Let's talk hypotheticals. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, it's the year 1915, the Panama Canal has just been completed, and I'm a self-identified white Anglo-Saxon from a middle-class background. I have some disposable income and would like to go on holiday for both therapeutic reasons and as an expression of my new found affluence. I've heard some interesting stories about the tropics, and having read one article by Blakeslee and a book by Woodruff, I'm thoroughly confused. The tropics seem both terrifying for white men, but also full of potential with the successful completion of the canal. As my travel agent and having also read both works, what would you recommend?
[N.B. This is a student exercise. The views and opinions expressed by the students are not their own, but based off their interpretations of primary sources from the early twentieth century and how they imagine certain individuals from that period would express their own ideology in certain historical contexts.]
After having read both pieces by Woodruff and Blakeslee I am intrigued by the contradictory nature of both works. As a travel agent, I would definitely encourage my client to go explore the tropics because there is no better way to understand each author's view than by experiencing the Panama Canal zone firsthand. At first Woodruff's dramatic rhetoric may scare you away from any notion of ever stepping foot into a tropical climate. When he says that, "if we expose ourselves to the adverse climatic conditions our line will die out," or that the only way to avoid disease is to hide from the "known dangers," and that white men must avoid the "fatal rays of light," I completely understand why you might be hesitant to take a holiday in the tropics for fear of never returning home. Is the Panama Canal Zone a tomb for the white man or is it as Blakeslee states, a symbol of one of America's greatest sanitary achievements "of all history"? Furthermore, I think it would be interesting to take note of what Panama looks like as a result of American colonial efforts. After reading both articles I am intrigued as to what the tropics are really like, and I would encourage you to go vacation there and report back to me!
ReplyDeleteBeing the year 1915 there is very little to fear from a brief visit to one of the greatest engineering marvels in the world, The Panama Canal. Respected author Blakeslee openly comments in his work, "Can white people live here even temporarily and make it subservient to civilization? The vital question the Panama Canal has answered is yes." With new mosquito controls fears of yellow fever are greatly reduced, and American-type luxuries such as indoor plumbing are now available. While Woodruff attempts to illustrate the dangers of a tropical climate, both physically and morally, a short stint should not allow for personal danger to occur. The social conditions are not addressed within either of these works; however, leading to some question as to the interactions between indigenous peoples and American ex-patriots. While in many parts of new world society, for example Mexico, place in society is determined by racial components, which include various combinations of white, American Indian, and descendents of African slaves. It would be worth exploring this facet of Panama culture before travel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tori’s comment on how one should go to the tropics and experience them himself. This reminded me of our quick discussion that we had in class about whether the authors themselves actually have visited Panama. If they have, then their opinions and beliefs are more valid. Because of that, I am intrigued to know whether the two authors have visited the Panama Canal Zone themselves. While reading the two different pieces, I looked for bias as well as evidence. I believe that if there is bias, then it is less of a reliable source and that one should make judgment based on factual evidence, rather than one’s opinion. I felt that Woodruff, who believes that the tropics pose a substantial amount of danger to white people, presented little evidence, data, and references to other works compared to Blakeslee’s work. For instance, Woodruff writes, “I am sure it would prevent much sickness” (Woodruff, 327) or “it is a matter of common knowledge that in a city the glare from white houses is a great nuisance to the neighbors, and has been known to cause serious eye disease” (ibid. 330) – simple statements like these without supporting evidence do not provide much authority. On the other hand, I found Blakeslee’s article to be factual, filled with facts such as dates, measurements, death rates, and references to other works. Blakeslee supports the idea of white people temporarily living in the Panama Canal Zone due to the Americans’ previously successful responses to yellow fever and malaria. Although he is quite factual, Blakeslee seemed to resonate the exceptionalist attitude and often speaks about events in a heroic and victorious manner. For instance, he writes, “when four hundred years’ efforts had failed to conquer the yellow fever, could the United States succeed?” (Blakeslee, 194) then proceeds to announce later on that “yellow fever has been one of the world’s greatest scourges and it has been mastered” (ibid. 197) and that “American methods have won an even more striking victory in Brazil” (ibid. 196). The same sentiment and tone is seen in other examples: “by heroic methods, malaria was controlled” (ibid. 194) or “in the worldwide fight against tropical diseases, the United States has won other victories than those at Cuba and Panama” (ibid. 200). Overall, I wouldn’t say that either source is necessarily reliable due to some bias and lack of evidence. However, if I had to decide, I recommend Blakeslee's standpoint due to substantial and supporting evidence.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the tropics are something to be explored for ones self. One thing that may help ease the mind of white man terrified of traveling to Panama is Surgeon General Gorgas' statement that "Panama means the eventual sanitation of all Central America".
ReplyDeleteHowever, when making this statement, I'm wondering if he was aware that the need for this sanitation and improvements to infrastructure arose because human development in the region created an ideal environment for disease-carrying mosquitoes.
Additionally, I would disregard what you read in Woodruff's book. While the sun may be dangerous for reasons he does not discuss, a more reasonable concern would be of contracting malaria. Woodruff's words seem to be spoken more out of fear of the unknown. Like Allysa, I'd like to know if either author has visited the area.
I agree with Tori that it’s a good idea to explore the tropics on one’s own, rather than to rely on the works of others. At the same time, however, knowing the dangers of the Panama Canal Zone in the early 19th century, I’d be hard pressed to advise a client to go there on holiday. I’d only recommend traveling to this region if absolutely necessary. For instance, I’m not opposed to scientists and businessmen going to Panama to further the eradication of disease or to learn about potential markets. On the other hand, for this particular client, the dangers presented in this region would be stress inducing – not exactly what one looks for in a vacation. After reading Woodruff’s work, and comparing it to Blakeslee’s text, I have formulated this opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhile some of Woodruff’s arguments, especially those concerning the decline of the Aryan race of blondes, may seem archaic and superfluous, his others have some merit. His discussion on the harmful effects of tropical light on white Americans was definitely a major concern and danger of the time. Woodruff got that part right, but it’s his explanation that’s faulty. It’s clear that Woodruff still supports the climate theory of the 18th century, rather than the new (and correct) notion that genetics determined race. White Americans of 1915, such as this client here (and most likely the travel agent as well), would have been afraid of Woodruff’s fervent belief that it’s impossible to acclimate to the Panamanian environment. Woodruff writes: “every living thing must remain in its zone to survive permanently… or must hide from the dangers against which it has no natural defense” (321). This concept would have been absolutely frightening to people at the time.
In addition, I found several holes in Blakeslee’s text that would deter me from sending a client to this region. For one, I agree with Allysa’s point that Blakeslee often introduces hints of American exceptionalism into his work, generating a lot of bias. While he opens with, “white men may live in safety in the deadliest regions of the tropics – this is the great lesion of Panama” (193), in my opinion he didn’t provide enough evidence to support this assumption. He notes that there is a great reduction in malaria deaths, but that doesn’t mean that malaria is still not pretty rampant. Thus, I’d make sure to warn the client of this before sending him off. Moreover, he also remarks: “Yellow fever… has been mastered” (197). However, later on he mentions that yes, we know what insect causes yellow fever, which can then help us to control the spread of the disease. However, he doesn’t discuss whether or not it has been controlled. Thus, how can we know for sure if yellow fever has truly been “mastered”? Why would someone want to go on a holiday here, if there’s a great risk that he or she will die? All in all, most of this text just explains how sanitation efforts could be applied to other tropics regions, but not much about what makes Panama so sanitary. I just wasn’t convinced that it was safe yet.
I agree that, after reading both Woodruff and Blakeslee's pieces, it seems as if the tropics is only a place that I, as a travel agent, should advise people to go to only if you are okay with the way that the Americans controlled the environment to their standards. Readers should take the advice of both studies with a grain of salt because they are biased towards white, blonde men.
ReplyDeleteIn Woodruff's article, he mentions that the tropics are exceedingly unhealthy for white men. He does have lots of statistics about the health of soldiers, but these facts are based on his own "science" that blonde men will be wiped out if they don't take certain precautions in the tropics. As a travel agent, I would advise that you do not listen to this, as these statements are only based on an extreme form of Social Darwinism, as there is currently no evidence that blonde men are the superior form of humans, or that the tropics eradicates their existence. However, I would advise against being unprepared for the heat, which seems to be unbearable for those not used to it.
Blakeslee's article shows all of the technological advances that America has done to ensure the safety of white men in the tropics. He also is very biased towards the success of Americans and not much else. Yes, it is a success to have drained many swamps to discard of the disease ridden mosquitos, but he does not mention how detrimental this is to the environment, or even the locals who probably do not want their homeland changed. I would advise that you research these methods of sterilization before going, as there is no way to make sure that you don't get sick. Also, going to the American owned tropics reflects an attitude of imperialism, so it's best to think about how you feel about American foreign policy before you go.
In my opinion, visiting the tropics would be a great experience. However, you should be aware of the way that the Americans took over the environment, and the fact that, no matter how successful they claim to be, diseases such as yellow fever and malaria will still exist no matter how many swamps are destroyed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would advise my client to conduct further research into the matter. Blakeslee's article seems much more credible than Woodruff's. Blakeslee uses credible resources and past research to support his argument, while Woodruff's argument if mostly "common knowledge". While Blakeslee might be jumping the gun arguing that "the sanitary conquest of the tropics, one of the greatest achievements of all history, has been practically accomplished within the past seventeen years", his argument is well-researched (Blakselee 201). I would advise my client that while it is true that the rates of malaria infection have decreased dramatically, malaria still exists. Furthermore, I would caution the client to research ways to reduce the risk of malaria transmission. Luckily for the client, scientists have discovered the real cause of malarial and other disease transmission, mosquitoes. Mosquitoes act as an agent for disease transmission. Thus, the client should be aware of safe practices to create an environment free of diseases through the use of netting and making sure the sanitation department is properly oiling still water to destroy mosquito breeding grounds. Yellow fever is, for the most part, non-existent in the Panama region now; thus, the main concern is malaria and controlling the mosquito population.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I would advise my client not to take Woodruff's argument, advocating that white Anglos do not survive well in the tropics to heart, to heart. Instead of credible research and resources to cite his argument, Woodruff uses phrases like "it has been said", "it is common knowledge" and "it is known that" to support his argument. Woodruff fails to acknowledge that death rates have fallen or the true agent of disease transmission, the mosquito.
Most importantly, I would advise my client to conduct their own research into the Panamanian environment. The tropics can be a great place to explore if one is aware of the region and safety precautions to take. The client should make sure that proper sanitation and hygiene practices are conducted in the region and that they have a credible center to go to if they become ill. However, Panama's hygiene and sanitation practices have improved tremendously with the growth of modern science and epidemiology, thus, awareness is key, but one should not be deterred from traveling.
Being a travel agent in 1915, I would have a couple things to say to encourage my client to go travel to Panama and thus make some money off commission. First I would tell my client, that while Woodruff's talk in his article may scare you, be more sensible! First Woodruff himself says that white men have almost acquired an immunity to heatstroke "...due to greater knowledge and care." (322) So while there is still a chance you could come down with some disease like yellow fever or malaria, if you take greater care of yourself you should be okay!Like he said, most infections came from the water and food, so just make sure to sterilize the water, and properly cook the food and you'll be safe. Also, after reading this article, i'd advise my clients to be wary of all the statistics coming from Woodruff's article as he is a man that believes the "blonde family" in America is dying out, so how credible can he really be?
ReplyDeleteThis also reminded me of our discussion in class about how not much emphasis was placed on how these men got their information and field work wasn't valued over any other form of study; that as long as you were a scientist that there was validity in what you were saying. So with that in mind, I would also tell my client to focus more on the Blakeslee article, as it cites Surgeon General Gorgas saying that "The sanitation of the Canal Zone is a world event." So you know they are taking it seriously, so there need not be any worries. Also, an article that quotes the Surgeon General has to be more credible than Woddruff's. Blakeslee comments on how America has been winning the war against disease by identifying disease is caused by mosquitoes and consequently eliminating mosquitoes by building new docks and eliminating mosquito breeding grounds.
So yes visit the tropics, see one of Americas greatest engineering projects, and something the French couldn't do. And be smart on your brief vacation and you should be fine!
As your trusted and loyal travel agent, I would recommend that you definitely travel to select areas of the South and Central American tropics, especially the Panama Canal Zone. After reading Blakeslee's "The Future of the Panama Canal," I am certain in claiming that the Panama Canal Zone is safe to travel for a man of your status and coloring, because the United States has worked tirelessly to improve the sanitation and overall modernity of the area, equipping the area with mosquito nets and indoor plumbing. I would also suggest that you consider Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, and Florida as potential destinations, because our great country has also made those places habitable for men like you. But before you set forth on your adventure, I have some very important advice. From reading Woodruff's "The Effects of Tropical Light on White Men," I have gathered that you must take some precautions when traveling to tropical areas. Most importantly, you should protect your fair skin from the sunlight by wearing opaque clothing, living in shelters with large roofs, and taking a mid-day siesta. Furthermore, you should relax on this trip and not do any "fatigue work," regularly take warm baths, and eat little local animal products. If you are planning to take your wife on this vacation, you may want to consider that white women should stay inside from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. while in the tropics, so she would not be able to accompany you on your daily explorations. Also, I have heard that the women of the tropics are very exotic and sexual in nature, and you may not want to expose your lady to such morally-degrading and vulgar influences. I strongly urge you to spend a short trip exploring tropical areas that have been conquered by the United States. Such an endeavor would make a daring and memorable statement to your societal acquaintances and would surely demonstrate your capacity for great things.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are opposing opinions on the safety of the tropics for white Americans, I do not think it would be a problem for you to take this short trip.The most modern and cutting edge scientific evidence that Woodruff has compiled and concluded upon clearly proves that a man of your complexion would not have a comfortable time completing a two year tour of military duty at the canal. However, your trip sounds much more pleasant and moderate than that — I cannot imagine you plan on doing any heavy lifting on a therapeutic holiday. As long as you take the precautions Woodruff suggests like wearing a wide brim hat and wearing the proper clothing (i.e. wearing a black shirt under a white shirt to maximize light reflection and decrease heat absorption) you should be completely fine. These are historic years in our nation’s history. We have just completed the most massive public works project known to mankind and the sight of this historic engineering marvel is something that will surely make you feel a pride for your country you may have not dreamed possible. Furthermore, because of Blakeslee’s report on the sanitary advancements made in the Panama Zone prove that our great country has mastered the wild threats of this region (as a civilized American you should not be surprised or uneasy about this success) you should not fear the threat of disease. So go and have a great time. Just remember if you ever feel sickness from the heat it might be wise to retire indoors and do not let yourself become the prey of mosquitoes.
ReplyDeleteBeing a travel agent in the year 1915 must have been extremely difficult. When literature is produced like that of Woodruff, convincing people to explore the tropics is a very hard sell. Woodruff claims that everything must remain in its own comfortable zone in order to survive. White people must take extreme precaution from the sun by wearing dark clothing in order to prevent harmful sun rays from touching skin, and must constantly be aware of the prevalent disease surrounding them. Woodruff is very adamant about preservation of the White race and although not to the extent of the Nazi party with violence, the word Aryan is used many times throughout his work. He warns of darkening skin that would transform a middle class White Anglo Saxon into what he refers to as "lower types," or darker skinned individuals of India or Africa. What I found most interesting about Woodruff's work was the discussion of Seattle and how due to its rainy, cloudy weather conditions, it would make for an excellent place to house soldiers that have been injured in the Philippines. If Woodruff's concept of an ideal environment is that of Seattle's it would be a sad state of affairs for the White race. Overall, a travel agent would not distribute Woodruff's work when trying to convince their clients to visit the tropics.
ReplyDeleteAt the opposite end of the spectrum is Blakeslee's description of the Panamanian tropics. The first line of the article says it all; "White men may live in safety in the deadliest regions of the tropics- this is the greatest lesson of Panama." At the time, reading this must have comforted many people in the United States and sparked interest in traveling to the tropics, specifically Panama. According to Blakeslee, disease is managed and sanitation is a priority, although not through governments but through businesses which is quite interesting. He also claims that sanitation movements in the Philippines have attracted people from all over the Orient to study the process of good sanitation and the methods used to accomplish such a daunting goal.
Ultimately, excluding the information that we now know in 2011, the tropics are a safe place for the White race to survive. Just like many other parts of the world, for example the tundra, the tropics have a set of guidelines that must be followed for successful survival. Just like the freezing tundra, tough conditions exist in the tropics but if precautions are taken and good sanitary decisions are made, they can be life-changing. Woodruff's analysis is a little intense compared to the actual state of affairs in the tropics. As a travel agent, I would have no problem handing out Blakeslee's work to clients in order to reassure them that the tropic are without a doubt suitable for not only survival, but for a great exploration of beautiful new areas of the world.
I definitely thought long and hard before recommending that you travel to the tropics after reading Woodruff's description of life for white men in the Philippines. I also thought about the many thousands of deaths that occurred during the building the Panama Canal, largely due to malaria and yellow fever to which white men appear particularly vulnerable. You fall squarely in the endangered group identified by Woodruff. As a surgeon for the U.S. Army, I have to assume Woodruff knows what he's talking about when he predicts that blondes who travel to warmer climates are actually "being killed off" through a process of natural selection. According to Woodruff, it’s very difficult for people such as yourself to "till the soil and expose" yourself to different climates without danger of perishing. Woodruff paints a bleak picture of life in the tropics for white people - they must wear dark clothes, live in dark houses, avoid the sun. Even a white person’s hair puts him at risk because it is "not profuse and black." I worried that if you traveled to the tropics, you would have to spend much of the day indoors and may suffer from memory loss, loss of musculature due to lack of exercise, and chronic indigestion. You might have to rely on coolie labor because you would be unable to do anything for yourself, which might cause you further health problems.
ReplyDeleteBut Woodruff wrote his report in 1905, and I think he underestimated the ability of the white man to conquer nature and use its riches for his own prosperity. Woodruff didn't believe the US would be able to tackle the problem of the white man's illness in the tropics and only hoped that whites could provide natives with "that security of life . . . which they cannot attain by their own unaided efforts." But now it's 1915, and according to Mr. Blakeslee, the skill and money of Americans have conquered the tropics and opened them up for exploitation by those of us in the more thickly populated US and Europe. The tropics have been made free of yellow fever and malaria through the white man's scientific ingenuity. Pneumonia, bubonic plague and cholera have been suppressed through American engineering and the building of new water and drainage systems and improved sanitation. Even the Amazon, the most fertile area in the world, is now available for white people to cultivate. Major US companies, like United Fruit, have made the area safe and comfortable for Americans through the building of hospitals and permanent sanitary equipment, and proven that American business can operate safely in areas formerly thought to be too unhealthy. Blakeslee contends that Americans have shown that even the "pest holes of the tropics can be made safe and healthy" and have opened "up the resources of some of the most extensive and richest parts of the earth's surface" for cultivation. I therefore urge you to go to the tropics and see for yourself. You should see what opportunities await you there. You should look forward to being part of this new "great white civilization" in the tropics.
As your travel-agent it is my duty to inform you of my honest opinion of the two pieces of writing you have read prior to your decision to go on a vacation. The first one I will discuss with you is the excerpt from the book by Woodruff. I believe that this is not very good information to use and should not be held in high regard. Woodruff even begins with a very ethnocentric point of view, one that if you believe in also, should not be spoken of in the tropics. His factual evidence seems to be lacking, and it is common for him to say things along the lines of "The general trend of thought" and "it is quite evident" without presenting any supporting data. As a respected travel agent, I try to only share with you information that is considered academic and educational when trying to make such a big decision.
ReplyDeleteNow the Blakeslee piece may be a little disconcerting, showing just how many people have died from tropical diseases such as malaria and yellow fever in Panama and Havana, but the point of his article is not to persuade you to never visit, but to show you how the fight against disease has developed.
Therefore it is my recommendation that you do visit the tropics, but you adequately prepare for the dangers you may potentially face there. Be ready to deal with a hot sun and a biting mosquito population. Just remember to relax
After reading both articles, I completely agree with Catherine that Blakeslee's points hold much more factual weight. Because of this, if I were a travel agent in 1915, I would advise my clients to go ahead with the trip but to take caution so as to avoid the diseases that could still potentially exist in the tropics. Blakeslee's article presents facts and still acknowledges that there are problems with tropical disease that persist in other places in South and Central America, but which have essentially been eradicated in the Panama Canal Zone. He says in the first line of his article, "White men may live in safety in the deadliest regions of the tropics-this is the great lesson of Panama." He continues by saying, "If sufficient care is taken and enough skill and money are expended men from a temperate climate may work in the tropics for years together with little more risk to health than at home." Blakeslee's account of the sanitation efforts in the Panama Canal Zone are much more reasonable than the Aryan preservationist literature that Woodruff is propagating in his article. It seems to me that much of Woodruff's article is driven by fear and ignorance about the tropics, and that instead of actually looking into the improvements that have been made to curb the spread of disease he just focuses on the "mixing of bloods", which he so clearly opposes, and uses that as an excuse to not explore the tropics. Woodruff's article might have had a major impact on people who were fearful about the unknowns of the tropics, but should not be used when attempting to make an informed and factually based decision about whether or not to go to the tropics.
ReplyDeleteAs a travel agent in 1915, I would probably highlight the pros and cons for traveling to Panama. I would suggest that if you were looking for an "exotic" adventure in a foreign land very different than our own culture, Panama is a good choice. As Blakeslee stated in his article, modern scientific and sanitary methods have “conquered the tropics.” In continuing in the theme of American imperialism, Blakeslee seems to be under the impression that just as we beat out the French in creating the Panama Canal and became a dominating force in the Philippines, we too have conquered the mosquitoes of Panama. There is simply nothing that the United States can't conquer! As Blakeslee stated, “even health in the tropics is a purchasable commodity,” because—of course as capitalists—we want to make money off of everything. Surgeon General Gorgas seems certain that the most feared diseases of Panama have been eradicated, and therefore it is safe for all white men to venture into the wild of Panama.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reason many didn't travel to Panama before was out of the fears that Woodruff's article may have created, however, I can't help but be skeptical of a number of his points. As much as I may have not known this if it was actually 1915, if you are blond, you will not be turned into a "lower type" just by going to the tropics. Woodruff has nearly zero evidence to back that theory up, except his strange take on the survival of the fittest. If I were, however, to believe Woodruff's perspective, I still might recommend you go to Panama, but take the precautions that he recommends. Many of the horror stories told in Woodruff's article are of the military, who must remain in Panama for two years, with only a month of vacation per year. Your trip would probably be less than two weeks, and permanently damaging effects are unlikely. You would also, presumably, not be doing any manual labor and therefore wouldn't be at risk of overexerting yourself. Also, I believe it says something that Blakeslee's article was published 10 years later than Woodruff's, and therefore might have more a valid and relevant perspective.
You are at the cusp of a very exciting time for Americans: You have the opportunity to go somewhere new, different, and exciting and you should seize this moment whole-heartedly. Traveling to the canal is quite cheap, efficient, and fast by ship and I suggest that you go to the Panama Canal Zone. I am glad you have read both Woodruff's "The Effects of Tropical Light on White Men" and Blakeslee's "The Future of the Panama Canal" because they each make important insights into the experience you may have in the tropics.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Woodruff is a medical doctor and uses sufficient medical research in his account of the Panama Canal Zone, you must recognize that there are several reasons why you should not completely trust his judgement. First, he has likely not gone to the Panama Canal Zone because he recommends against it and because many scientists do not collect real data to support their claims. His messaging is biased, therefore, because he is making judgements of unproved pseudo-scientific data. Secondly, Woodruff wrote this analysis in 1905, which is when work was just beginning on the Panama Canal Zone. As it is 1915, significant progress has been made in the Zone as to the knowledge of the environment and the understanding of the natives. Therefore, you are better suited to trust the judgements of Blakeslee, who writes his analysis of the tropics in 1915. I would advise you not to heed the "advice" of Woodruff because it is not based on scientific fact, but rather on outdated and biased judgements of false claims. For example, I believe that you can wear whatever clothes you would like, but being a tropical climate with mosquitoes, I suggest you bring long, but lightweight, pants and shirts.
Blakeslee's report is more current and more accurate than Woodruff, so bring his book along with you on your trip. His answer to the question "Can white people live here even temporarily and make it subservient to civilization?" (198) is "yes." He describes how American sanitation standards have been implemented in Panama and that we have won "victory over the tropics" (200) because we can now safely travel and spend considerable time there. You should be confident that you will have a safe and healthy stay in Panama and that your life expectancy will not be shortened because of it! To reiterate Blakeslee's point: Panama "has robbed the tropics of its terror; it has made possible healthy and efficient life within its borders' it has given the key to unlock the remaining treasure stores of the earth" (201). Once again, as your travel agent, I recommend that you go to Panama to experience the richness of the diversity of life there and enjoy some quality vacation time!
The contradictory nature of the two works is surprising, but I think the biggest thing to take note of is the time difference between these two articles. A lot of science and research has occurred in the past 10 years and the risk of not returning home due to contracting an illness that inherently resides in the tropics is much diminished. In 1905 the health issues discussed in Blakeslee’s article, such as the discovery that mosquitoes transmit the dominant diseases, had not been discovered and many people were dying of Yellow Fever and Malaria. As we discussed in class a big change in this time period was the change from miasmatic thinking to vector germ theory. This involved the scientific realization of where disease come from and includes a hope that the disease can then be studied and eliminated to the best of humans’ ability. By 1915 the problems of yellow fever and malaria, some of the great concerns in Woodruff’s article, have been greatly decreased by the works of Gorges in Cuba.
ReplyDeleteIn 1905 Woodruff writes, "Therein lies our hope in America. If we can find out the factors of the climate that are destroying us, we may be able, by avoiding them, to survive many generations, like the well-protected nobility of Europe.” I think this is important to consider. First he uses the word hope. He is optimistic for the future and for the blonde American race because he has identified the solution for the time – avoidance. As the next decade continues and more science is conducted I think he would accept the new studies and improvements as a new solution and be more positive. He states that one of the conditions for prosperity of the American race is identifying the problem. That is accomplished in the decade to follow and beyond that the problem is addressed so avoidance is no longer necessary.
I would highly recommend that you take a trip to Panama. It is a sight unlike any in the United States and an engineering marvel. You will return home with great stories and memories that will last a lifetime.
As your travel agent: I don’t have any personal scientific knowledge that I can offer on whether the Panama Canal is truly safe. However, after reading several “credible” pieces of information about the Canal and the impacts of tropical weather on white individuals, I do think that I can help you reach an informed decision. Most importantly, the Panama Canal is a feat of engineering ingenuity that simply must be seen by affluent Americans in this time period. According to Blakeslee the threats of many diseases in the tropics, such as yellow fever, have been exterminated because of scientific progress by Americans. He claims that “the sanitary conquest of the tropics…has been practically accomplished in the last seventeen years.” Extermination measures taken against mosquitoes (the vectors of many diseases) and proper housing protection should help to combat against any diseases. Still, after reading Woodruff's piece, I would be very cautious as you are a Caucasian male and being in Panama will take you out of your natural habitat. You will likely not be able to work very hard in the heat and you should perhaps hire a native to assist you in your physical activities. Staying in the tropics for too long seems to cause premature declines in health as displayed by the way in which military veterans that were based in the tropics live out the remainder of their days. It’s a really good thing that you’re not a blonde, because then you would likely have even more health issues! It seems as though the Panama Canal has been made quite safe but many people such as Woodruff still have concerns about the impacts of the tropics on white individuals. Take a short trip (perhaps a month or two) to the tropics to witness the wonder of American power through a tour of the Canal but I would make sure to stay indoors and relax. Do not strain yourself too hard and make sure to have a fun trip!
ReplyDeletePersonal note: It seems that this age was a difficult one to be a travel agent. There was a lot of prejudice against other races and there was a very poor understanding of evolution and genetics as displayed by the writings of Woodruff. The Woodruff piece in particular was an interesting read because it was so pro-white and even used the term Aryan. It comes off as nationalistic and fairly racist.
As a travel agent during this time, I would still be a little worried about recommending Panama as a place to reside for vacation. Woodruff's book demonstrates all the evils of the area that are believed to be there during this era. Although it was written in 1905, ten years prior than this date, 1915, many of the same prejudices and worries are still in circulation. Light is a deadly inconvenience in the Woodruff piece, describing how the certain clothing, hats and housing recommendations to help avoid the sunlight. Also most people in Panama at this time would take a midday siesta to escape the sun. The impact of the tropics on whites was a huge concern that they did not fully grasp at the time which lead to many of this racist accusations. Blakeslee, on the other hand, is writing in 1915 with a voice of American exceptionalism. Diseases are accused of being the main source of death among whites. This is solved by the Americans who have learned how to stop the spread of yellow fever and malaria by the destruction and protection against mosquitoes. The higher sanitation that was developed in this area greatly helped this. Blakeslee keeps discussing about "victories" by the Americans and how they have solved disease issues in the Tropics. Seeing the differences in the Woodruff to Blakeslee pieces, I would recommend the trip taker to travel to Panama because of the improvements that have been showed by comparing both literature. I would advise the trip taker to stay inside as much as possible. Make sure the area you stay is American developed and has a good sanitation system.
ReplyDeleteAs a travel agent, I am a fervent supporter of new experiences and opportunities, and without question would encourage any curious person to go explore this region of the world. However, I’m not sure that your choice of sources, namely the article by Blakeslee and the book by Woodruff, can truly prepare you for your time in the tropics.
ReplyDeleteI cannot deny that both authors thoroughly consider the effects that tropical disease could have on Americans. Woodruff is highly skeptical of any American encounter with the tropics, pinpointing the threats of disease and intense heat and sun to be sure causes of sickness in these regions. Although I agree with the importance he places on good skin protection, I cannot find any valid argument within his discourse that could be used to dissuade you from exploring this fascinating area of the world. Woodruff writes under the medieval opinion that “every living thing must remain in its zone to survive permanently, and that if it is taken out of its zone it must be surrounded by artificial conditions which approximate its natural environment.” (321) This seems very naïve, and (as Rachel mentioned) strongly suggests that he still holds opinion that the natives of this region are somehow biologically different than white Americans. I urge you not to be persuaded by his discourse!
Blakeslee, on the other hand, uses more concrete examples of actual sanitation measures that have been placed into effect in the tropical regions to argue that the tropics are now safe for the American traveler. However, I cannot disregard the blatant imperial nature of his rhetoric. Regarding Panama, he states, “By heroic methods malaria was controlled” (194) and argues, “Health even in the tropics is a purchasable commodity.” (196) While we certainly have made great strides in disease control and prevention, these diseases have not been totally eradicated, and therefore it is still necessary to use precaution when traveling to these areas.
Both of these authors have worked to characterize the physical obstacles for Americans in Panama, but neither has attempted to emphasize the social issues that Americans may face in Panama. Several questions must be asked before travel to this region. For example, how are Americans viewed in Panama? Are the native Panamanians receptive to a burgeoning American tourist industry? And if so, are there resort locations that exist which will cater to the American lifestyle? If not, you may want to prepare for your trip by immersing yourself in the language and culture of the Panamanian people. I’m not convinced that Panama has yet emerged as a “holiday” destination for American tourists; rather, I would consider your adventure to be one of cultural experience. I am eager and excited to hear all about your journey, and I hope that you will come back from your visit better educated and informed than Blakeslee and Woodruff.
As a travel agent in 1915, I would advise my client that a journey to the tropics pose the possibility to “open up the resources of some of the most extensive and richest parts of the earth’s surface.” In addition to these riches, the tropics have also become considerably safer due to the public health initiatives, both with yellow fever and modern sanitation. The Panama Canal Zone has become “scarcely more dangerous…than it is to stay at home.” The United States has strived to make “large sections of the Central American and the Caribbean lowlands…sanitary.” By making large sections sanitary, the United States has “unlock[ed] the remaining treasure stores of the earth.” For those who say Panama is not a safe place for Americans to travel, I would respond to them by stating that any place is not safe for Americans to travel. No matter where we travel, there is always some risk of infection from alien viruses or diseases, allergies to new and different environments, sickness due to food, et cetera. The Panama Canal Zone is not particularly more dangerous than any other location my client may wish to travel and it is proven that “only young men should go there…[and] the best age is from twenty to thirty or thirty-five”.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, many of these reports we are receiving about the Panama Canal Zone are coming from people who have not necessarily been to the area. They are merely writing about a location of which they do not know of extensively. I would advise my client that if he decides to go to the Panama Canal Zone, he should follow the “Rules for White Men in the Tropics” for it outlines a handbook of how to thrive in the tropics.
Because of these reasons, I would advise my client to go to Panama. However, I would also urge him to be cautious, for any foreign land poses possible unknown dangers.
Since the U.S. began its mission in the Panama Canal Zone, great improvements have been made for public health. Better infrastructure and public sanitation make it a more pleasant destination for one accustomed to American standards of living. In addition, the recent discovery of the vector theory renders yellow fever and malaria much more manageable afflictions. Dr. Gorgas, who instituted the public health policies that have led to the gains against mosquito-born diseases, is confident that the Tropics now pose no great danger to American visitors. True, it may not be a risk-free voyage, but the advancements have been so great that one is almost as likely to contract an infectious disease in Central America as in a large American city. With risk comes adventure, so I would recommend that my client seize the opportunity to see a new, foreign environment (taking all necessary precautions, of course).
ReplyDeleteAn excellent question sir, you have certainly come to the right agency for answers! Two informative bits of reading, which you may have heard of, have recently come out on the topic. Overall, I am inclined, by Woodruff’s book to advise you not to visit the tropics for a family holiday, as the amount of light may prove absolutely devastating to your blonde wife. Given that Woodruff says too much light can be fatal to blonds, lead to neurosis, and infant mortality—I think you will agree that it would be best not expose your delicate wife to all that, especially before she can have a child. While it is true that great leaps and bounds have been made in the field of sanitation and insect control, and very promising things are being done to eradicate yellow fever as Blakeslee described in his article, it think it would be best to wait until the light of civilization as had time to radiate out in the area further before taking her with you for a visit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you would like to go for a bit of leisurely exploration yourself, I don’t think that a week in the tropics would do you much harm. It would hardly be long enough for you to lose your sense to the climate there. Duration aside, I think your brunette hair indicates that you would do well there—for certainly it must mean that you have some ancestry from around the Mediterranean. You’ve probably inherited some adaptations for dealing with the Mediterranean climate that would translate quite well to survival in the tropics. That’s my professional opinion—listen to the scientists.
If I was a travel agent in 1915, I would also give my client the pros and cons of vacationing in Panama, but to explore more sources before they decide. Both readings gave information about the Panama Zone but Blakeslee has given specific examples of why this area is safe for the white man to live in, unlike Woodruff who does not give concrete evidence. Blakeslee discussed the reason Panama was unsafe to live was due to the diseases found there, such as yellow fever. As discussed in class, American sanitation measures have “conquered” this disease through the use of mosquito netting, use of oil on water, etc. These measures have decreased the amount of people getting sick from yellow fever therefore it was much safer to go Panama. On the other hand, Woodruff discussed the Panama Zone as an enemy who Americans have to hide from or “escape” from. His reasoning that Panama was so dangerous was due to the amount of light the white man would be exposed to. Woodruff wrote about certain clothes or dimensions of houses that Americans would need to live there. I would tell my client to be careful and take every precaution necessary but to have a good time!
ReplyDelete