I have a solution to all this speculation about Obama's religion. It's simple, nearly immune from political attack and would be a nice respite from the stupid, useless, waste-of-my-oxygen debate about whether or not Obama is a Christian.
First, a short recap. Obama has taken his time choosing a church. While this might seem like an entirely symbolic gesture, it seems to have injected doubt about his religion into Lexicon of Conservative Bulls%$t (publishing pending). With the addition of the TEA party and the anti-tax rallies, the idea that Obama may be a Muslim (and not born here) was formed and carried, along with Obama-as-a-Socialist and Obama-as-Fascist...and...Obama-as-Hitler (I really don't understand the connection - I think you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim-Socialist-Fascist-Nazi).
Now, the Muslim cultural center (Park51, Cordoba House, etc) has sparked an interest in Obama's religion, once again. Apparently, almost 20% of those polled in a recent survey believe that Obama is a Muslim. And, that same anti-Muslim sentiment has surfaced, like it did in the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Somehow, a good amount of people (mostly feeling that pain of "white guilt") feel that once an Islamic presence is legitimized in their neighborhood, the local law will be replaced with Sharia. Oh no! Not law motivated by religious doctrine! That would NEVER happen in the United States.....(ahem).
My favorite crying patriot Glenn Beck has even jumped on the bandwagon. Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally at the nation's capital was not only "non-political" (you know, you're sooooo NOT political if you have Sarah Palin as a speaker) but a way to get the country "back to God" (God in uppercase letters because it is specifically referring to the "Glenn Beck God Model" possibly version 2.0). Beck somehow believes that his very Christian god is a more legitimate version of Obama's Christian god. Somehow, in the midst of crying, blackboard ranting and spouting revisionist history, Beck forgot that his god is no different than the god of Islam, Judaism and every sect of Christianity (god knows how many there are...no pun intended). Furthermore, (while not trying to offend any hardcore philosophy majors), the idea of god is a never-ending debate, and ones personal god (think 12-step program, etc) might embody something much different than a religious god.
Here is my idea for Obama (drum roll):
Join a Synagogue!
Become part of the Chosen Tribe. The Jewish community is a tight-knit group that transcends religion. It is not only a religion, but a culture and tradition that provides support for all its members. And, technically, you will be praying to the original god, the real OG.
Here's a good reference list:
http://www.sixthandi.org/
http://www.ostns.org/
http://www.templemicah.org/
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Dr. Laura: Race and the Lack of Pragmatic Foresight
An recent occurrence has renewed my interest in the issues of Race and Racism. In a previous post (a while back) I had made a point that Political Correctness in regards to race and the idea of "diversity" had very noticeable limits. My argument (adapted from Walter Benn Michaels "The Trouble With Diversity") was that ideas of race, racism and sensitivity to race are secondary reactions to the problem of poverty, class and social status. Racism, while clearly existent in this era, is represented by facets of social inequality in urban social space: redlining, block busting, environmental injustice, inner city slums, gentrification, oppressive immigration policies, etc. These problems must be addressed first in order to be able to tackle less prevalent issues, like blatant racism.
So, here is a quagmire caused by out-of-step individual making a point of race and making a complete a$$ out of herself:
Dr. Laura Schlessinger:
Dr. Laura, a conservative radio show host (just behind the unbelievably "large" personality of Rush Limbaugh in ratings), had a caller (black) who was angry over her husband's (white) friends remarks about her race. They were making jokes about stereotypes, and asking her questions about her race. Instead of telling the caller that she should confront her friends and have a meaningful discussion about why she thought those comments were hurtful to her and somewhat "racist," Dr. Laura went into a tirade about how white people cannot say certain epithets about black people that black people can say about other black people. She even repeated that epithet many times during the interview. She even brought Barack Obama into it, talking about how he was voted in because he was "half-black."
Her Lack of Pragmatic Foresight: First, she is completely negating the whole purpose of the caller's questions. Dr. Laura needed to help this woman with her problem, but instead she used it as a platform to denounce Barack Obama (not like that's been done before...). Second, as was stated so eloquently in an article by Mary Curtis, Dr. Laura is stepping into the ring of race by being blatantly racist. She is using stereotypes about black voters (they automatically vote for black candidates) and she is assuming that black voters use "logic and reasoning" when picking their candidate. She uses that as a platform to jump to making a point about having a "half-black" person in the White House as a reason to suddenly stop decrying racist remarks.
But, where her ridiculous lack of pragmatic foresight comes in is when she starts repeating the aforementioned epithet over, and over, and over and over again. Let's pull the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance over ourselves for this moment and assume ceteris paribus. The word has a historic meaning that is unbelievably offensive, and she suddenly thinks she will not get an opposing reaction to her repetition of it, as if it were household rhetoric. You have a public forum and you are spouting out a very racially charged word? What did you think would happen? Either she is ridiculously stupid, or she has been living under a rock for the last 400 years (I suspect the former).
Her outrage over her inability to use this racist epithet did not advance our ability overcome social or racial inequality. It did not advance the idea that we should decry any divisive language and work together to solve social issues. All it did was show that a sad, old, crazy white woman is mad because there's a Democrat in the White House, and he happens to be, yes...you got it..."half-black."
So, here is a quagmire caused by out-of-step individual making a point of race and making a complete a$$ out of herself:
Dr. Laura Schlessinger:
Dr. Laura, a conservative radio show host (just behind the unbelievably "large" personality of Rush Limbaugh in ratings), had a caller (black) who was angry over her husband's (white) friends remarks about her race. They were making jokes about stereotypes, and asking her questions about her race. Instead of telling the caller that she should confront her friends and have a meaningful discussion about why she thought those comments were hurtful to her and somewhat "racist," Dr. Laura went into a tirade about how white people cannot say certain epithets about black people that black people can say about other black people. She even repeated that epithet many times during the interview. She even brought Barack Obama into it, talking about how he was voted in because he was "half-black."
Her Lack of Pragmatic Foresight: First, she is completely negating the whole purpose of the caller's questions. Dr. Laura needed to help this woman with her problem, but instead she used it as a platform to denounce Barack Obama (not like that's been done before...). Second, as was stated so eloquently in an article by Mary Curtis, Dr. Laura is stepping into the ring of race by being blatantly racist. She is using stereotypes about black voters (they automatically vote for black candidates) and she is assuming that black voters use "logic and reasoning" when picking their candidate. She uses that as a platform to jump to making a point about having a "half-black" person in the White House as a reason to suddenly stop decrying racist remarks.
But, where her ridiculous lack of pragmatic foresight comes in is when she starts repeating the aforementioned epithet over, and over, and over and over again. Let's pull the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance over ourselves for this moment and assume ceteris paribus. The word has a historic meaning that is unbelievably offensive, and she suddenly thinks she will not get an opposing reaction to her repetition of it, as if it were household rhetoric. You have a public forum and you are spouting out a very racially charged word? What did you think would happen? Either she is ridiculously stupid, or she has been living under a rock for the last 400 years (I suspect the former).
Her outrage over her inability to use this racist epithet did not advance our ability overcome social or racial inequality. It did not advance the idea that we should decry any divisive language and work together to solve social issues. All it did was show that a sad, old, crazy white woman is mad because there's a Democrat in the White House, and he happens to be, yes...you got it..."half-black."
Monday, August 16, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque Naysayers are Ignoring American Values
I don't usually start my blogs off with a quote, but I found this one (from a Michael Cohen article titled "Why I Miss George W. Bush") appropriate for this post:
Our nation must be mindful that there are thousands of Arab-Americans who live in New York City...And we must be mindful that as we seek to win the war, that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the respect they deserve ... the attitude of this government is we should not hold one who is a Muslim responsible for an act of terror
- President George W. Bush (A few weeks after Sept 11th)
Yes, you read that name right... President George W. Bush. This is the same Bush that presided over the bifurcation of the pre and post-9/11 world. I challenge all my readers to find an era before the Bush presidency, pre-9/11, where Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism became a everyday topic for a long period of time (in our case, 9 years and counting). Putting aside the Aircraft Carrier sized "Mission Accomplished" bumper stickers and the sheer stupidity of calling something a "War on Terror," let's look at the substance behind the Dubya remark, putting in its historic context:
In the first few months after 9/11, Islam became a vulnerable minority religion in the United States. I remember stories of people attacking mosques and hearing about death threats against Muslims, or those who looked like Muslims. The United States had just entered a war in Afghanistan against a the Taliban who used Sharia Law to justify public executions and tyrannical rule. Most Americans did not understand the difference between the Religious Extremists who were responsible for the 9/11 hijackings and an everyday religious Muslim. It is in this environment of suspicion and paranoia that Bush made this remark. Bush's message was not only that we honor the Constitutional right of freedom of religion by respecting Islam, but that we should not succumb to swaying from our founding values, thereby confirming the affects of the 9/11 terrorists (and their backers) actions.
Bush's message rings true today, in the right over building a mosque at Ground Zero. President Obama used straightforward language to explain his support for the mosque (from a Hugh Collins article):
As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.
What is most effective about Obama's statement is that he did not politicize it. He told it as it was: This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. Just like Bush, Obama has emphasized that we not change our values in the light of the actions of a few extremists.
But, it seems as if some people don't see the contradictory or unsound nature of their opposition. Here are some remarks made against the Ground Zero Mosque, and my answers:
1. There should be no Mosque because there are no Churches or Temples in Saudi Arabia.
This isn't Saudi Arabia...don't even talk about religious tolerance and mention Saudi Arabia in the same sentence.
2. Obama has abandoned America by supporting the Mosque.
OK. Not relevant. Hyperbolic appeals to patriotic emotion and personal insults don't count as viable arguments. Next.
3. Putting a Mosque there would insult the 3,000 who died during 9/11 and all the troops that have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To honor those who died and those who are fighting, we should make sure our American values, including the value of freedom of religion are kept intact. Ever heard of something called a united "home front?"
4. Putting a Mosque near Ground Zero is like putting a Nazi museum near Auschwitz. Nazism and Islam are both religions.
Oh god, no. I thought I had read enough about Nazi references. Islam is a religion, Nazism is a political, economic and social movement in Germany during WWII that was tyrannical and SECULAR. Extremist outliers in Islam were responsible for 9/11, and the majority of Islamic scholars have rejected violence. Nazism, and Auschwitz are representatives of a vast movement dedicated to the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Gays, etc. with a highly interconnected system that perpetuated genocide. They were not the exception, they were the rule.
5. The mosque will desecrate the ground of those who were murdered by people who practice Islam, or at least an element of Islam. Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political doctrine. (Former Sen. Rick Santorum)
This is blatant disregard for the fact that mainstream Islam has denounced the use of violence. You do not collectively punish an entire religion for the acts of a few extremists.
And, that last part...(expletive) you. You're a Roman Catholic-Republican-former Senator, and you are saying that a dangerous aspect of Islam is because it is a political doctrine as well as a religion!!! Really?!?!?! This is coming from the same guy whose positions on privacy, abortion, gay rights and evolution are derived from his Christian morals! The same guy who helped pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act! Hypocrite doesn't even come close. I guess you were asleep when Christian conservatism also became a "political doctrine." Christian doctrine has pervaded U.S. politics since Independence. It wasn't meant to (ala "separation of church and state"...whatever that means anymore), but it's still there.
Emotion, personal attacks, hyperbolic rhetoric and ridiculous comparisons don't make viable arguments. These naysayers are forgetting the simple value of religious freedom, which must be kept intact.
Our nation must be mindful that there are thousands of Arab-Americans who live in New York City...And we must be mindful that as we seek to win the war, that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the respect they deserve ... the attitude of this government is we should not hold one who is a Muslim responsible for an act of terror
- President George W. Bush (A few weeks after Sept 11th)
Yes, you read that name right... President George W. Bush. This is the same Bush that presided over the bifurcation of the pre and post-9/11 world. I challenge all my readers to find an era before the Bush presidency, pre-9/11, where Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism became a everyday topic for a long period of time (in our case, 9 years and counting). Putting aside the Aircraft Carrier sized "Mission Accomplished" bumper stickers and the sheer stupidity of calling something a "War on Terror," let's look at the substance behind the Dubya remark, putting in its historic context:
In the first few months after 9/11, Islam became a vulnerable minority religion in the United States. I remember stories of people attacking mosques and hearing about death threats against Muslims, or those who looked like Muslims. The United States had just entered a war in Afghanistan against a the Taliban who used Sharia Law to justify public executions and tyrannical rule. Most Americans did not understand the difference between the Religious Extremists who were responsible for the 9/11 hijackings and an everyday religious Muslim. It is in this environment of suspicion and paranoia that Bush made this remark. Bush's message was not only that we honor the Constitutional right of freedom of religion by respecting Islam, but that we should not succumb to swaying from our founding values, thereby confirming the affects of the 9/11 terrorists (and their backers) actions.
Bush's message rings true today, in the right over building a mosque at Ground Zero. President Obama used straightforward language to explain his support for the mosque (from a Hugh Collins article):
As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.
What is most effective about Obama's statement is that he did not politicize it. He told it as it was: This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. Just like Bush, Obama has emphasized that we not change our values in the light of the actions of a few extremists.
But, it seems as if some people don't see the contradictory or unsound nature of their opposition. Here are some remarks made against the Ground Zero Mosque, and my answers:
1. There should be no Mosque because there are no Churches or Temples in Saudi Arabia.
This isn't Saudi Arabia...don't even talk about religious tolerance and mention Saudi Arabia in the same sentence.
2. Obama has abandoned America by supporting the Mosque.
OK. Not relevant. Hyperbolic appeals to patriotic emotion and personal insults don't count as viable arguments. Next.
3. Putting a Mosque there would insult the 3,000 who died during 9/11 and all the troops that have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To honor those who died and those who are fighting, we should make sure our American values, including the value of freedom of religion are kept intact. Ever heard of something called a united "home front?"
4. Putting a Mosque near Ground Zero is like putting a Nazi museum near Auschwitz. Nazism and Islam are both religions.
Oh god, no. I thought I had read enough about Nazi references. Islam is a religion, Nazism is a political, economic and social movement in Germany during WWII that was tyrannical and SECULAR. Extremist outliers in Islam were responsible for 9/11, and the majority of Islamic scholars have rejected violence. Nazism, and Auschwitz are representatives of a vast movement dedicated to the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Gays, etc. with a highly interconnected system that perpetuated genocide. They were not the exception, they were the rule.
5. The mosque will desecrate the ground of those who were murdered by people who practice Islam, or at least an element of Islam. Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political doctrine. (Former Sen. Rick Santorum)
This is blatant disregard for the fact that mainstream Islam has denounced the use of violence. You do not collectively punish an entire religion for the acts of a few extremists.
And, that last part...(expletive) you. You're a Roman Catholic-Republican-former Senator, and you are saying that a dangerous aspect of Islam is because it is a political doctrine as well as a religion!!! Really?!?!?! This is coming from the same guy whose positions on privacy, abortion, gay rights and evolution are derived from his Christian morals! The same guy who helped pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act! Hypocrite doesn't even come close. I guess you were asleep when Christian conservatism also became a "political doctrine." Christian doctrine has pervaded U.S. politics since Independence. It wasn't meant to (ala "separation of church and state"...whatever that means anymore), but it's still there.
Emotion, personal attacks, hyperbolic rhetoric and ridiculous comparisons don't make viable arguments. These naysayers are forgetting the simple value of religious freedom, which must be kept intact.
Friday, August 6, 2010
65 Years in the Nuclear Age: US and Japanese Perspectives and A Giant Lizard
65 years ago, a plane called the Enola Gay and a device called "Little Boy" put the United States, and the rest of the world into the Nuclear Age. The Atomic bomb "Little Boy," a simply constructed "gun bomb," exploded with the force of 12,000 tons of dynamite over the city of Hiroshima, instantly killing 120,000 people. Three days later, "fat man," was dropped over the city of Nagasaki, killing another 80,000 people. In a matter of days, 200,000 people had been wiped off the earth, some of whom were completely vaporized, leaving only a silhouette, burned into the pavement where they stood.
The only use of nuclear weapons during war had lasting effects on the country, and directed foreign policy for the subsequent Cold War. I want to emphasize the confusion and disbelief that the Japanese felt after their surrender and the effects of being occupied by a foreign force after witnessing mythical destruction caused by something they did not entirely understand. First, I want to look at the reaction immediately after the bomb in the U.S. (NOTE: These are all excepts from a paper I wrote about the bomb.)
The U.S. Perspective
Americans, along with social liberals, garnered a general anxiety about the condition of the post-war world. Liberals had their suspicions of the legitimacy of the scientific approach to the new weapon. They became highly critical of government policy regarding the testing of nuclear weapons in the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and the displacement of the native culture. They saw the tests as a “portent of future nuclear horrors – a grim replication of Hiroshima in the name of scientific inquiry.” Readers and editors of the The New Yorker castigated science for unleashing the powerful destruction of the atom. This acted as detraction from the mainstream media’s belief in the positive results of atomic science. Scientists were caricatured as goofy, disconnected geniuses who found enjoyment in formulas and research with a total lack of knowledge of the implications of their fun. The magazine’s emphasis on the inevitability and intractability of a nuclear state and the need for a moral cleansing came to a head with the publishing of John Hersey’s Hiroshima.
Published in The New Yorker one year after the dropping of the first atomic bombs, John Hersey’s Hiroshima vividly visualized and personalized the legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima chronicles the stories of six survivors, whose everyday lives and responsibilities are interrupted by a “blinding flash of light and succeeding blast.” The descriptions that Hersey provided gave readers a first hand account of the personal horrors that an ordinary person (like the reader) faced once the bomb had been dropped. Hersey’s descriptions of “charred death” and the smell rotting corpses that pervaded the city in the hours and days after the explosion were complemented by surreal environmental descriptions of “fires, windstorms, huge radioactive raindrops and eerie, dusty darkness." Here is an exceprt from Hiroshima:
"...hundred and hundreds who were fleeing, and every one of them seemed to be hurt in some way. The eyebrows of some were burned off and skin hung from their faces and hands…Some were vomiting and they walked. Many were naked or in shreds of clothing"
The dramatic descriptions of the horrors that each individual faced gave the bomb and its aftermath and human dimension. This acted as a counterpoint the mostly antiseptic descriptions of the bombing that were made public. The book also conveyed a sense of guilt and remorse over the dropping of the bomb. Hersey also offered a very controversial view of science. He viewed the atomic bomb and its use as a perverse experiment, with the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the test subjects. The bomb had soiled the name of science and the scientists behind creating it. While most of American did not share Hersey’s biting criticism, the book became widely read and it helped spread awareness of the potential of the bomb.
Japanese Perspective
Japanese culture and tradition was badly damaged by the end of the war. The "no surrender" mentality bolstered by the Cult of the Emperor as a god amongst men was completely shattered. The idea that Japan could be occupied by a western force was anathema to their prideful and stoic society. The fact that the Emperor himself surrendered to the western power was even more culturally damaging than the actual loss of life sustained during the war. I am going to represent this confusion and loss of pride through a pop cultural medium: film. More specifically, the movie Godjira (Godzilla).
The legacy of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the surrender to a western power was kept alive in Japan, in part, by the mythic destruction of a giant lizard. Godjira (Godzilla) was not created in a historical vacuum. It was spawned from a “primordial soup of political concerns, cultural influences, cinematic inspirations, genre traditions, economic crassness, simple opportunism and sheer creativity.”
Even though the post-Imperial Japanese government declared the post-war era to be over by 1956, the memory of the atomic bomb, firebombing and the death and destruction that followed left long-lasting emotional and physical scars. Families were torn apart and the principle of honor that the Japanese society placed great emphasis on was bruised by the surrender to and occupation by a western power. Even though the occupation force has left by 1952, cities were still being rebuilt and the victims were still dying from radiation poisoning from the Bomb. The Cold War arms race played into global tension especially in Japan, because of its first hand experience with the effects of the bomb. To exacerbate the increasing Japanese-United States diplomatic tensions, in March of 1954, the U.S. tested a hydrogen bomb in the Bikini Atoll that gave nearby Japanese fisherman on the Luck Dragon No. 5 radiation poisoning and contaminated their supply of tuna. Dubbed Operation “Castle Bravo,” the bomb that was believed to be 6 megatons, exploded with the force of 15 megatons, increasing blast radius and the radioactive cloud.
It became no coincidence that creator/director Tanaka Tomoyuki observed that “the theme of the film [Godjira] was the terror of the Bomb…mankind had created the Bomb, and now nature was going to take revenge on mankind.” The movie begins with a reference to the Lucky Dragon incident: A group of fisherman on the Glory No. 5 see a blinding flash from the sea, which immediately engulfs their ship into flames. The survivors of the incident describe the occurrence as a large explosion emanating from the sea. In another scene, some commuters on a train are discussing the government’s ban on tuna and the contamination of the tuna supply.
This is an overt reference to the actual announcement by the Japanese government to boycott tuna over the Lucky Dragon incident, which they believed to be the second nuclear attack on the people of Japan.
The historical symbolism only seems to increase once the movie progresses beyond Godjira’s initial appearance. Later in the film, a cheesy love triangle is revealed. The female lead, Emiko, who is betrothed to the recluse Dr. Serizawa, falls in love with the war hero Lieutenant Ogata. Serizawa is introduced as a mad-scientist type character, with an eye patch and a pension for clutter and dark spaces. This is an obvious reference to the idea that science had become perverted and reclusive with the advent of the Bomb. Serizawa, ignoring Emiko’s attempts to express her love for Ogata, decides to show her his newest invention. He drops his device into a fish tank and the fish inside instantly dissolve into skeletons. Serizawa describes the device as an “Oxygen Destroyer” and that it could be stronger than any atomic bomb.
Meanwhile, Godjira is wreaking havoc on the industries, infrastructure and people of Tokyo burning down buildings with radioactive fire breath reminiscent of the firebombing that had occurred only 10 years earlier. The images that came out of the attack on Tokyo harkens back to the pictures of death and destruction from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Men, women and children running from the fiery destruction of something that is almost mythical in nature. A giant irradiated lizard had held as much legitimacy as an atomic bomb to those who were witnesses of the Bomb’s effects. Throughout the movie, there are scenes of overflowing hospitals and people slowly dying of radiation sickness.
By the end of the movie, the creators took the moral high ground. Once revealed that Serizawa has a weapon that could destroy Godjira, Ogata and Emiko are sent to his laboratory to attain it. Serizawa shows opposition, making an obvious political jab:
“If the Oxygen Destroyer is even used once, politicians from around the world will see it. Of course they will want to use it as a weapon. Bombs versus bombs, missiles versus missiles and now a super- weapon to throw upon us all! As a scientist, as a human being, I cannot let this happen.” (Godjira)
After burning his notes and vowing never to use the oxygen destroyer again, Serizawa goes with Ogata and Emiko to find Godjira. They swim down to his lair, lay the weapon and Ogata swims back up. But, burning his notes was not enough, as Serizawa bids everyone goodbye and cuts his oxygen line, killing himself and taking his knowledge of the oxygen destroyer to the grave.
Godjira was presented with no moral ambiguity. After passing through Hiroshima after the war, co-creator Honda Ishiro noted that the movie was created to “make radiation visible” by “giving a tangible form to unspoken fears of the Bomb, nuclear testing and radiation.” Radiation was not depicted as something mysterious or scientific, but instead a destructive force that, once unleashed, causes insurmountable damage to humankind. Godjira was created to tell the rest of the Cold War world that the splitting of the atom was a dangerous power and the horrors that would come from nuclear war should be avoided at all costs.
Japan’s position as only playing a bit part in the Cold War as well as being the test subject fore the Bomb allowed the creators of Godjira to analyze with an especially legitimate, authentic and experienced mind, the fear of nuclear annihilation.
The only use of nuclear weapons during war had lasting effects on the country, and directed foreign policy for the subsequent Cold War. I want to emphasize the confusion and disbelief that the Japanese felt after their surrender and the effects of being occupied by a foreign force after witnessing mythical destruction caused by something they did not entirely understand. First, I want to look at the reaction immediately after the bomb in the U.S. (NOTE: These are all excepts from a paper I wrote about the bomb.)
The U.S. Perspective
Americans, along with social liberals, garnered a general anxiety about the condition of the post-war world. Liberals had their suspicions of the legitimacy of the scientific approach to the new weapon. They became highly critical of government policy regarding the testing of nuclear weapons in the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and the displacement of the native culture. They saw the tests as a “portent of future nuclear horrors – a grim replication of Hiroshima in the name of scientific inquiry.” Readers and editors of the The New Yorker castigated science for unleashing the powerful destruction of the atom. This acted as detraction from the mainstream media’s belief in the positive results of atomic science. Scientists were caricatured as goofy, disconnected geniuses who found enjoyment in formulas and research with a total lack of knowledge of the implications of their fun. The magazine’s emphasis on the inevitability and intractability of a nuclear state and the need for a moral cleansing came to a head with the publishing of John Hersey’s Hiroshima.
Published in The New Yorker one year after the dropping of the first atomic bombs, John Hersey’s Hiroshima vividly visualized and personalized the legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima chronicles the stories of six survivors, whose everyday lives and responsibilities are interrupted by a “blinding flash of light and succeeding blast.” The descriptions that Hersey provided gave readers a first hand account of the personal horrors that an ordinary person (like the reader) faced once the bomb had been dropped. Hersey’s descriptions of “charred death” and the smell rotting corpses that pervaded the city in the hours and days after the explosion were complemented by surreal environmental descriptions of “fires, windstorms, huge radioactive raindrops and eerie, dusty darkness." Here is an exceprt from Hiroshima:
"...hundred and hundreds who were fleeing, and every one of them seemed to be hurt in some way. The eyebrows of some were burned off and skin hung from their faces and hands…Some were vomiting and they walked. Many were naked or in shreds of clothing"
The dramatic descriptions of the horrors that each individual faced gave the bomb and its aftermath and human dimension. This acted as a counterpoint the mostly antiseptic descriptions of the bombing that were made public. The book also conveyed a sense of guilt and remorse over the dropping of the bomb. Hersey also offered a very controversial view of science. He viewed the atomic bomb and its use as a perverse experiment, with the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the test subjects. The bomb had soiled the name of science and the scientists behind creating it. While most of American did not share Hersey’s biting criticism, the book became widely read and it helped spread awareness of the potential of the bomb.
Japanese Perspective
Japanese culture and tradition was badly damaged by the end of the war. The "no surrender" mentality bolstered by the Cult of the Emperor as a god amongst men was completely shattered. The idea that Japan could be occupied by a western force was anathema to their prideful and stoic society. The fact that the Emperor himself surrendered to the western power was even more culturally damaging than the actual loss of life sustained during the war. I am going to represent this confusion and loss of pride through a pop cultural medium: film. More specifically, the movie Godjira (Godzilla).
The legacy of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the surrender to a western power was kept alive in Japan, in part, by the mythic destruction of a giant lizard. Godjira (Godzilla) was not created in a historical vacuum. It was spawned from a “primordial soup of political concerns, cultural influences, cinematic inspirations, genre traditions, economic crassness, simple opportunism and sheer creativity.”
Even though the post-Imperial Japanese government declared the post-war era to be over by 1956, the memory of the atomic bomb, firebombing and the death and destruction that followed left long-lasting emotional and physical scars. Families were torn apart and the principle of honor that the Japanese society placed great emphasis on was bruised by the surrender to and occupation by a western power. Even though the occupation force has left by 1952, cities were still being rebuilt and the victims were still dying from radiation poisoning from the Bomb. The Cold War arms race played into global tension especially in Japan, because of its first hand experience with the effects of the bomb. To exacerbate the increasing Japanese-United States diplomatic tensions, in March of 1954, the U.S. tested a hydrogen bomb in the Bikini Atoll that gave nearby Japanese fisherman on the Luck Dragon No. 5 radiation poisoning and contaminated their supply of tuna. Dubbed Operation “Castle Bravo,” the bomb that was believed to be 6 megatons, exploded with the force of 15 megatons, increasing blast radius and the radioactive cloud.
It became no coincidence that creator/director Tanaka Tomoyuki observed that “the theme of the film [Godjira] was the terror of the Bomb…mankind had created the Bomb, and now nature was going to take revenge on mankind.” The movie begins with a reference to the Lucky Dragon incident: A group of fisherman on the Glory No. 5 see a blinding flash from the sea, which immediately engulfs their ship into flames. The survivors of the incident describe the occurrence as a large explosion emanating from the sea. In another scene, some commuters on a train are discussing the government’s ban on tuna and the contamination of the tuna supply.
This is an overt reference to the actual announcement by the Japanese government to boycott tuna over the Lucky Dragon incident, which they believed to be the second nuclear attack on the people of Japan.
The historical symbolism only seems to increase once the movie progresses beyond Godjira’s initial appearance. Later in the film, a cheesy love triangle is revealed. The female lead, Emiko, who is betrothed to the recluse Dr. Serizawa, falls in love with the war hero Lieutenant Ogata. Serizawa is introduced as a mad-scientist type character, with an eye patch and a pension for clutter and dark spaces. This is an obvious reference to the idea that science had become perverted and reclusive with the advent of the Bomb. Serizawa, ignoring Emiko’s attempts to express her love for Ogata, decides to show her his newest invention. He drops his device into a fish tank and the fish inside instantly dissolve into skeletons. Serizawa describes the device as an “Oxygen Destroyer” and that it could be stronger than any atomic bomb.
Meanwhile, Godjira is wreaking havoc on the industries, infrastructure and people of Tokyo burning down buildings with radioactive fire breath reminiscent of the firebombing that had occurred only 10 years earlier. The images that came out of the attack on Tokyo harkens back to the pictures of death and destruction from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Men, women and children running from the fiery destruction of something that is almost mythical in nature. A giant irradiated lizard had held as much legitimacy as an atomic bomb to those who were witnesses of the Bomb’s effects. Throughout the movie, there are scenes of overflowing hospitals and people slowly dying of radiation sickness.
By the end of the movie, the creators took the moral high ground. Once revealed that Serizawa has a weapon that could destroy Godjira, Ogata and Emiko are sent to his laboratory to attain it. Serizawa shows opposition, making an obvious political jab:
“If the Oxygen Destroyer is even used once, politicians from around the world will see it. Of course they will want to use it as a weapon. Bombs versus bombs, missiles versus missiles and now a super- weapon to throw upon us all! As a scientist, as a human being, I cannot let this happen.” (Godjira)
After burning his notes and vowing never to use the oxygen destroyer again, Serizawa goes with Ogata and Emiko to find Godjira. They swim down to his lair, lay the weapon and Ogata swims back up. But, burning his notes was not enough, as Serizawa bids everyone goodbye and cuts his oxygen line, killing himself and taking his knowledge of the oxygen destroyer to the grave.
Godjira was presented with no moral ambiguity. After passing through Hiroshima after the war, co-creator Honda Ishiro noted that the movie was created to “make radiation visible” by “giving a tangible form to unspoken fears of the Bomb, nuclear testing and radiation.” Radiation was not depicted as something mysterious or scientific, but instead a destructive force that, once unleashed, causes insurmountable damage to humankind. Godjira was created to tell the rest of the Cold War world that the splitting of the atom was a dangerous power and the horrors that would come from nuclear war should be avoided at all costs.
Japan’s position as only playing a bit part in the Cold War as well as being the test subject fore the Bomb allowed the creators of Godjira to analyze with an especially legitimate, authentic and experienced mind, the fear of nuclear annihilation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)