 bars access to specific sites, meaning Internet services providers must inspect all the Internet traffic of its entire user base. These companies would invade millions of users’ privacy in order to meet governmental demands. The bill would also allow the DOJ to take down websites with virtually no obstacles, fueling censorship concerns. If the DOJ alone is in charge of website surveillance, it could easily shut down websites it does not like or support, especially whistle-blowing websites.

The Stop Online Piracy Act was created to protect major corporations reliant on trademarks like Pfizer, Nike, and Sony and copyright-dependent organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). While these companies present valid concerns, the bill should not exert total control over the Internet and free speech. Unfortunately for its opponents, the government’s inability to acknowledge and amend the potential consequences threatens privacy, free speech, and business. The House has rejected twenty amendments intended to prevent these unintended consequences already. The bill will most likely pass in early January without undergoing major changes. Its supporters and its opponents can only guess what will follow its passage.

Alida Miranda-Wolff is a second-year double major in English and Law, Letters, and Society pursuing a path in law.

Courtesy of the The University of Chicago Undergraduate Law Review

When a school district finds itself in the midst of a sex scandal, the administration must find a way to remedy the situation. Usually, this will consist of firing the offender if he or she works for the district, notifying the authorities, and other such actions to protect the district’s reputation.  However, in a recent sex scandal at Homestead High School in Mequon, Wisconsin, there was no one to fire. This past November 3rd, four teenagers, two of whom were below the age of consent, participated in illicit sexual activity on Homestead’s campus. More specifically, a 14-year-old female student gave oral sex to three boys, Deangelo Dantzler, Brent Anderson, and an unnamed 15-year-old boy. Alcohol, which Anderson provided to the girl, was involved in the incident as well. When the district received news of these acts a week later, they “launched a joint investigation into the incident with the school’s police liaison officer,” according to a letter issued by the superintendent, Dr. Demond Means. The investigation determined that the acts were consensual and the boys were booked and released [1]. Later, however, the parties representing the girl insisted that Dantzler and Anderson had forced themselves on her, and are now seeking a monetary settlement with the district, though for what is unclear [2]. This raises the concern that the school district may be at fault, but if so, no clear example of a wrongdoing is immediately evident.  Uncovering the true story is crucial to examining the fates of Dantzler and Anderson.

According to the police reports, interviews with the students were conducted in the school by the police liaison officer as well as the assistant principals; two males and one female were present for the interview, potentially overexerting a masculine influence in the interviews. The police report lists three versions of the girl’s story. Initially, she only told the principals and the liaison officer about the oral sex with the 15 year-old boy, adding the contact with Dantzler and Anderson during a re-interview with her father present. Later, she claimed that the acts with Dantzler and Anderson were not consensual [3]. There are a number of potential reasons for the potential victim to recant multiple times: she could have changed her story herself, or her father or the district could have influenced the change.

What is not immediately evident in the police report may be explained by examining the tapes of the interviews; however, as these records are sealed, each situation must be examined separately.  If her attorney is correct in stating, “Based on the interview I performed and based on the information I’ve read, she was raped,” [4] then some force may have been preventing her from conveying an honest account of the events, and that force may have been the district administration. While the investigation initially deemed the sexual acts consensual, it is possible that she was pressured into making this claim.  The fact that the victim’s father declined a re-interview until the police offered a female police officer to conduct the interview [5], suggesting that the male presence in the first interviews could have influenced her story. If this is all true, the district would have been tampering with the evidence in the case [6] as well as committing official misconduct [7]. While corrupting an investigation is less reprehensible under the law than statutory rape, it nevertheless reflects poorly on the district administration and recalls the history of poorly handled scandals in which the district has been involved, including allowing previous student offenders to continue attending school after being accused.

Alternatively, the victim’s father could have altered her initial story.  According to the police report, the girl’s father “became very upset and started to yell ‘Forget about this whole thing, this never happened’ and threw his arms up in the air” when he learned of the consequences related to the incident [8]. After taking the time to talk with her father after these events, she may have accused Dantzler and Anderson of rape at his behest to exact some form of revenge on the boys. On the other hand, her father may not be able to believe that his daughter could have consented to sexual activities and claimed rape, removing the fault from his daughter altogether. Regardless of his motive, the father would be guilty of tampering with evidence if he coerced the alleged victim into changing her story. It is worth noting that if the girl simply changed her story, many of these issues would disappear. As previously stated, her father was extremely frustrated after discovering his daughter’s actions and their subsequent consequences. Convincing her father she was raped would relieve her of blame. However, without the tapes of the interviews, it is impossible to know which story is true.

The shifting account of events remains relevant in this case because it will affect their criminal conviction.  According to the police reports, all four actors were charged with second degree sexual assault of a minor, and all but Anderson admitted to the crime. If Dantzler and Anderson forced themselves on the victim, then this would qualify as first degree sexual assault of a minor.  The language in statute chapter 948 states that “Whoever has sexual contact with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years by use or threat of force or violence is guilty of a Class B felony if the actor is at least 18 years of age when the sexual contact occurs” [9], If they did not this statute, it would qualify as second degree sexual assault of a minor, a crime which the offender has “sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16” [10]. All three boys have committed second degree sexual assault of a minor and face the ramifications presented for a Class C felony, which amounts to up to 40 years in prison, a $100,000 fine, or both [11]. In addition, the girl in this case has the potential to be convicted of second degree sexual assault, as she has maintained that the contact between her and the younger boy was consensual. The statute does not explicitly state that the offender must be over the age of eighteen, and even consensual acts between two underage teens could be interpreted as sexual assault, but convictions in situations like this vary depending on the circumstance [12]. Though the contact with the younger boy was separate from the contact with Dantzler and Anderson, whether or not the alleged victim was raped could play a part in how she will be treated in trial. As a victim, her charges would bear no fruit, but if all the sex acts were consensual, she could be painted as a poor decision-maker worthy of jail time for her actions.

Additionally, the alleged victim and her family are seeking a civil case against the district. In this case, the district could be guilty of failing to fulfill its ministerial duty. In Manning vs. Necedah Area School District (2007), another sexual abuse case, the Wisconsin Appellate Court ruled that the district was immune from prosecution during a child abuse scandal under Wisconsin Statute Chapter 893 due to the fact that the plaintiffs do not allege negligence of a certain ministerial duty in the case against the district. However, this case does cite “a well-established exception to the rule of immunity [which] holds that an officer is liable for damages resulting from the officer’s performance of a ministerial duty,” [13] which in this case, meant that the failure to perform a ministerial duty to report abuse would have removed the right to immunity. In the Homestead case, the district apparently fulfilled its ministerial duty, reporting the abuse and conducting an investigation into the events. However the district may have some fault in this case separate from reporting the incident. Though much at this point is inconclusive, if the girl’s testimony was unduly influenced by external forces, then the district may not have fulfilled its duties. What remains unaddressed is how exactly the district failed in its duties if it conducted an honest investigation. Much like the case against Necadah Area School District, unless the prosecution can provide evidence of misconduct and address it directly, the district has no fault in the action. So far the prosecution has not even stated for what it is seeking damages. A monetary settlement would seem justified if the district were at fault, but otherwise, the district can sit safely behind the legal wall of Statute 893, having done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

There are at least two ongoing tragedies in Modern American culture that are accepted: murder and poverty. Moreover, they go hand-in-hand. A murder in a rich suburb will always make itself known while the countless violent crimes that happen daily in the rotting inner-city neighborhoods around the country usually only make back pages. The disparity in class here cannot be overlooked–class in terms of both social status and income. The only violent crimes which make national news are those involving beautiful little girls or something exceedingly heinous.

What’s worse, this carries over to our attitude on issues outside our nation, such as the ongoing drug war in Mexico. Every important media outlet runs frequent stories on the Mexican drug war, and many have run cover stories. And yet there is no public discourse about the events. The issue, then, is that Americans do not care enough about it for it to become a pressing matter. The reason for this is the very same reason we ignore the crime in our ghettos.

To see this, it’s important to first note what we do discuss with regard to Mexico: immigration. The political discourse is focused on jobs plans, medical inefficiencies, and tax rates, all with implicit references to the illegal immigrant as the cause of these problems. He is the one, as the often mocked story goes, who is stealing our jobs. He is taking all tax revenue for his medical care. Modern American politics often contains the illegal immigrant as the great Other who is threatening our way of life. Such a discourse does not easily allow or encourage a humane discussion about the situation in Mexico.

With the only real imprint of Mexico on American life being the illegal immigrant, Mexico is seldom viewed as more than a land of poverty and crime. What else would force so many to risk their lives to come to a nation trying to remove the little social structure that exists for the poor? Just think of the typical picture of Mexico in the American psyche: It is a nation that exists in the picture of Tijuana, of a dirty, cheap, and hilariously shameful place to party or buy drugs. This caricature does not entirely represent the stance Americans’ stance on Mexico, but it is reflects how our southern neighbor is adopted into the American zeitgeist. It also must be mentioned, of course, that the drug cartels who are pillaging the country made their fortunes supplying our drug habits.

So what separates Mexico from America? The obvious answer seems to be class. If Mexico exists, as the cartoon picture of it goes, to supply Americans with cheap fun and drugs, it is because Mexico is lower class. Mexico is thought of solely as our “dollar store,” as our supply of shameful and cheap things that America is too good to supply. Think of the typical ways you hear Mexico mentioned. I, for one, have not heard it discussed often, as it should be, as a land of culture and history, of pride and strength. No one mentions the glorious history of Mexican nationals, rebels, and those who gained independence. It seems, then, that the American picture of Mexico is one of a lesser place, of a place without worth. It is lower class and of lower value.

But it would be premature to say Americans ignore Mexico simply because of class. It helps to see the numbers here. Since December 2006, 34,600 people have been murdered in Mexico in cartel-related violence. But every year in the United States about 14,000 are violently killed. Twice the number of people killed in cartel violence have faced a parallel fate within the (ostensibly) most first world of first world countries. Per-capita that still leaves far more murders in Mexico than here. However, Mexico is in the hands of an extreme situation, an all out war on the streets while we are living with the highest standard of living in the world. For that reason, few discuss our murder problem as a blight or epidemic. It’s something we’ve come to accept of our rotting ghettos and collapsing inner-cities.

The problem, then, is an apathetic lack of understanding. By painting Mexico and our own poverty stricken areas in such a poor light, we have made a psychic separation along class lines that allows us to overlook their horrors. In a strange way, Mexicans have been adopted into American culture through our disregard of them–this apathy is simply how we respond to poverty and violent crime. It is, in fact, something that lies at the core of American culture: poverty and murder existing together without any real remorse. The Mexican drug war is the perfect example of what is wrong with our culture, and if we won’t react to the tragedy unfolding everyday with a discussion of how to give aid, we should at the very least discuss the reflection it has on our very uncivil values.

The fact that there are thousands of demonstrators currently on the streets of New York and other major cities around the country is good news. But while the existence of Occupy Wall Street is exciting, its content is not. As of yet, it does not contain any actual potential for a true political moment. That is, it does not have any revolutionary content, no threat to the current power structure, or any serious momentum for social change.

I don’t mean to say that the protestors don’t have goals and demands. However, many of these demands are the kind of resistance which is expected in any system of government. Many of those people who defy social norms and resist, in whatever political structure, serve to mark out the limits of what that structure deems acceptable. The outsiders can be punished, made an example of, ignored, or mocked, but in each case they are nothing but a social tool used to perpetuate the status quo. Every shopping mall has a store that sells studded belts and gauge earrings because teenage rebellion is something both expected and without real content something that demonstrates who has reached maturity. Occupy Wall Street currently holds that place in political discourse.

Our current political system is one in which wealth garners power. It is one in which lobbyists determine policy. It is one in which, as the Occupiers tell you, 1% of the people have all of the power. These are no secrets. Corporate influence in elections, especially following the Citizens United ruling, has taken an unprecedented place in typical political maneuvering. These are, in fact, what Occupy Wall Street is responding to. However, the way the movement exists now is only a way of saying “they have power and we don’t like it.” So far, the protests have not approached the justice of our politics. They make claims about justice, but the way in which Occupy Wall Street has unfolded makes it more teenage rebellion than something meaningful. Too much of the focus during Occupy Wall Street has been in being pithy and clever. As a result, the movement seems adolescent, and allows the powers that be to ignore or mock the protestors.

However, this doesn’t mean Occupy Wall Street can’t have any meaning or develop any revolutionary potential. It takes a great deal of bravado to be trite, and even teenage rebellions can often lead to greater things. Occupy should be viewed in the same light–it should be celebrated as a necessary first step before something meaningful can be done. After all, the status quo must be pointed out before it can be changed. What this means is that while Occupy’s demands don’t need to change, its methods must. It is these methods which have undermined the content.

Specifically, it needs more frankness and resolve. First, that means the protestors need to act in a way that befits a serious movement. They need to stop making signs with catchy slogans and ranting rhetoric. They need to stop with kitschy tactics from the 60s.

They need to take off the Guy Fawkes masks and realize a true political movement is something greater than what they have now. For Occupy Wall Street to have content it must refocus on true political discourse. It is this focus on show that makes Occupy easy to discard.

Second, by suing the NYPD over the recent mass arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge Occupy has shown a lack of resolve by turning to the current political system to judge an abuse of power rather than confronting it themselves. If the goal is to alter the political system, one cannot turn to that system for judgment. This is showing implicit deference to the very thing the protestors are protesting.

These failures of frankness and resolve, and indeed all of Occupy’s failures, are demonstrated best in the reaction to police macing protesters. They show that a generally accepted (if not justified) crowd dispersal tactic is being treated as a grave attack on civil liberties. Though the macings are wrong, whenever one of these incidents occurs the protestors just hide behind camera phones and retreat to blogs to post the videos under titles like “POLICE BRUTALITY ON WALL STREET!” These tactics leave it to the police to decide when to change their ways.

This public shaming tactic only works with grave abuses to humanity, which is why they succeeded in the Arab Spring. But even in Egypt, however, the Army’s power was never threatened and the ruling generals are acting in ways that, to many, seem to border on the undemocratic. In any revolutionary movement, the protestors must be willing to fight crime with more than youtube videos. I am not asking for open violence against law enforcement. I am, however, saying that if a police officer is using unjustified violence against a protester, others should fight back, even if that requires a physical confrontation. As of now, the protestors are refusing to do so.

Yet the confrontation of power is what makes the true content of any political movement. America needs its May ’68–a movement that was frank and resolute beyond all doubt. Occupy Wall Street contains within it the first step. But so far it has merely indicated some of the social problems which exist in the status quo. For any revolutionary potential, the movement must be willing to not only confront the powers which have protected that status quo, but to institute the frankness and resolve necessary into the way in which the movement operates. We must make politics earnest.

Visiting the Center for American Progress last year, John Edwards told this story: “I met a woman in Kansas City with two kids who had a job that pays $9.50 an hour. She told me about winters where the choice was between lights and gas. She chooses the lights. She says to me, ‘When my kids go to bed, I tell them to wear as many clothes as they can. And when they go to school, I tell them not to tell anyone you don’t have gas because somebody might come and take you away. In America, nobody who works hard should live like that.’ She is absolutely right. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. What that woman endures is evil.”

Let’s take a look at some basic facts about poverty in the US: Last year, the pre-tax-income cutoff for a couple with two children to be considered living in poverty was $19,806. According to data from the US Census Bureau, this means that there were 37 million Americans living in poverty in 2004—nearly one out of every eight people in the United States. In more human terms, 3.6 percent of American households faced food insecurity and hunger in 2004. Between 1999 and 2000, the number of Americans suffering from hunger increased to 2.8 million adults and over one million children.

Perhaps contrary to popular media stereotype, poverty is not just confined to inner-city ghettos: Only 40 percent of poor Americans live in central cities. The percentage of Americans in poverty living in suburbs is only slightly lower at 36 percent, but as a relatively new phenomenon it is growing quickly. Nearly 40 percent of America’s poor over the age of 16 worked either part- or full-time in 2001, yet could not earn enough money to live on.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that, ostensibly, ending poverty is relatively easy. The secret? Minor adjustments to the formula that determines who qualifies as living “in poverty.” Crunch a few numbers, raise a few cutoff points, and voila! The number of impoverished Americans has been cut by over a third. Quite the public policy miracle. It’s almost too good to be true. But don’t tell that to folks at the American Enterprise Institute, or the Heritage Foundation.

As I learned from these organizations, despite the seemingly dreary numbers, it turns out that poverty statistics are merely one more way to manipulate the government into giving money to the undeserving. “The poverty rate misleads the public and our representatives, and it thereby degrades the quality of our social policies,” writes Nicholas Eberstadt, of the American Enterprise Institute, “It should be discarded for the broken tool that it is.” The Heritage Foundation reminds us: “most of America’s ‘poor’ live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.” Another report reveals a starker analysis: “There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and fathers are absent from the home.”

On March 15, 2005, US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced the arrest of 103 key members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, otherwise know as MS-13. The crackdown targeted the top MS-13 networks nationwide: Los Angeles, the Washington DC area, New York City, Long Island, Newark, Baltimore and Miami. These arrests indicate a future of ensuing mass deportations of MS-13 members from the country as part of “Operation Community Shield,” a new, multi-agency initiative launched this January.

Salvadoran gangs, of which the notorious MS-13 is the largest, have established a significant presence in the US over the past two decades. The gangs originated in Los Angeles during the early 1980’s amongst Salvadoran youth fleeing civil war. They have since developed a pan-Latino membership and expanded into East Coast cities and American suburbia over the past decade, with a national membership that numbers tens of thousands in over 30 states.

Over the past decade, the phenomenon has taken on transnational dimensions. Salvadoran American gang affiliates deported from the US are arriving on the violent streets of urban El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, and most recently in rural Central America, the Mexican borderlands, Canada and other Latin American countries. Gang membership in Central America has grown rapidly – current estimates suggest up to 30,000 members in El Salvador with 20,000 more in Honduras and Guatemala. While the problem of Salvadoran youth gangs has been long-standing, the recent rapid proliferation and the intense US federal response to the phenomenon this year are without precedence.

Early this year, the FBI listed dismantling MS-13 as a top priority of its organized crime unit and began coordinating “Operation Community Shield.” The Pentagon’s South Command has declared transnational gangs like MS-13 a top threat to Central American stability. This past March furthermore, the Homeland Security Department began coordinating intelligence and training with Central American law enforcement to directly combat the gangs, with plans to exchange federal agents across borders.

Context: US Intervention in El Salvador

The current Salvadoran-American gang phenomenon is, in part, traceable to the long and tainted history of US intervention in Central America. During the Cold War, Central America served as a nexus for the projection of American fears over the rise of the “Left,” especially after the Sandinistas rose to power in Nicaragua in 1979 and President Reagan, a zealous anti-communist, came into office in 1981. Prior to and during the 1980’s, the United States openly and covertly bankrolled and trained repressive anti-communist military regimes and insurgency movements in the region. While tales of the Iran Contra scandal in Nicaragua have become urban lore, much less is remembered about US intervention in El Salvador.

El Salvador, roughly the size of Massachusetts with a population of 6.5 million, was the largest hemispheric recipient of US military aide during the Cold War – including over four billion dollars during the 1980’s. With a legacy of stark socio-economic inequality, repressive right-wing rule and democratic struggle, El Salvador reached a breaking point in the late 1970’s. Government repression came to a violent apex in systemic efforts to eradicate leftists and alleged sympathizers. Official military efforts and paramilitary “death squad” operations claimed some 30,000 victims by the mid-1980’s. The violence fostered the coalescence of leftist groups and the military mobilization of the Marxist Farabundo Marti Liberation Front (FMLN) guerilla insurgency, which led the country into a full-scale civil war.

During the official war, which lasted twelve years and claimed an estimated 100,000 lives, military human rights abuses were widespread, including torture, forced “disappearance,” and child soldiering. The FMLN also engaged in abuses, though to a significantly lesser degree. In light of the violations (including murders of US citizens), the Carter administration wavered on aid to the military junta but ultimately restored funding. When Reagan came to power, funding of the Salvadoran military dramatically increased, often against congressional opposition, and the US continued to extensively fund the Salvadoran military until the 1992 ceasefire.

The early 1980’s saw a massive influx of Salvadoran refugees and illegal immigrants entering the US to escape death squads, the military, the FMLN, economic desolation, and other trappings of guerilla war. However, the United States refused to acknowledge the extent and often, existence, of a humanitarian crisis. Salvadorans were categorically denied amnesty in favor of refugees from communist countries. While these policies were successfully challenged in the early 1990’s, the status of Salvadorans in the US has remained precarious.

The wartime cultures of violence and impunity in El Salvador have not fully subsided and new waves of undocumented immigrants continue to arrive in the US. Since the end of the war, the country has maintained one of the highest murder rates in the world, a problem only compounded by a recent surge in American-style gang activity. Of the roughly two million Salvadorans in the US today – nearly 20% of the total global Salvadoran population – many remain undocumented. The threat of deportation has bred a perceived inability to contact law enforcement authorities in US immigrant communities, creating an optimal atmosphere for criminal gang culture to proliferate.