Framing studies: stereotypes about Mongolia’s in the American Press (1868–1968)

Abstract

In the practice of international journalism, the imagination used by journalists and publishers is helpful for understanding the country, but it also has the drawback of creating a ‘fog’ on the contrary. Mongolia was a mysterious country like an enigma to foreigners. To open it, foreigners wrote with various ideas. Did their stereotypes succeed? Based on such questionable assumptions, the circle analysis is presented. Stereotypes regarding Mongolia were examined in pieces published in the American Press between 1868 and 1968. To begin, stereotypes were extracted from the texts using content analysis. Second, on the topics of stereotypes, the study has discovered five frames of stereotypes. In the end the study examined the many meanings of stereotypes in frames. Some of these meanings could be the ‘fog’ that is distorting Mongolian understanding. However, other definitions may be more extensive, leading to a better comprehension of Mongolia. To recap all of these misconceptions, publications in the American press revealed admissible information about Mongolia at that time. This validates the five-frame analysis proposed in this study of Mongolian stereotypes in the American press.

Keywords:

• Frame analysis
• stereotypes
• imagination
• Mongolia
• American Press
• stereotypes about Mongolia’s

Reviewing Editor:

• Lincoln Geraghty, School of Media and Performing Arts, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom

Subjects:

• Media Communication; Media & Film Studies; Media & Communications; Communication Studies; International Media; Interpersonal Media & Communication; Mass Media & Communication

1. Introduction

In this article, our focus is on the contents of the recently published book ‘Mongolia in American Press 1898-1968’ by Dr. Saruul-Erdene Myagmar. The book ‘Mongolia in the American Press 1898-1968’ compiled a list of articles published in the American press and archived in the State Department, Library of Congress of the USA. The book dissects how the American public gets common stereotypes of Mongolians through the contents of the publications from 1868 until 1968 annually. The purpose of our study is to examine and analyze how common Americans imagined Mongolians through this texts contained in them and how they wrote about Mongolians at that particular time. The 26th American President, Theodore Roosevelt, in the forword of the book The Mongols: a history of Chingis Khan’s Mongols”, written by Jeremiah Curtin, wrote: “The great bulk of them were Shamanists; that is, their creed and ethical culture were about on a par with those of the Comanches and Apaches in the nineteenth century. This is a description created by his imagination. (Jeremiah, 1908). He had never seen the Mongols but made up his mind based on his knowledge, comparing the Mongols to some tribe of Indians that were familiar to every American. This is an amusing imagination of the Mongols. It’s difficult to say how Roosevelt’s imagination influenced American readers, but it’s easy to speculate. Research status of the theme and novelty: On this subject, researchers conducted two studies previously. First, Hans Henrik Holm [1] conducted a study on materials about the Mongolians published in the Western press within the last two years. Throughout his work, he described typical stereotypes about Mongolians based on foreign views. Second, A. Oyungerel, a lecturer at Missouri State University, USA, sampled materials published in the American press around 1989–2000 and conducted research on how Mongolia was mapped in these texts. Our survey fills the space of the previous period in history based on materials.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Searching object

In this book, eight interesting articles with special stereotypes about Mongolia were published in the book ‘Mongolia in American Press’ period 1868–1968:

1. Thomas W. Knox, ‘A Journey Through Mongolia’

2. Luther Anderson, ‘The Desert Principality of Mongolia: Intrigue and Diplomacy at Urga’

3. Olive Gilbreath, ‘Beyond the Great Wall of China: A Trail into the Gobi Desert’

4. Theodore Roosevelt, ‘Foreword’

5. Harrison E. Salisbury, ‘Mongolia Revisited’

6. Gombojav Khangin ‘Greetings to the members of the Mongolian Society’

7. Harry Frank ‘Trick to the North China’

8. Anna Louise Strong, ‘Old and New Gods in Mongolia’

Based on these articles that contained prejudices about Mongolia, 97 cases were selected that were distinguished by the sampling procedure and were ready to be examined using English and Mongolian texts.

2.2. Theory of stereotypes

According to the theory of mass communication, columnists use certain stereotypes when writing about a foreign country. Therefore, the theory of public relations developed the ‘Theory of Stereotypes’, which studies the contents of the information. Walter Lippmann determined and introduced his conception of stereotypes: ‘The world outside and the pictures in our heads’ (Lippmann, 1922). The term public relations stereotypes refers to a certain description, understanding, and imagination of a nation, certain people, and the universe in their memories. Fellow Tajfel Forgas said, ‘When it connects a group of people by their customs, it keeps absolute values’. According to Stangor and Sceller, the imagination is divided into two categories, such as an individual and a collective (Oyungerel, 2009).

As mentioned in Stangor and Sceller, an individual stereotype develops and interacts with others, while a collective stereotype is established through an indirect source of information, such as the religious preacher, teachers, friends, and parents. This is a shifty concept. However, imaginings can’t be rational or tangible often.

It’s getting the feel of changing old stereotypes through Genghis Khan. Due to democracy, Mongolians have the possibility of contacting other countries. In the foreign press, new stereotypes such as ‘little country between Russia and China’ and ‘Mongolia is a democratic country’ appeared. There is a model known as emerging stereotypes. The main model is that the new expression is optimally used by individuals and accepted by the public as a fixed expression, or general imagination. Foremost, stereotypes are accepted and reach the public. The press plays an influential role. Therefore, the ‘Press is a distributor to understand other nations’, everyone couldn’t ignore this reality. Currently looking for it for this purpose.

‘There are no stereotypes without words’, Fishman’s idea clarifies the positive side of stereotypes. Communication’s ‘window’ is human birth, rise, nurture in the world’s environment, knowing, and contact with others by using words (Oyungerel, 2009). The press is a field that words influence.

Stereotyping is a true process. But stereotypes aren’t really clear. It comes up with negative stereotypes.

2.3. Method

The methodology of this study is based on the theoretical concepts that emphasize the priming model’s theory in mass communication and underlined the contents of the internal and external content assumptions. Also, content analyses are used to collect the assumptions from the texts, and analyze the content’s meaning which is based on the main method of the content analysis survey and integrated the results.

This study uses frame analysis to examine perceptions about Mongolians in the American press from 1868 to 1968. Framing has been used in many fields of the social sciences and humanities, including sociology (e.g., Goffman, 1974) and communication science (e.g., Tuchman, 1978). The appreciation of what constitutes a frame has been changed to fit the needs of each discipline and the work of specific researchers.

Specifically, frames complicated excessive information to the level of understanding of the journalist and audience at the time of a publication or broadcast, thereby constituting essential tools in reporting (Dietram & Scheufele, 2007).

Frame analysis looks at images, stereotypes, metaphors, actors, messages, and more. It examines how important these factors are and how and why they are chosen (Matthes, 2009).

Tankard (2001) presents a ‘framework list’ comprising 11 mechanisms. This, too, cannot be ignored. As a result, the priming research methodology is thought to be appropriate for imagination research. Our research is based on the use of priming in a comparable study on media imagination (Ospina Estupinan, 2017). In this paper, framing theory is applied as an approach to understand the media image of China in a group of Latin American newspapers.

In general, the ‘list of frames’ technique suggests the following steps: (i) Make the range of possible frames plain; (ii) Include several possible frames in a list of manifestations; and (iii) Create keywords, catchphrases, and symbols to identify them (Samsudin, 2020).

A variety of outcomes may result from such a framing study. However, when developing the research framework, we used seven odes to do content analysis on the text. They are as follows: 1. Title, 2. Author/source 3. The definition of imagination 4. Expressed words, phrases, idioms, paragraphs, and sentences 5. Whether positive or bad, 6. Imagination, whether new or old, 7. Imagination as a theme.

Specified coders examined eight chosen passages. Each coder went through each text and coded the relevant meaning and information.

In order to address two key research questions (RQs), the study conducted a content analysis.

RQ1: How is Mongolia represented in the writings of American journalists?

RQ2: How have their perceptions altered over time?

Depending on the magnitude of the influence, frames are assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Five types of frames were identified in the research of stereotypes, which became theme categories.

Based on our findings we have seen the following stereotypes about Mongolians in the American Press. These include:

1. Stereotypes of Mongolia

2. Stereotypes of Mongols

3. Stereotypes of Mongolian society

4. Stereotypes of Mongolian history, culture, and beliefs

5. Stereotypes of Mongolian livelihood

As independent study variables, all five domains were investigated. In particular, research interests are regarded as independent, if they have an impact on the audience’s sentiments regarding the problem being covered (de Vreese, 2004).

Additionally, this research identified and examined negative and positive preconceptions. It also examined how an author’s imagination, whether personal or collective, shaped reality and how it was influenced to originate in public or collective imagination.

3. Results and discussion

The study’s findings are presented in a table. As a result, the findings will be reviewed and discussed within each of the five frameworks (The important findings are shown in Table 1.)

Table 1. Frame statistics of Mongolian stereotypes published in the American press between 1868 and 1968.

Title of text	Year of publication	Frame of Stereotypes
		Frame 1: Stereotypes of Mongolia						Frame 2: Stereotypes of Mongols								Frame 3: Stereotypes of Mongolian society				Frame 4: Stereotypes of Mongolian history, culture, and beliefs			5.Stereotypes of Mongolian livelihood			Results for each text
								1.Positive stereotypes:				2.Negative stereotypes:
		1.Mongolia of Genghis	2.Country of Great Gobi	3.Mongolia of steppe	4.Hidden place	5.Country that sandwiched between China and Siberia	6.Independent Mongolia	1.In terms of personality	2.In terms of external appearances	3.In terms of relations	4.In terms of ethnic	1.In terms of behavior	2.External appearance	3.In terms of affairs	4.In terms of ethos	1.Mongolian social scene during the Manchu Empire	2. Autonomous Mongolian society	3.Soviet COMINTERN to Mongolia	4.Independent Mongolia in Modern Time-Communist Mongolia	1.Nation with a heroic history as mentioned	2.Nation with faiths of Buddhism and Shamanism	3.Nation with an own unique culture	1.Lifestyles connecting to Native Americans	2.Interesting lifestyle	3.Exotic stereotypes for foreigners
Thomas W. Knox “A Journey Through Mongolia”	1868																					2		1		3
Luther Anderson “The Desert Principality of Mongolia: Intrigue and Diplomacy at Urga”	1918		2		1	2	1	1							1	4	4				3	1		1		21
Olive Gilbreath “Beyond the Great Wall of China: A Trail into the Gobi Desert”	1918	1		5	3		1	2	2	1	1	2		1		1					3	1	2	2	1	29
Theodore Roosevelt “Foreword”	1907	1						1							1					1	1		1			6
Harrison E. Salisbury “Mongolia Revisited”	1962	2	4				1												3					2		12
Gombojav Khangin “Greetings to the members of Mongolia Society”	1967				1		1				1	3							1							7
Harry Frank “Trick to the North China”	1923	1	1	2		1	1	1	2	3	2		2		1			7		4		1	1	1	2	33
Anna Louise Strong “Old and New Gods in Mongolia”	1952										1				1		1				1			1	1	6
Results for stereotypes		5	7	7	5	3	5	5	4	4	5	5	2	1	4	5	5	7	4	5	8	5	4	8	4	117
Results for frame		32						30								21				18			16

3.1. Frame 1: Stereotypes of Mongolia

The following stereotypes were identified after studies on how people write about Mongolia: It narrowed and added new stereotypes such as ‘Mongolia of Genghis’, ‘Country of Great Gobi’, ‘Mongolia of the Steppe’, ‘The Hidden Place’, ‘Country Sandwiched Between China and Siberia’, ‘Independent Mongolia’, ‘Outer Mongolia’, etc. Table 1 employed the most imagination of the 32 stereotypes recorded in the following three texts:

• Olive Gilbreath “Beyond the Great Wall of China: A Trail into the Gobi Desert” – 10 stereotypes,

• Harrison E. Salisbury “Mongolia Revisited” – 7 stereotypes,

• Harry Frank “Trick to the North China” – 6 stereotypes.

МÓ©н ‘Country of Great Gobi’/7/, ‘Mongolia of the steppe’/7/the most common rational assumption.

3.1.1. In terms of stereotype Mongolia of Genghis

Many times, in all texts mentioned the name of Genghis Khan and his empire. This stereotype has become a typical image of all human memories universally. Let’s get examples of some of the sentences and sayings:

• …The rise of the Genghis Khan and the spread of the Mongol power… (Jeremiah, 1908)

• … the great Khan of Tartary (Knox, 2004).

• … Karakorum, the ancient capital of Genghis Khan (Salisbury, 1962).

• … The high plateaus and sleep mountain valleys seemed to be asleep under their winter blanket of snow just as in the days of Genghis Khan (Salisbury, 1962).

3.1.2. In terms of Country of Great Gobi

Certainly, this stereotype was raised because most of the travelers and passengers departed through the Gobi.

• … North of the Great wall, toward the frontier of Siberia, lay the Desert of Gobi (Knox, 2004).

• … The desert is not altogether a desert; (Knox, 2004).

• … The Desert Principality of Mongolia (Anderson, 1918).

• … The country… it is- which is bad enough (Knox, 2004).

Assume the Gobi; it is difficult to pass through the Gobi. The imagery of the Great Gobi as it relates to Mongolians’ geographical position and natural lifestyle is not difficult to resist, which makes it more appealing. This is a new and widespread stereotype. Here, the ‘Principality of the Desert-Mongol Residence’ is highlighted as a unique and wonderful stereotype. This cliché holds a captive audience and imposes an epic imagination.

3.1.3. In terms of Mongolia of steppe

This is a common stereotype of all foreign guests and travelers for a nowadays. It is written in many ways such as:

… We were now well up in fresh, untrammeled land. There were no fields… True nomad’s land (Gilbreath, 1918).

… Looking through the country and spying out its extent, nakedness, resources, and general characteristics (Knox, 2004).

… The flat or undulating country is, of course, monotonous in Mongolia. (Knox, 2004).

… Poor Mongols of steppe (Frank, 1923)

… Beyond a vision of sky and plain, magnificent open country… (Gilbreath, 1918).

… In countryside Mongolia (Frank, 1923)

Using this stereotype, Mongolia was a fortunate enough to enrich the imagination of the “pristine nature”, “even smooth but dull”, “pristine steppe”, “bare ground”, “spacious as far as a heaven”, “rural”.

3.1.4. In terms of hidden place

It was one of the best imaginations about of Mongolia. Here are some of the following statements such as:

– … Mongolia was a hidden place for Westerners (Salisbury, 1962)

– … There are few regions of the world so little known as Mongolia (Anderson, 1918).

– … one can gaze far over this unknown land rushing swiftly away to the North, not days but months by caravan- the great plain of Mongolia (Gilbreath, 1918)

– … vast, silent, beyond (Gilbreath, 1918).

– … Blissfully ignorant of the distant lands (Knox, 2004),

Through the phrases of an interesting stereotype ‘Secretive place’, and ‘hidden universe’ is repeated, and in some articles, it unfolds a locution such as ‘breathless boundary’.

3.1.5. In terms of country that sandwiched between China and Siberia

One of the models of approximate imagination stereotype outlined Mongolia’s positioning to more clearly.

• … Mongolia lies between China Proper and Siberia. (Anderson, 1918).

• … It has an area nearly one-half as large as the United States and three-fourths the size of China Proper. (Anderson, 1918).

3.1.6. In terms of Independent Mongolia

The following features have been created by the stereotypes that have been identified based on realities such as Outer Mongolia, Sovereignty from China, a member country of the UN. This stereotype unfolds in the following sentences:

• … You may ride into Mongolia as a freelance on horseback… (Gilbreath, 1918).

• … This vast region, nominally a dependency of China, became, in recent years, a pawn in a great game of international intrigue. (Anderson, 1918).

• … Nation that calls Outer Mongolia (Frank, 1923)

• … Mongolia had taken a bar seat at the United Nations (Salisbury, 1962).

3.2. Frame 2: Stereotype of Mongolian society

It is interesting to see that there are different stereotypes raised by social changes. Especially over a hundred years from 1868 until 1968, people who visited and wrote articles about Mongolia created stereotypes based on their point of view. Luther Anderson lamented that ‘Genghis Khan’s Mongolia is dwindled,’ conceived by his old imagination like ‘Genghis Khan’s Mongolia’. He noted this in the foreword of his article, ‘Principality of Steppe: Diplomatic Policy and Conspiracy in a Residence of Mongolia’. Meanwhile, Harry A. Frank made a sharp stereotype such as ‘Red Army’s Mongolia’ in his article ‘Rambling in South China’ right after the People’s Revolution. He got a new imagination of a new Mongolian because he traveled in 1922, which was a crucial time when the COMINTERN dominated Mongolia. As for autonomous Mongolia, Luther Anderson created a new, salient stereotype such as ‘the main point of international conflicts and wrangles’. He deepened the concept of why Mongolia had become a field of interest for aggressors such as China, Russia, and Japan. From here, readers can get the most accurate imaginations about the crucial time in Mongolia. From the journal Society for Mongolia, especially in the article by Harrison Sallsbury, we can see the relevance of stereotypes such as ‘Independent Mongolia in Modern Time’ or ‘Communist Nation’. As a result of those social developments, stereotypes have changed rapidly, and several imaginations have emerged in a row.

The research found 21 imaginations within the frame of Mongolian society stereotypes. It includes:

1. Mongolian social scene during the Manchu Empire: 5 stereotypes,

2. Autonomous Mongolian society: 5 stereotypes,

3. Soviet Connection to Mongolia: 5 stereotypes,

4. Independent Mongolia in Modern Time—Communist Mongolia—5 Stereotypes

Luther Anderson described the Mongolian social scene during the Manchu Empire as ‘least developed’, ‘departed to the ancient time’, and ‘forgotten universe’ and created a general type such as ‘Genghis Khan’s Mongolia dwindled’. His article, shows the transition from the old imagery of Genghis Khan’s Mongolia into an oppressed nation:

“… In the thirteenth century the great Genghis khan and his successors united the Mongols and changed them from wandering nomads into a great military nation” (Luther, 1918) either when in Manchu’s occupation: “… In a couple of generations, the Mongols as a whole became Buddhists in the East and Moslems in the West;…” (Luther, 1918), “…They sank back into that stupor of inactivity from which Genghis khan had awakened them” (Luther, 1918) also “… They have made no progress since the days of the Khans.” (Luther, 1918), “… They live in tents exactly like those described by the earliest travelers who visited them in the Middle Ages.” (Luther, 1918), “… Nothing breaks the silent aftermath of the innumerable host-the sunny, silent aftermath of the vanquished.” (Olive, 1918).

The following descriptions showcase the most interesting stereotype for Autonomous Mongolian society.

• … Nation that combined faith and state (Strong, 1959)

• … Region where China has even less influence and power than in Manchuria. (Anderson, 1918).

• … Mongolia is another Korea (Anderson, 1918).

• … has become an open highway inviting aggression on the part of her more powerful neighbors (Anderson, 1918).

• … This vast region, nominally a dependency of China, became in recent years a pawn in a great game of international intrigue. (Anderson, 1918).

The following examples show how Mongolian society’s stereotypes changed right after the People’s Revolution in Red Mongolia. In particular, in Harry A. Frank’s ‘Rambling in South China’, this could be connected with a red color symbol of Soviet communism in Mongolia.

• Red Mongolia (Frank, 1923)

• Nomads by leading ‘Red’ (Frank, 1923)

Independent Mongolia in Modern Time-Communist Mongolia.

3.3. Frame 3: Stereotypes of Mongols

This study considered examples of positive and negative stereotypes following their impression based on their thoughts about Mongolian behavior, appearance, physique, communication ethnography.

Stereotypes of Mongols (30) with the following codes (Table 1):

1. Positive (8) stereotypes: in terms of personality (5), in terms of external appearances (4), in terms of relations (4), in terms of ethnic (4),

2. Negative (12) stereotypes: in terms of behavior (5), external appearance (2), in terms of affair (1), in terms of ethos (4).

3.3.1. Positive stereotypes

1. In terms of personality: Generally generous, persistent, arbitrary liberty, tenacity, rocky, courageous, altruistic, naïve, lambent. Example: ‘…The Mongols are strong, hardy, and generally good-natured race, possessing the spirit of perseverance quite as much as the Chinese’. (Knox, 2004) wrote either ‘… Give a Mongol a sheep and a horse and he will feed, clothe, house himself and roam the plain. Add a cow and he can get drunk. Life has nothing more to offer’. (Gilbreath, 1918) ensuring a persistence and creates new imagination of an altruistic. The concepts of ‘… People naivety like this Gobi child…’ (Frank, 1923) creates an effective new outlook.

By ‘…Warlike ardor of its people’ (Anderson, 1918), ‘…Although fallen on degenerate days, he has not had bred out of him the strain of ancestors who conquered the world as far south as India and west to Budapest’ (Gilbreath, 1918) recalls stereotype of combative.

2. In terms of external appearances: Let’s adduce interesting two stereotypes of external appearance. Noted: ‘… To the Europeans who cowered in horror before them, the squat, slit-eyed, brawny horsemen, “with faces like the snouts of dogs,” seemed as hideous and fearsome as demons, and as irresistible by ordinary mortals’. (Jeremiah, 1908) description or ‘The Mongol is darker in color than his Chinese neighbor, high-cheeked, squat, weather-beaten, almost protective in coloring’. (Gilbreath, 1918). Gilbert Mclauren wrote in ‘A Pathway to Gobi beyond the Chinese great wall’ changes previous almighty abstract to positive new, real imagination. Also, they wrote a parallel to Chinese although described far morepositively. Like a ‘Compared with Chinese they were most masculine’. (Frank, 1923).

“…The Mongols engaged in the caravan service pass a large part of their lives on the road, and merry as larks over their employment.” (Thomas, 2004) quite positively described than it seems an author excited. An obvious appearance conceived in personal stereotype.

3. In terms of relations: hospitable, ignorance of the external universe, and honored curiosity sometimes it disturbs to exceed to reach everything likewise a monkey. For example, a common stereotype a hospitalityis ‘…They have the free manners of all nomadic people, and are noted for an unvarying hospitality to visitors’. (Knox, 2004).

4. In terms of ethnic: The combined stereotype of Mongols written as the seed of Genghis Khan, nomads similar to the Indians and people of Andes. That unfolded an example such as a common stereotype ‘…Is there no life now in that stillness which once beat so fiercely upon the civilization below that a barrier must be hurled against it over the mountain tops? What of these latter-day sons of Genghis Khan?’ (Gilbreath, 1918), ‘Nomads of this steppe’ (Frank, 1923) and neatly written based on an American opinion and comparing close ethnic tribes to their knowledge.

3.3.2. Negative stereotypes

1. In terms of behavior: No one argues that stereotypes such as a brutal, aggressive, and terrible ogre remain from the XIII century. It fortified common stereotypes that Mongolians are brutal and aggressive, such as a ‘…The ruthless cruelty of the Mongols was practiced on a scale greater than ever before or since’. (Jeremiah, 1908), ‘…The Mongols were savages as cruel as they were brave and hardy’. (Jeremiah, 1908) Also it occurs ferocious behaviors comparing to dogs. ‘…The Mongols shares his dogs’ un pacific blood’ (Gilbreath, 1918). ‘… Though engaged the peaceful pursuits of sheep-tending and transporting freight Russia and China, they possess a warlike spirit and are capable of being roused into violent action’. (Knox, 2004) This is evidence of stereotypes being fortified.

2. External appearance: Aggressive, looks like a terrible ogre. Examples:

“…seemed as hideous and fearsome as demons, and as irresistible by ordinary mortals.” (Jeremiah, 1908)

3. In terms of affairs: brutality Is there no life now in that stillness which once beat so fiercely upon the civilization below that a barrier must be hurled against it over the mountain tops? What of these latter-day sons of Genghis Khan? (Gilbreath, 1918)

4. In terms of ethos: Weak, degraded Mongols, itinerant nomads. Such as ‘…In the thirteenth century the great Genghis Khan and his successors united the Mongols and changed them from wandering nomads into a great military nation’ (Anderson, 1918) expressed backward civilization and scattered people.

3.4. Frame 4: Stereotype of Mongolian livelihood

Some examples of stereotypes for Mongolian livelihood, for example as mentioned below:

• … Give a Mongol a sheep and a horse, and he will feed, clothe, house himself and roam the plain. Add a cow and he can get drunk. Life has nothing more to offer. (Gilbreath, 1918)

This stereotype is terse and super-imaginative about Mongolian livelihood. Here we chose three common conception examples. Because they are based on personal knowledge, conceptions, and beliefs, they involve stereotyping models. This basis tried to write about Mongolian livelihoods and lifestyles connecting to Native Americans and exemplified an interesting lifestyle.

It is coded as follows (Table 1): lifestyles connecting to Native Americans (4), interesting lifestyles (8), and exotic stereotypes for foreigners (4).

For example:

• … These patriarchal herds we came upon now and then, grazing on the plain as in the days of Abraham and Isaac. (Gilbreath, 1918)

• … They seem quite analogous to the teamsters and miscellaneous ‘plainsmen’, who used to play an important part on our overland route… (Knox, 2004),

It is interesting to see that there are many examples of exotic to foreigners, but seems like to us as simple common stereotypes. Such as:

• … The Mongols are generally nomadic… (Knox, 2004)

3.5. Frame 5: Stereotype of Mongolian history, culture and beliefs

From the perspective of history, there was a stereotype: ‘Nation with a heroic history’ (5), while from the perspective of beliefs, there was a stereotype: ‘Nation with faiths of Buddhism and Shamanism’ (8). The perspective of culture there formed a stereotype: ‘Nation with its own unique culture.’ (5).

1. For example, to main imaginaries of a Nation with a heroic history as mentioned above: ‘… Genghis Khan made his conquest’ (Knox, 2004), ‘… Mongol hordes’ (Knox, 2004),

2. … The ruthless cruelty of the Mongols was practiced on a scale greater than ever before or since. (Jeremiah, 1908)

3. … Is there no life now in that stillness which once beat so fiercely upon the civilization below that a barrier must be hurled against it over the mountain tops? What of these latter-day sons of Genghis Khan? (Gilbreath, 1918).

4. In the spirit of devotion, imagination and patterns of ‘Nation with faiths of Buddhism and Shamanism’ examples are:

5. … Their only bond of unity is the Buddhist religion (Anderson, 1918)

6. … The religion of the Mongols came originally from Tibet (Knox, 2004)

7. … As a Buddhist, he refuses to till the soil lest he take life-kill a beetle, for instance. Sheep he may kill (Gilbreath, 1918)

8. … Great numbers of devotees from all parts of Mongolia visit Urga every year, the journey there having something of the sacred character which a Mahommedan attaches to a pilgrimage to Mecca (Knox, 2004)

9. … The great bulk of them were Shamanists; that is, their creed and ethical culture were about on a par with those of the Comanches and Apaches of nineteenth century (Jeremiah, 1908)

10. … The secret of Mongolia’s weakness lies in the fact that has been dampened by Buddhism, a religion more pacific in its doctrines than any other in the world (Anderson, 1918)

11. In terms of culture, the concept of a ‘nation with its own unique culture’ is explained in some a few examples as below:

12. … the great city of the Khans (Knox, 2004),

13. … Mongolia is not agricultural… (Knox, 2004),

14. … They live in tents exactly like those described by the earliest travelers who visited them in the Middle Ages (Anderson, 1918)

15. … The black Mongol tents are made of layers of felt stretched on a collapsible wicket of wood… (Gilbreath, 1918)

As a result, the findings of our study depict the perception of Mongolia in the works of American authors. How have their perspectives evolved over time? The research endeavor yielded the following general, yet innovative and efficient, responses to the two primary questions:

The writers updated a number of old assumptions about Mongolia in their publications. These fantasies have both positive and bad connotations, and they highlight many aspects of Mongolian personality, appearance, relationships, and ethnicity. Domestic life and the Mongolian land have been used to depict the monotonous lives of Mongolians. However, pictures connected with history, culture, and religion help to define the nation’s identity.

The most intriguing aspect of Mongolian society is its imagination, which truly represents the society’s transformation. The contemporary social environment reflected in the eight texts was rich in new and ancient principles that show what kind of society Mongolia has been through over the last 100 years. These thoughts suggest that few articles were written that may provide American readers with an idea and understanding of a little country whose physical location was remote and nearly forgotten at the time.

As a result, it is necessary to analyze the implications and importance of such forecasts. As a result, there is a need to investigate Mongolian media perceptions in the United States today. The next step is to investigate how these imaginations influenced American readers and how they are applied now.

4. Conclusion

Thus, from the book articles context of ‘Mongolia in the American Press1868-1968’ the stereotypes concepts of Mongolia explored and concluded the following conclusions:

1. 117 stereotypes of 24 codes of five frames were reported in 8 texts chosen and investigated using framing and content analysis approaches.

2. The authors used many of the old imaginations about Mongolia in their articles as a result of their perceptions and with some new ideas, and they were able to create concepts and illustrations that made new ones and expanded the knowledge of American readers about Mongolia.

3. A common stereotype such as ‘Mongolia of Genghis’, ‘Nation of Great Gobi’, ‘Mongolia of Steppe’ and ‘Mysterious Land’ has been changed and has expanded concepts to ‘Outer Mongolia’, ‘Independent Mongolia’ and ‘Nation sandwiched between China and Siberia’.

4. As for Mongolian society, a new concept of knowledge has been enriched with a new vision, and it has become a realistic representation of social change in Mongolia over the past 100 years. An imaginary survey has been determined as a result of Manchu’s oppression, as ‘Genghis Mongolia became feckless Mongolia’, autonomous Mongolia became a major crash spot, with drawbacks at the international level’ right after the People’s Revolution became ‘Red Mongolia’, or ‘modern independent Mongolia soon accomplished to become Communist Mongolia.

5. Concerning the characters of Mongolia, there are provided favorable stereotypes, and more proof must have been written at least with old imaginations such as cruel and brutal. Either they changed abstract stereotypes about Mongolians’ appearances, like Genghis’s generation of brutal has gradually changed, and the readers’ understanding has been enhanced by the reality of ordinary people. This is the positive side of the appearance of the Mongolian people. The negative side is an abusive image. As friendly as the communication, the cruelty in the past has been used as a negative concept. Despite the stereotype of Genghis Khan’s descendants as ethnic nomads, they also added a new image of similarity to the Andeans and Indians. On the contrary, the image of a voracious and degraded nation has been shown to have a realistic picture of society.

6. Mongolians are not to persist in their nomadic lifestyle from their side of life and are too negligent to accept a new society.

7. In terms of Mongolian history, culture, and beliefs, the knowledge has been expanded to include ‘people with heroic history’, ‘faiths with Buddhism and Shamanism’ and ‘people with a unique culture’.

To summarize all these stereotypes, articles in the American press have finally been assessed to get admissive information about Mongolia for the time and opportunity. In greetings for ‘the Mongolian Fellowship’ journal, Gombojav Khangin wrote, ‘Ten years ago, Mongolia was a secretive place for Westerners’. Truly, Mongolia was a mystery, and people accessed stereotypes based on their imaginaries.

By studying historical issues, this study provides a new beginning in broadening the scope of international journalism and public relations studies.

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the Mongolian Cultural Center (MCC) and Professor of the Library of Congress, M. Saruul-Erdene, for their support of our research. We also highly appreciate the contributions, valuable comments, and feedback provided by the journal editors and anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Amartuvshin Sukhee

Amartuvshin Suhkee, Professor, Department of Journalism, School of Social Sciences and Humanities of the Mongolian National University of Education. Journalism and literary studies specialist researcher. Author of five manuscripts. Author of two journalism textbooks and co-author of another. The national series includes two works on literary analysis theory. Conducts research in the areas of journalism theory and practice, as well as the development of new media.

Tserenjav Tsevegjav

Tserenjav Tsevegjav, Lecturer, Department of Journalism, School of Social Sciences and Humanities of the Mongolian National University of Education, PhD student in the Mass Communication Department of the SN School of the University of Hyderabad, India. Specialist researcher in broadcast journalism. Conducts research in the areas of broadcasting theory and practice.