The Land of Sunshine: Blue Skies and Telling Lies?
In this class we’ve talked a lot about boosterism in LA, and how LA was this shiny new toy that was to be sold to the rest of the country. We have also talked about the danger of a single story. For a long time, the only story of Los Angeles was the one told of blooming orange groves and eternal blue skies, of housing that was easy to acquire, of abundant jobs, and financial prosperity.
In 1886, Charles Willard arrived in Los Angeles with tuberculosis and a dream to begin a new life. He got a job with the LA Chamber of Commerce where he started "The Land of Sunshine," a magazine filled with citizens’ testimonials to LA’s healing powers. W.C. Patterson, the president of "The Land of Sunshine" publishing wrote about why he chose to come to LA: “Because in all my long experience and observation I have as yet failed to discover any other spot which combines so many of the elements which go to make men happy, healthy, useful, and wise; no place where hospitality is more genuine; where friendships are more abiding; where men are nobler or women lovelier” (The Land of Sunshine).
Today, I still see commercials air that paint the same picture of Los Angeles as the boosters of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century did. A popular California tourism commercial provided by visitcalifornia.com.au opens with Kim Kardashian reading a book about quantum physics by the pool, and it continues to show a variety of famous actors/actresses, surfers, people doing yoga on the beach, etc. It’s job is to sell you on visiting California (primarily Southern California) and all the wonderful things we have to offer here. This story of California being a land of sunshine and opportunity and success has been told for a very long time, and is still being told today.
I’m wondering, is this, or has it ever been a true story? While everything boosters said about LA may not have been entirely true, is it really such a bad thing to want to promote a city? Is telling this single story of Los Angeles dangerous? If boosterism in LA never existed, would this city still be the same as it is today? Do you agree with this story of LA (about sunshine and happiness)? What LA story, whether it be booster or debunker, would you tell?
I think your question of “is it really such a bad thing to want to promote a city?” is interesting, especially in the context of the two examples given because they are both “booster” images of L.A. given from people (or organizations) who work for some form of government and thus have a duty to promote the city. This made me think more about some of the booster writing of Los Angeles we’ve read in the past and think about the motives they had, and it seems like often, there actually is a concrete one - like branding L.A. as a haven for white supremacy. However, I think that this has gradually changed over time and in the current day, many people who portray it in such a good light do it because they really do love the city, at least when they’re not those like California’s tourism website.
ReplyDeleteI think that the question of if this has ever been a true story goes along with the question of the dangers of telling a single narrative, because it may be a true story for many, but is almost certainly not such for all. The people that portray it in a good light are typically the ones that do believe so but also the ones who have more time in the spotlight, so the other stories are often pushed aside and not talked about. If I were telling the story of L.A. from my own perspective/experiences, I guess it would technically be booster out of the two - but booster inherently means its magnifying everything to more than it actually is, and I would never want to do that.
I definitely think California capitalizes off of its glamorous health-and-celebrity-centered image, and markets itself as a paradise where everyone is pursuing (and achieving) their dreams. I’ve noticed this when talking to people from other parts of the country while on trips or at camp– people usually have a preconceived notion of Los Angeles as a beach town filled with famous people, when the reality is completely different. I think Los Angeles uses its climate (weather and scenery) and the movie industry to create the idea that, in California, you can go to, see, or become anything; it’s all sunshine, all the time, and the opportunities for hardworking people are endless. I think this image drives the constant stream of people moving to LA to pursue entertainment careers, creating a huge labor pool and an oversaturated industry where success is anything but guaranteed. In answer to the original question, I don’t think it’s such a bad thing, at all, to promote a city; every major cities (and plenty of non-major ones) use tourism campaigns and advertising to attract visitors, but most don’t create the same vision of economic prosperity and easy living as California does. The ad with Kim Kardashian is actually a great example of the way entertainment and environment combine to create Los Angeles’ public image; the commercial is studded with, in equal measure, celebrity cameos (this could be you!, they imply) and gorgeous outdoor scenery. The challenges of California living aren’t mentioned; the rarity and randomness of success and fame in entertainment, high living costs, class stratification, residential segregation, and ecological risks go undiscussed. Overall, I definitely feel like only the most superficial elements of the booster image are true– the weather’s generally lovely, that’s true, and California generally has more relaxed, less rushed cultural norms than east coast cities, but otherwise the messages of economic and social equality and prosperity seem forced and untrue.
ReplyDeleteThe booster era of LA lasted around forty years. During this time, city leaders persuaded settlers to inhabit the land of sunshine. They stressed the beautiful weather, overflow of jobs, and abundance of land. LA’s chamber of commerce played a pivotal role in advertising LA. They spread countless pamphlets (similar to our zines) to represent LA’s best features. The advertisements presented LA as exotic and cultural. People began to agree that LA was a paradise as they bathed in the tropical weather. I do not think promoting a city is a bad thing, and LA may not have been as much of a renown city without these marketing techniques. Another example that was used to portray LA as healthy and exotic was the abundance of oranges. However, initially, the booster image was directed to middle-class/upper-class white families because they wanted “educated” and “English-speaking” inhabitants. Ironically, influential African-Americans promoted LA as a place to restart with freedom and diversity.
ReplyDeleteI obviously recognize the danger in telling a single story (shoutout Chimamanda), but I think the single story that gets told about LA (sunshine, hollywood, healthy living etc) is actually a lot more complex than it appears. The whole Hollywood/fame/movie industry story about LA definitely acts as a booster narrative about LA today, but back in the day Hollywood was this new, crazy, creative thing that no one had ever done before. And as Ms. Goldin mentioned the other day, the people who gravitated towards this brand new industry were those who were excluded from almost everything else. We've talked about Hollywood in class in terms of how it contributes to the single story about LA, but in reality there are so many stories that make up the story of Hollywood. I'd be interested in spending more class time exploring that!!
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking a lot about your question "if boosterism in LA never existed, would this city still be the same as it is today?" and how it relates to the story of Hollywood in LA (and subsequently my family story as well). Hollywood in LA had the goal of being this new, creative, booming industry - and it worked. And I don't think that it was a bad thing that it worked. Hollywood helped put LA on the map.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that due to hard work and circumstances the story of coming to Los Angeles and being extremely successful was, and still is a reality for some groups. In the past white Americans were able to reap the benefits of minority labor in order to secure a stable footing in Los Angeles. While consuming booster media it is important to note that while there are instances of overwhelming success and beauty in LA there are many people who never had the opportunity to share the same successes due to factors such as race and socioeconomic background. Additionally, you can not become blind to the negative aspects of Los Angeles in favor of accepting the purely positive descriptions. Promoting a city is a positive practice because it draws tourists and prospective homeowners into the city. Where boosterism can become negative is when people completely reject the negative aspects of LA, because progress will never be made if people do not focus on the issues they experience in their everyday life. It is hard to say whether or not the presence of boosterism would have changed the development of Los Angeles because there is some truth in the city's picturesque description. I believe in the story of sunshine and happiness in LA because it was this same story that intrigued my grandfather and other family members to move from Boston to California. In telling my own story of Los Angeles it would be a mix of boosterism and my real thoughts about the pros and cons of LA.
ReplyDeleteI think that while creating a booster image of California can attract more tourists, it can be bad for a city due to the false expectations it gives those who visit it. Giving this booster image of California can make tourists less attracted to the city after they realize that the image painted for them by the booster artists is fake, hurting the city more than it helps it. I personally do not agree with the story of Los Angeles being all sunshine and happiness, as throughout the semester our class has been discussing the several issues that Los Angeles has.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I were to write a story about Los Angeles, I would right a mix of booster and debunker. While there are many things about California that are great, there are also several things that we need to work on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that race/wealth structures are really important to talk about when discussing the validity of the booster image. I think that for massively rich, white people – particularly in the era when the booster image was first starting to be promoted – this ideal did exist. There were people who bought huge mansions with orange groves and spent lots of time exploring the beach or mountains in the eternal sunshine. Many of these people, though, were those who actively profited from the promotion of the perfect LA, such as land or real estate moguls, people who also amassed much of their wealth on the backs of the working class. In some ways, the LA image being the image of the white & wealthy in LA still holds true today: when people picture the city, they think of the celebs (especially the uber-rich like the Kardashians), Rodeo Dr, beaches (many of which are most often frequented by the rich), etc.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to tell the LA story, this booster facet would be part of it in the way that any upper class is part of a given society, but it would also include the stories of those not often afforded the limelight , all of whom are a part of the fabric of Los Angeles and make this city the diverse, creative, and multi-dimensional place that it is.
First off, I don't think there's anything wrong with promoting a city. In fact, I actually believe it's quite beneficial as it generally promotes economic growth and social diversity. However, I do agree that a dominant narrative could depict Los Angeles in a way that might be dangerous as it may attract only one kind of racial or economic group. Like Lux said, while one narrative may be true, that does not mean there cannot be different interpretations of the content which would, in turn, result in an entirely new story.
ReplyDeleteIn response to VisitCalifornia using Kim Kardashian to promote the city, I do think this is a perfect example of combining the entertainment industry with the booster image of Los Angeles. The city would never have become what it is today without promoting this dramaticized and romanticized image as I mentioned in Coco's post. Yes, many facets of California used in the booster depiction support a somewhat false narrative. No, it's not it's all sunshine, and no, you won't see a celebrity every day. However, I do think it's important to acknowledge these statements are based on some truth when compared to the other states in the country.
I do wish some of these promotion methods also addressed some of the downsides to living in California such as the cost of living, the difficulty in actually receiving a significant role in the entertainment industry, etc. And finally, in response to what I would create, I would probably find a way to combine a booster and debunker image as I think both are integral parts in portraying an accurate California.
I think the story of LA being a place of sunshine and happiness has definitely been true; however, only for some. The booster story of LA comes off as a paradise where everything is perfect. There are endless activities to throw yourself in, wonderful weather, and a calm and peaceful place. In the 50's this booster image was heavily told through the white family's perspective. For them LA was a place of sunshine and happiness; they were able to live in nice houses with their kids, their neighbors were their friends, and essentially everything was perfect. During this time this booster, perfect, sunshine, and happiness story was not told to black families and individuals. I think when speaking about current times and how the "LA story" fits in, it still is catered towards a certain group of people. Like we talked about recently in "Always Running" how the only people who enjoyed/had families were people who could afford it, I think the same applies to the LA story today. The story of LA being a paradise surrounded by sun kissed weather and fun activities caters to the individuals that can afford it. LA does not hold the same story for individuals who can not afford to stay in an expensive hotel. If I were to tell my own story about LA, I would simply tell the truth. Like many places, LA has its positives and negatives and I think it is important to tell both because it makes LA what it is to me (that's worded badly...but yeah).
ReplyDeleteIt's a true story for some people. I know that my family has benefited from a lot of what the booster image promotes. I think that part of the problem is that privileged LA residents who are actually able to experience what's shown on tourist brochures can't see the city in any other way, denying that it's anything other than how it's been marketed to them and in turn, denying that it's anything other than how they live it.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting because the ecological narrative of LA has recently shifted after the fires and all. The eternal blue skies that you're talking about were black and grey on the news. I wonder how this changed how outsiders perceived CA and LA?
Also, like Rachel said, I'd like to learn more about the history of the Hollywood film industry. Ms. Goldin mentioned how the black community founded the city's cinema, but I've heard that it was Jewish immigrants. And then you have the white supremacists with Birth of A Nation. How did it really start?
First of all, I think the image of LA as a sunny paradise is so deeply a part of the city's reputation that I think it's impossible to tell what LA would be like without that narrative. We tend to focus on what's not true about the boosters' side of the story, but I think it's important that we also think about the validity of it. When the classic booster image of LA was forming, the air really was cleaner and there really was an abundance of space, fertile soil, and water. Our weather, which is one of our greatest selling points, did and usually does live up to expectations. The near perpetual sun really does lift people's moods, and seasonal depression isn't an issue here as it is in so many other places around the world– I think there's a valid argument for the claim that being in LA really is more naturally conducive to happiness than living in New York or other snowy places. Additionally, as we read in City of Inmates last week, much of the early black population did in fact consider LA a paradise as much of the wealthy white population did. Though this perception was obviously for different reasons than the typical (white) booster would've given, it shows that LA did at one point earn such authentically high praise from its citizens.
ReplyDeleteFor me, with all of the problems that I recognize about California and Los Angeles in particular, I don’t think there’s anywhere in the US that I would rather call home. Most cities have similar problems to the ones we're facing, and I genuinely think that California is a unique and special place and that we have the potential to approach said issues in a better (in my opinion) way than lots of those other places. In an advertisement, no one talks about the cons because they're clearly not the selling points, but I think it's naive and highly illogical for people to assume that touristy ads are really giving the whole picture. It’s obviously important to have a balanced perspective, and of course only considering the booster image dangerously whitewashes a huge part of LA’s identity, but I feel like there are plenty of debunker-type narratives about LA that can help provide that balance if one puts even the most minimal effort into looking for it.
LUKE: From its nascency in the mid-nineteenth century, Los Angeles was built on the allure of being the land of prosperity. The first census taken in the city in 1841 reported a population of one hundred and forty-one people. A year later gold was discovered, triggering L.A.’s first population boom. This initial wave of settlers has since been followed by throngs of expectant people seeking their fortune in the land of milk and honey. Throughout the decades, various committees and organizations have sought to seduce Americans westward with grand illusions of paradise-like surroundings. Our own Pasadena Rose Parade, initially founded to celebrate the flowers that bloomed in the winter months, was supported by those in the real estate business as a way to attract people to the area. While the fantasy of what Los Angeles has to offer has always exceeded its reality, I do not disagree with the idea of promoting the city’s many different assets. Commercials, with the exception of those put out by the drug companies, rarely include the less flattering aspects of a product. While a more balanced description of including our smog problem, the distinction of being the homeless capital of the nation, and a city replete with gangs and drugs would be more forthcoming, it is hardly the image that city hall wants to project. Even though the propaganda that prompted people to move here was a powerful instrument for growing the population, I cannot help but think that that the movie industry did the most to grow the fantasy that Los Angeles has become. From its earliest days at the beginning of the twentieth century, the eyes of this country have been fixated on the glitz and glamour that Hollywood exudes. Our country’s love affair with movies and those who star in them have set Los Angeles apart as the land of swimming pools and movie stars, despite the very small number that lives this sort of existence. This perception of Los Angeles has likely done more to influence people’s perception of Los Angeles than any other factor. When I have traveled, whether it be around the country or around the world, the mere mention of Los Angeles is always met with questions about movie stars that I may have seen as though we all rub shoulders regularly. Los Angeles tells its own story.
ReplyDeleteI think the booster image of California especially Los Angeles was and is used more for tourists and people that can afford the lifestyle shown in these advertisements. The booster image turned into the trademark image for Los Angeles that shows the stereotypical surfer/hipster/hiker having the time of their lives. I don't necessarily think that promoting a city is bad I just think that the lack of variety and overall lack of truth about some aspects of LA misleads people. Also this booster image catered to white people, such "perfections" weren't intended for minorities which created a divide in LA. Like Simone said the booster image was created for the people that could afford it and doesn't hold the same story for people that can't afford the booster lifestyle
ReplyDeleteI guess if I had to write a story about Los Angeles I would have more of a neutral or debunker attitude. I wouldn't want to have a dominant narrative.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with boosterism; however, I don’t think it’s okay to hide the negative and real aspects of Los Angeles. Going off of that, I do think that LA is a place of opportunity. While it is undoubtedly hard for minorities to succeed in LA (due to language and socioeconomic barriers), I think one can argue it does still provide better opportunities than their homelands. Since I am not an immigrant and do not know all the reasons for why people immigrate to LA, I cannot speak on it; however, after listening to my family’s stories of immigration, they both seem to have succeeded very well.
ReplyDelete