July 14, 2008

Pearl Harbor

As I mentioned the other day, our trip struck me as a mix of authentic and contrived experiences, and this describes our trip to Pearl Harbor as well. Perhaps my expectations were a little on the high side. After all, I felt as if I had been there before. It was also one of the longer days on the trip, so my fatigue grew through the tour.

We started early and ended up in line waiting to get into the memorial and museum. I had been reading about the attack and how America experienced it almost as an archetypal American event similar to Indians attacking the generic homestead, or the shocking losses to the "other" at the Alamo or Little Big Horn. Pearl Harbor fell into that for many--a treacherous attack by the non-white other. The racial aspect was something that concerned the OWI (Office of War Information). They did not want our films and portrayals to emphasize the racial difference of the Japanese, but wanted to emphasize a conflict of systems and ideas.

So when I watched the movie introduction and went through the Arizona memorial, I had some of that in the back of my mind. When I referenced the propaganda movie, that was rather harsh, perhaps, but there is an element there. The film shows original footage (including obviously some gleaned from Japanese archives) and then some footage from early documentaries showing the American spirit responding to the attack--emphasizing the melting pot of American citizens (except, of course, Japanese Americans). Heartwarming stuff.

In retrospect, there was much I admired about the memorial. Seeing the outline of the Arizona and the seeping oil made it very real, and very authentic. But there were other issues (fair or not) that caused me some discomfort.

1) The idea that everyone who perished that day were heroes. This is not a criticism of their service or sacrifice, mind you, but I would imagine that many of those who died that day would have scoffed at the idea that they were heroic. They were just doing their jobs. Some, I am sure, acted heroically and tried to save others. But just being there didn't make them heroes.

2) Likewise, the arbitrary nature of the adoration. Is there a wall or memorial for those who died a few weeks after Pearl? In a battle that didn't conform to the idea of treachery and deceit?

3) (And this one was more unspoken, and not fair to attack to the memorial or the Park Service presentation) the specter of 9-11 and the "Greatest Generation." I recently received an email saying that Bush's error on Iraq was not the war, but the assumption that he led the same country that fought WWII. Yet, in the footage of the response to the tragedy of Pearl and the attempts to rescue the wounded and dying, I saw the previous versions of those rescue efforts here in Oklahoma City and following the World Trade center attacks. World War II was different because our President then called us to sacrifice and to rally behind the war effort against a known and definable enemy. Roosevelt didn't tell the American people to trust him and then go shopping. Likewise, black and white film doesn't mean that people in the past were more patriotic or "Greatest."

4) The assumption of victory and the "rightness" of our cause. In this case, I sincerely believe that we were on the right side of that war--don't get me wrong. Fascism had to be stopped. But out of that "victory culture" has come a sense that all of our wars or military actions are the same way. It almost becomes a circular logic--we are right because we fight, and we fight because we are right.



The tour of the Missouri was less emotional and more almost just factual in nature. It was cool to see a ship that size and to see how it operated. I had forgotten that it was still in use during the Persian Gulf War. But during our tour, we heard a couple of stories that were rather interesting. The first was about President Truman's visit to the Missouri. The ship's captain planned for the President to eat in the Officer's mess, but Truman insisted on eating with the men--and also standing in line for his food like everyone else.

The second story was actually the most positive and uplifting one for me. During the battle for Okinawa, a Kamikaze bomber hit the Missouri--you can still see the dent in the ship side. It caused very little damage and no casualties for the ship, but ended, of course, the life of the pilot. The men on deck wanted to throw the rest of the man's body overseas in disgust. But the ship captain insisted on waiting until the next day, folding the remains in a makeshift Japanese flag and giving the Japanese soldier a proper burial. The men questioned this, noting that he had been trying to kill them. The Captain said that the Japanese soldier was just doing his job, just like all of them. He was fighting for his country, and deserved this small bit of respect.

2 comments:

Tony said...

Your observations here are great--I thoroughly enjoyed reading them.

A note on #1; I wasted two and a half hours watching the recent Pearl Harbor movie. The movie was horrible, utterly horrible, but one thing has always stuck out to me and made a significant impression. When the bombers were dropping on the Arizona, one of the bombs ended up in the kitchen and a cook was shown looking at the bomb before it exploded.

Was he a hero? When he enlisted in the Army it wasn't to fight, probably. Just like my brother; though he is in Iraq, there is a good possibility that he will not shoulder a rifle and go into combat. (I sure hope and pray not.) Yes, that man is to be honored though even he himself would not consider his death heroic. He was peeling potatoes when the bomb exploded.

This cuts deeply into our particularly American psyches that everything we do must have some significant "other" meaning. Great and terrible things happen everyday; being dubbed a hero doesn't, even in the most despicable of situations.

Streak said...

Yeah, Tony, that part of the American psychology really bothers me. I think it is dangerous, frankly. I read recently about some conservatives really idolizing Teddy Roosevelt--a man who thoroughly romanticized violence and war and openly hoped for war several times. All to prove some manhood or something.