Wednesday, April 6, 2011
HIST300A: Making a War on Nature
After reading the various articles, what might be behind this "war on nature"? What social and cultural transformations in the postwar period enable this seemingly reckless use of pesticides and defoliants? Frankly speaking, why are 1950s Americans obsessed with pest control?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From the readings there are many different notions historians give to the fear of bugs and the use of extreme killing agents. The role of big bug movies might have even promoted and advanced the use of DDT and other similar chemicals. If we rationalize the big bug movies as a fear of bugs, and not the fear over looming nuclear fallout and Communist invasions, then we can see how Americans could be driven to use extremem killing agents. For if Americans do not overcome these infectious creatures then the American way of life will be lost.
ReplyDeleteOn a more personal note. After WWII concluded my grandfather came back from the European front and started his own chemical company. I do not know if he dealt with DDT or not, but the involvment of emerging sciences must have been a lucrative job in the post-WWII era. With this emergence and enthusiasm America embraced the war on insects.
I think what was mainly behind the war on nature and obsession with pest control is that after WWII Americans may still have been in a kind of “fighting mode”, still in the mindset of war. But, having no pressing foreign matters to take care of, they looked inward and saw things out of control (at least in their minds) like pest populations, and decided that those would be the next things for America to conquer. After gaining control over the wars in Europe and the Pacific, America sought to gain control over itself. Perhaps there was also a widespread fear of insects because of their associations with wartime enemies, like we saw with the Japanese. Or maybe Americans just had a lot of disdain for pests because they were filthy, aggravating creatures.
ReplyDeleteAs far as social and cultural transformations go, I think this also goes back to WWII and America emerging victorious and as the greatest superpower. Progress was pushed for constantly during the war, especially for new technologies, and probably no one wanted to halt progress simply because the war was over. So America continued to develop new technologies and find applications for those developed during the war.
As a nation the United States has taken upon itself to dominate the landscape, whether it is foreign or national. We can see this with the civil war, frontier, and in the Pacific wars. After WWII U.S. was the worlds super power but we still needed something else to dominate. So why not turn to pests that are harmful to our economy, eat our crops and sneak into our houses. Culturally the U.S. has always had a desire to be “clean/pure.” This can be seen in city beautification movement, as well as Hornaday’s extreme racist and obsession with cleaning up. I think the brief obsession over bug extermination falls into one of these weird fads of trying to purify our nation from things that we are afraid of. The environment in the Pacific for the soldiers was really foreign and terrifying for a lot of them. When the war ended I think they needed a place to place their resentment of these environments. Seeing bugs in their homeland was just a reminder of the war so we wanted to get rid of them.
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons the spurred along the idea and mass public production of DDT. As Leah said, the United States was just coming out of huge world war as the savior, winner and new world superpower. The fact that DDT was used in the war and was a proponent to our military winning over in the Pacific spoke well about the product. Regardless of the information provided to the public about the potential health hazards DDT had, it boomed in the market and became the new thing. DDT was also a venue for the American public to dominate another species. This species happen to be insects. The pesticide was used for other things though, such as a generic cleansing agent. This seems to be a fairly reckless usage of the chemical composition, especially considering that there was a warning concerning the product prior to it being released into the American market.
ReplyDeleteI think that the ‘war on bugs’ culture of the 1950’s was spawned from Americans wanting to control something in there life seemed to becoming increasingly chaotic from factors ranging to threat of the Cold War to agricultural and not wanting a repeat of the depression and Dustbowl of the thirties. Tsutsui brings up the example of the locust in The Beginning of the End in which Dr. Wainwright discusses why the locust is such a threat, with the end result being to nuke Chicago(248). This decision in the movie plays on the fears of Americans who feared a nuclear attack as well as on farmers who viewed the locust as pest that destroyed crops. It also does not help that the locust were a huge pest problem during the 1930’s Dustbowl. In a post World War II that seemed increasingly chaotic Americans found in bugs an adversary that they could control.
ReplyDeleteThe creation of the cultural war on nature was created by a combination of veterans' desire for the American Dream, as well as interest in continuing a technological move forward. GIs wanted to come home to a clean environment, one that did not resemble the frightening jungle of the Pacific. Having seen the power of the technology produced during the war, there was a high expectation for continuing progress. This was certainly achieved with the commercial sale of DDT.
ReplyDeleteCompanies clearly monopolized on the war on nature. As the country was transitioning to a peacetime mindset, it was easier to create a new enemy. Soldiers returning home accepted the new war that was thrust upon them, as they fought the pests that had invaded their homes. The chemical companies had a product that worked, as well as a marketing campaign that translated to American's fears.
Overall, Americans were fighting to remain dominant. They enjoyed the power they had during the war, and extended this to fighting a new enemy, one that was easy and profitable. Their search for more effective technology encouraged Americans to stay in a war mindset, just a war to stay dominant and pure.
I think much of the obsession over pest control emerges out of domestic notions of security. The home is the great sanctuary of the American family, and it must be protected at all costs. Insects and rodent pests represent a threat to the domestic tranquility of the family and thus needs to be eradicated at any costs. The rise in chemical use seems in some ways tied to the rise of suburbanization in America. The suburbs are closely associated with the “Keeping up with the Jones” phenomenon, so if one or two families in a neighborhood begin using insecticides, then others are likely to join the craze as well.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not believe that the obsession with chemical-based products is solely confined to the 1950s, however. Even today, Americans spend millions and millions on petro-chemically derived pesticides and fertilizers to apply on their lawns. In addition, traditional insecticides that probably first appeared in the 1950s have become much more efficient today. For example, we now have cans of wasp spray that have a firing range of about 10 feet, so that someone using it minimizes the chance of getting stung by the enraged insects.
World War II was a time of fear for many Americans. American men were fighting vicious, unknown, enemies and becoming hardened to humanity, starting to view their enemies as pests. These enemies included the new environments they fought against every day to survive. Their stories trickled back home and translated these distant fears to the American public. Man’s constant war against nature was throttling full force onto an unknown level and man had to win. So we developed dangerous chemicals and insecticides to destroy our enemies: nature and our fellow man. When World War II ended this fear and imperialism needed a new direction and fell on some poor unsuspecting victims: bugs. This crusade against bugs took extermination to a new level with wide scale chemical sprayings all over the country. Hollywood amplified this fear with horror bug films. Many of these films portrayed common insects found in homes such as moths and fire ants. This increased the fear that Americans had, and therefore increased their fight. It also Hollywoodized the crusade and justified it. It continued overseas in Vietnam with the use of defoliation to expose the enemy, again destroying nature for conquest. Overall, America’s fear and desire for conquest after the brutality of World War II led to the widespread use of chemical products to exterminate insects.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the various articles this week, I have come to a realization that individuals were overly concerned about insects, plants, and trees to the point that they used harsh chemicals such as DDT to wage war against them. Movies were being made in the 1950s and 1960s about giant insects destroying towns and attacking people, which reflected true fears within society. Individuals who had lived through the depression or lived in the dust bowl region would be excessively apprehensive about insects destroying their crops. After World War II, society was very fearful of certain insects such as Argentine fire ants that were destructive in the American southwest. The government provided the civilian market with pesticides that were known to be harmful when used overseas. These pesticides brought about other problems to livestock that was not easily controlled within the larger regions of the United States.
ReplyDeleteRachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962 to document the detrimental effects of DDT on the environment and birds and especially humans. She accused the chemical industry of spreading false information about the pesticide. This finger pointing was certainly representative of the environmentalist attitude of the 1960s. It is evident how Carson’s book appealed so much to the public, she starts this particular section by creating the image of a setting that many Americans have forgotten and still yearn for; a town in the midst of a checkerboard of prosperous farms, with fields of grain, orchards, and green fields. Her descriptive images of a beautiful place end with the image of an “evil spell” that has settled on the community. She describes the changes farmers see in their animals, the illnesses of the townspeople, and the negative effects of the bird population- here we see this new ecological perspective, tying together animals and people in the environment and how they are all effected. She sets the scene with this analogy; the corruption of this once beautiful and bountiful landscape in order to capture her audiences’ attention and present the actual effects of DDT. On pg 440 she says, “All this is not to say there is no insect problem and no need for control. I am saying, rather, that control must be geared to realities, not to mythical situations, and that methods employed must be such that they do not destroy us along with the insects.” Her recommendations are not completely radical; instead she tries to promote some control, something that could be logically achieved by the American public.
ReplyDeleteLewis describes the origins of Smokey the Bear and how he became an American icon. I was certainly surprised to read that the famous slogan, “Only you can prevent a forest fire” started as a joke, “Only you can prevent a forest.” The image of Smokey Bear originated through the military/government- like many other environmental images/slogans at the time- further reflecting how impressionable the military was on American society. Smokey the Bear for instance was a military maneuver. The entire Forest Service was established for the military. In the United States, the American public was awakened by Silent Spring, and they questioned the widespread use of chemicals used in both Vietnam and their own national forests. American protesters threatened Forest Service employees with violence if they continued spreading- this is when the “Only you can prevent a forest” became the epithet leveled against the agency. The angry public sparked a sort of domestic war between the Forest Service which ultimately led to the suspension of the use of numerous herbicides and pesticides in the 1970s- at this point the American public most likely shed their constant trust in the military.
Tsutsui’s piece on the big bug craze was really interesting/funny. The evolution of science in the 1950s and 60s prompted the mass production of sci-fi films. The films were a place that imaginations could run wild, and explore the “what if” aspect of science and nature. What were the giant bugs a metaphor for? –It could be that these bugs were symbolic of the paranoia the American public felt about the Cold War. On pg 242 Tsutsui says, “Many critics also subscribed to the notion that big bug flicks, beneath all those flailing antennae and snapping mandibles, were really nuanced musings on science, authority, and the place of the military in civil society.”
After the war I think Americans were looking for a sense of stability, security, and control in their lives. So of course these feelings would apply to the most personal and significant of american possessions, the home. Pests in the home were seen as invaders/enemies and the war mindset of extermination certainly carried over to these pests. Also the human desire to control nature and dominate the landscape also played a role in the obsession with pest control. I think the fact that DDT was so highly endorsed by advertisements and used so successfully in the war also played a pat in the abuse of pesticides during this time. No doubt soldiers returning home had seen how effective DDT was in the was effort and trusted it to also be effective in their homes as well. Soldiers returning home probably also felt a certain contempt for nature after being exposed to such a harsh unforgiving environment and didn't want any aspect of it within their own personal homes.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, we have always needed to have control over something..or at least we are always trying to obtain something to control. With the war over, what was left for us to control? Nature and bugs. Scientists, government employees and everyday Americans were still trying to develop new ways to control what they could. Each person was waging their own little wars in their own homes against the "invading pests." In the spirit of winning the real human war, people continued to fight believing that if they could defeat the Nazis then they could damn well defeat bugs.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the main question, i'm pretty sure its been answered by now so i'm not going to bother.
ReplyDeleteAn aspect of the tsutsui article i'd like to bring up is how American attempts to control insect populations only served to create more resilient ones. This is interesting, because for all our technological advancements- which work very well in destroying other humans-people are absolutely powerless in controlling something so seemingly insignificant as the "bug". After WW2 the masculine American image had been transformed into a juggernaut who had the strength and skill to crush any opposition that stood in his way. The inability for the U.S. to control insect populations must have played hell on the American ego because they just helped to rid the world of some of the most virulent pests ever seen (fascists), yet ole' allen the ant remained entrenched and dogged on the homefront.
After reading the various articles, I have to say that the Tsustsui's article was pretty amusing, yet educational because the article provides ample information regarding the horrors the American public endured after WWII. They feared bugs because they thought they were the "Reds." I truly think that the movies in the article represent the social and political tensions during that era. The public wanted to eradicate the pests by spraying DDT, a harmful drug to prove to the world that America is above everyone. Even today, millions of American's obtain bug spray in their household because they know that they are vile and dangerous. The last two articles represent the dangers of utilizing DDT. Carson's article was very interesting to read because she depicts in her short essay the problems that humans have done that have ruined the planet. Utilizing DDT has killed numerous birds, animals, and crops. I truly believe that Americans showed their true dominance by killing the pests, but it introduced conflicts in the end.
ReplyDeleteAfter the end of WWII, America was still up and fighting. The World Wars helped the United States’ economy and brought a new feeling of triumph over the lands. New disagreements and tension with other countries (i.e. the Korean & the beginning of the Cold War) helped renew the interest of innovation within the United States. Many scientists helped contribute to the making of the hydrogen bomb, which was very dangerous if used negatively. The American’s relations with other nations such as the Japanese lessened greatly and the Japanese became dehumanized. Instead of looking at the Japanese as humans, they were compared to insects and beasts that were to be terminated. The use of defoliation was to seek out the hiding “pests”, “Japanese” from their hiding places and to get ride of the initial home of the so called culprit. Propaganda was used to increase the likeability of the pesticides, convincing the American population that the ideal life would be, sickness and pest-free. I wish they had thought about the potential life-threatening illnesses that resulted from many of the pesticides. On a side note: I wish that they had looked into the potential health-threats of the pesticides. It was sad to hear in class about the wallpaper that had pesticide inlaced within the material.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the articles I feel that through these big bug movies it was Americas way to dramatize and make fun of the crazy things that could possibly happen from nuclear radiation, because I'm still not 100% sure if these movies were really made to be serious and terrify people. I also thought it was interesting in the Tsustsui article when he said
ReplyDelete"That is to say, in a Freudian universe, huge wasps and grasshoppers are an externalization of all civilized people’s internal conflicts with their primitive, instinctual, wishful, chaotic id, or unconscious."
The reason that this is interesting to me because it made me think of all the talks that we have previously had about "the wild", because in a way these bugs are some of the last bit of uncontrollable wilderness that still existed in America, because although people tried to kill and exterminate them bugs kept coming back stronger and they are pretty much everywhere in some shape or form throughout America. I think through the creation of DDT and other chemicals like this it was in a way for everyone in America to have a little bit of controllable power over the last bit of "wild" in urban America.
I think America’s “war on nature” was driven by a collectively defensive mindset. America had come out of a serious economic depression and then dove into a war during which they were on alert. After WWII ended, it is not surprising that people jumped onto the idea of another “war.” Living in a society that had run on a sense of urgency, then returning from war with a victory, a sense of power no doubt was held by this already domination-seeking nation.
ReplyDeletePostwar America had become a nation of prosperity and power. Technologically sophisticated (though it was destructive technology) and standing at the forefront of global relations, the US likely had a mentality of invincibility—they could little to no wrong. Civilians followed in the steps of their military and put that energetic attitude to use during their mission for dominance in all things.
Per Jenna:
ReplyDeleteThe practice of war on pests in post WWII America was the culmination of many cultural and political forces that had developed over the previous decades. One thing that is mentioned in Tsutsui’s piece but not really addressed is the role of gender in Americans war on nature. As we have studied and discussed, American identity and power both domestic and abroad is linked to the ideal of American masculinity. I think that Americans interactions and relations to insects is firmly tied to this identity. One way American practice this identity is by conquering and controlling their surroundings. The economic ecologists argued that the U.S. was a productive organism, so it is only “natural” to maximize productivity and efficiency. The technological advances relied upon during the war for efficient extermination easily transferred to domestic life because American society also valued efficiency and productivity (as seen in the “Cold War Kitchen”). I agree with Tsutsui that “the real horrors being exorcised in 1950s bug bug features were, it seems, right up there on the screen” and that Americans had newer and bigger weapons to combat their “real-world fears of real-world pests” and control their environment. When put into the larger framework of American masculinity, the insects are portrayed as enemies challenging American identity. It is also important to recognize that traditional gender roles and gender ideas were challenged and changed during the war and the post war period. Women were integrated into the workforce and then forced back into the domestic sphere. Both men and women combated insects to gain control of their surroundings. However, women were given control of the domestic space (in home DDT) while men were seen as controlling and protecting the American way of life – the ability of American masculinity to dominant its surroundings. I haven’t seen the films but I wonder what the female scientists’ role was in the killing or creating of mutant bugs. My favorite example of this gendered insect management is the 1950s magazine for men Man’s Life – they often portrayed the “American” man protecting a woman from mutant insects. Here is an example of attacking spiders:
http://www.stagmags.com/L-to-M/Mans-Life/imagepages/image22.php
Jenna's link is absolutely awesome! Everyone should check it out and the other magazine covers from the period.
ReplyDelete