Tuesday, November 8, 2011
AS.100.369: Ecocide in Vietnam?
Having read this week's texts and comparing them to texts from the Panama Canal Zone, Philippines occupation, and the early Cold War, how have attitudes changed among some American scientists towards the uses of military power, the imperative of technological solutions, and the relationship of human beings with nature? Let's speculate on what might have been driving these changes. Is the use of the term "ecocide" itself significant of a broader transformation in American environmental consciousness by the end of the 1960s and early 1970s?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The change in the language used by American scientists in response to the use of herbicides and tear gas by the military is reflective of their change in ideologies. The phrase "ecocide" has a much different and much more negative ring to it than the language of conquest and manifest destiny used in earlier articles regarding the Philippines and Panama. The articles we read this week, especially the report from the AAAS, didn't see nature as something that should be conquered, but rather urged that we need to repair the damage we have inflicted on nature immediately before we make it worse. The AAAS article emphasizes the destruction of crops and deforestation, and how we seriously misunderstood the consequences of using herbicides in Vietnam. Rather than encouraging readers to continue invading foreign lands in the name of conquest and development like the articles about the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone, this article shows that we had to learn the hard way that we had gone too far. The Johnstone article emphasizes the impact the herbicide program had on how the Vietnamese thought of us, and how our international reputation has been effected. This is a change from the articles about the Philippines and Panama because we are no longer claiming that advanced and civilized America knows what is best for underdeveloped nations--instead it cautions us against making a decision based on immediate national interest, and rather asks us to think ahead to the impact we can have on the environment and on international politics in the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amanda's point acknowledging how the change in tone concerning the environment reflects a change in ideologies. The government's reaction to the AAAS Study highlighting the ecological impacts of herbicides was starkly different than their reaction to the scientific warnings of DDT's ecological and health effects. The study notes that "the AAAS study had been a major factor spurring the White House announcement" to "initiate a program for an orderly, yet rapid, phase-out of the herbicide operations." We see scientists referring to the Vietnamese in a much more humane manner than scientists did the Panamanians or Filipinos. In AAAS, scientists are alarmed when discovering the negative psychological impacts herbicide use has on Vietnamese farmers. Scientists do not see Vietnamese as a people to conquer. Specifically, this seems to be the first renderings of a large scientific movement towards ecological conservation and the use of scientists as monitors/regulators of American military impact rather than the American militaries' tools to "substantiate" their actions. We see this mounting concern for conservation in the AAAS report. It is interesting that scientists are most concerned with the "lack of new plant life" caused by the spraying of herbicides. AAAS is also speculative of Army reports exemplifying scientific detachment from the military.
ReplyDeleteThe term "ecocide" is incredibly powerful. I relate this term to genocide, but of the environment, not a race. Post WWII foreign relations is incredibly important. Before WWII, formal conquests and imperialism, such as the Philippines and Panama, were considered part of foreign relations. However, after war genocides in WWII, there was definitely a backtracking on the use of outward, authoritarian power. Similarly, after coming so close to nuclear warfare in during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think politicians were much more weary of allegations of "environmental destruction." Post-WWII was a different political playing field where victims of war, even in "imperialistic" countries, were humanized and differentiated from the robotic military base of the enemy. This differentiation we see in both reports detailing how much of the food base destroyed has been the civilian's food base, not the Vietnamese military's.
I think the shift in attitude is a result of the change of the nature of enemy. In the early American colonial explorations such as the Panama Canal Zone nature, notthe indigenous population was the enemy. In all of the Caribbean explorations the indigenous people actually worked to the American imperialist’s advantage because the government was corrupt and so the local population was easily controllable and could be used as a cheap source of labor. The main obstacle came from the need to tame the tropics so the Americans could control the land. In the Panama Canal Zone, mosquito-borne diseases were a major concern and once those were tamed the Americans had won.
ReplyDeleteIn Vietnam the enemy was not directly the nature, but rather the Vietnamese people as they represented the spread of communist ideology. The Vietnamese army was the intended target and the Americans were finding that destruction and control of the environment did not lead to destruction and control of their military. As the Johnstone article states, deforestation was done for the purpose of observing the Vietnamese, but once the area was defoliated, the Vietnamese would just be forced to find another path. It became clear that little good was being done and so the Americans began to focus on questioning the tactic and what the ecological and human costs were.
The rise of science and media also led to this speculation. Scientific agencies were able to send representatives to conduct separate studies and report the information back to the American public. In 1898, when the Americans went to the Philippines, and sent back the survey of the land written by the Bureau of Insular Affairs no one was able to speculate if the methods employed by the government were right or wrong because the authors were the only Americans with access the area. Also the novelty of expansion and conquering was much more exciting in 1898. By the 1970s most people reading these articles had lived through WWII and possibly WWI and may not have been as enthusiastic about the idea of impending warfare.
I completely agree with Catherine and Amanda. It seems that, by the late 1960s and early 1970s, American ideology had shifted. From both the AAAS article and the Johnstone article, we can see a marked change in the way people were thinking about the effects of total warfare. These articles present far greater concern for the welfare of the Vietnamese people and environment than the earlier articles we read about the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone. Catherine mentioned the profound psychological effects that the crop destruction programs had on Vietnamese farmers. Perhaps the reason for this heightened concern is that the Vietnam War was a defensive war rather than a war for conquest. A fundamental reason for the war was to protect the South Vietnamese from Communist control. Unfortunately, the US did not understand the negative implications of Ho Chi Mihn’s regime, and believed that they were doing a service to the Vietnamese people. In this spirit of service, it only makes sense that Americans would want to protect them, not destroy their livelihood.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that Americans realized that the Vietnam War had huge implications for the environment in general. Environmental discourses, like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, protrayed the environment as a shared entity. Americans were beginning to understand that destroying one environment could trickle down to hurt the environment in continental America. The AAAS article noted that in the Vietnam Mangrove Forests, “Virtually the entire plant community is killed outright by a single spraying, leaving a “weird and desolate” scene of total annhilation.” Craig Johnstone wrote, “The techniques used in South Vietnam to destroy large quantities of crops can be used by other nations on almost any scale, including the systematic destruction of a nation’s food production capacity.” The biological weapons being used during the Vietnam War could be easily reproduced by other countries and used against the United States. For America, the “breadbasket” of the world, the implication of the total annhilation of plant crops was a terrifying possibility.
I agree with both Amanda and Catherine that the tone of these scientific articles reflects a different ideological understanding of the American place in the environment and the role the the military and science itself has played in destroying nature. I find it interesting, however, that in spite of the general attitude towards the destruction of nature shifting towards a more preservationist stance, the action of the military in its style of warfare did not change. In Johnstone's article, he highlights a reason why this might have been the case: "A large number of senators, however, consider that the [Geneva] protocol prohibits the use of both (tear gas and herbicides), and feel that the Administration understanding dilutes the significance of US ratification."
ReplyDeleteThe idea that US senators and other government officials would not want to take steps to reform biological and chemical warfare says a lot about how much they valued the technological advances that the United States had achieved and could wield over other nations, and how little regard they had for the environment and for the people that were being directly affected by the use of these wartime strategies. Johnstone says, "A desire on the part of the United States to keep options open for the use of tear gas and herbicides implies that these weapons will be more useful to the United States than to any potential enemy in future wars." This statement once again highlights that military prowess and eventual victory were the most important things to the United States at this time, and that the advancements made by science to understand the harmful effects of the chemicals that were being used held very little weight for the military.
The widespread recognition of the harms of these tactics across the scientific community and the use of words like "ecocide" to describe them, really highlights the shift in opinion and a change in understanding of what types of tactics were effective and which were immoral. In the end though, how much change did these opinions bring about? The American military still used these tactics in the Vietnam War and other wars as well, and inflicted an irreparable amount of damage.
Previous readings have instilled the idea of conquering the tropics and gaining complete control over whatever environment U.S. imperial efforts encountered next. I feel that this ideology initially explained use of herbicides in Vietnam, though with the rationalization that rebuilding would only be possible in the midst of destruction. The AAAS did an adequate job explaining the environmental impact of herbicide use. When discussing political reaction to these findings, I agree with the point made by Scoville and McCarthy on page two, that if the implications of herbicide use are so horrible, why are troops allowed to use the remaining stockpiles, even if in restricted areas? At this point, my reading of the article became more skeptical. First, I questioned why the government decided to end this decade long operation. Was it because long-term environmental effects were becoming more visible to the public or was this consciousness of the consequences sincere?
ReplyDeleteThe other main thing I noticed was that when discussing adverse health effects, the article states that there is no definite evidence. This made me wonder if research done in this area was less of a priority due to the racialized nature of the war. The causality between herbicide use and environmental destruction appeared more obvious. In the case of birth defects and health implications, the article recognizes the correlation with herbicide use, but offers the idea that “other factors could account for the trends”.
There was evidently much more of a concern for the environment in Vietnam, than there was in the Panama Canal Zone and the Philippines. I believe this is due to the different circumstances of U.S. occupation in these regions. In Vietnam, Americans were there to engage in warfare, whereas they sought natural resources in Panama and the Philippines. Since their goal was to ferociously extract these natural resources from the latter two regions, there was clearly going to be a lot more environmental exploitation. In fact, the whole purpose of U.S. presence in these areas was to capitalize on the environment. In Vietnam, Americans sought to eradicate communism through warfare, rather than to exploit this territory’s raw materials. However, warfare soon came to embody an attack on nature. Rather quickly though, Americans realized the damage they precipitated.
ReplyDeleteYet, at the same time that these environmental ramifications are acknowledged, these articles fail to further consider the negative health effects of these herbicides. The authors merely suggest that this could be a possibility, but then immediately dismiss it. In my opinion, I think the authors are simply catering to what their readership wants to hear. Health hazards are much more frightening than forest damage, since this is a ramification that noticeably affects oneself. Human beings are evolutionary designed to look out for their own interests in order to survive, and thus anything that jeopardizes this survival is viewed as alarming. We have a tendency to brush these hazards under the rug, and to pretend that they don’t exist. I found it interesting though, that the Vietnamese were greatly concerned with these health effects, and that Americans chose to focus more on the military benefits of the herbicides.
As for the term “ecocide,” I think it signifies the hypocrisy that Americans were more environmentally conscious at home, but not abroad. In thinking this way, Americans committed a kind of suicide (rephrased as “ecocide”), because with this lack of concern abroad, Americans destroyed their own health in Vietnam by refusing to acknowledge the health risks in spraying these toxic herbicides.
After learning about the U.S. military’s extreme destructive measures towards Vietnam’s environment, I thought it particularly interesting to find that the United States proposed a provision of the Geneva Protocol in 1925 while reading through this week’s articles,. The provision claimed that “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world,” and then proposed to extend prohibiting chemical and biological warfare (Johnstone 712). It is ironic that we considered the ban of chemical warfare to be a civilized judgment, and 40 years later, used similar methods in efforts to civilize a population on the brink of communist takeover. Clearly, something does not add up.
ReplyDeleteTo build upon Hannah’s claim that increased concern over our actions in Vietnam were related to the circumstances of U.S. occupation, I think that Americans’ new sense of ecological awareness during the Vietnam War was due in part to the nature of the war itself. During World War II, U.S. involvement was sparked by the attack on Pearl Harbor, giving the war a reactionary sentiment in the minds of many Americans. Ho Chi Mihn and the NLF, however, did not attack Americans on American soil, so it was much easier to question our involvement in Vietnam. The American public viewed the U.S. military’s use of DDT to control the environment of Pacific islands during WWII as rational and even laudable because it was a necessary measure towards protecting the lives of Americans (or at least appeared to be). But in Vietnam, our motives were much more disputed, so it became harder to view the military’s use of Agent Orange and firebombs to destroy forests as positive or even necessary measures. Moreover, our ultimate failure in Vietnam further degraded the credibility of U.S. military actions.
The use of the term "ecocide" definitely shows a changing attitude towards the use of technological solutions and man's relationship with nature. During the occupation of the Philippines and the Panama Canal, Americans gradually realized that they were able to take full control over their foreign possessions once they could control the environment as well. They succeeded in the Philippines and the Panama Canal because they were able to eradicate many of the deadly diseases and clear the swamps for their own benefits. These technological advances only bolstered the feeling of American exceptionalism.
ReplyDeleteBy the time World War II and the the beginning of the Cold War came around, Americans were capable of completely altering nature for their own benefit. They did not think about their consequences because, in the case of World War II, their technology was the reason they won. For example, nuclear testing spewed radiation everywhere, but it was inconsequential to many Americans, as it showcased the immense power that America had.
In Vietnam, however, the United States went straight into a war that they would never be able to win. Many citizens viewed this war extremely negatively, and with the war itself came the military practices. Instead of seeing the chemicals as tools that helped the Americans win, they were seen as poisons that not only escalated the war, but infiltrated the American soldiers as well. It took America's first military loss to show them that they could not control everything, including nature. With that loss came a sort of environmental consciousness, where some Americans finally realized that their actions had consequences. While previous readings may have talked about how Americans could cure yellow fever and build dams, this reading focused on the actual detrimental effects of the military's actions.
A key distinction between this week’s texts and the texts from the Panama Canal Zone, Philippine occupation, and the early Cold War is the difference in the attitude toward nature. American scientists are no longer advocating for the use of military power and technological solutions to dominate nature. In this week’s texts, the change in scientists’ beliefs is evident because they are beginning to recognize the negative effects they are causing to the environment and as well as the health problems that are occurring due to the advance of technology. In Ecocide and the Geneva Protocol, Johnson poses the rhetorical question, “Does the United States wish to be identified with a program which can so drastically affect environmental balances where it is used?” Johnson then continues to discuss the detrimental environmental and health problems that the United States government has caused in Vietnam. Johnson is tugging at the heartstrings of the American public; he is well aware that the American public will disapprove at the method in which the United States army acted with the use chemicals.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1960’s and 1970’s the American public was beginning to be more environmentally minded and recognize the impact of their actions; this was partially due to the media influence and flow of information through scientific journals and books, such as Silent Spring. “Ecocide” means the willful destruction of nature, through this destruction of nature; the United States was also, in a sense, destroying itself. The herbicides that the United States used to deliberately kill the Vietnamese vegetation also had various health effects on the soldiers and anyone else who came into repeated direct contact with the chemicals. The term “ecocide” signifies the beginning of a broader transformation in American environmental consciousness. In the 1960’s and 70’s the American public was becoming more environmentally concerned and the scientific authority was no longer attempting to “conquer” environments, instead the scientific community was searching for a way to mitigate the disastrous effects of herbicides on the environment and prevent something similar from occurring again.
Boffey’s description of the AAAS study’s findings shows a sea change in the scientific views about nature. Ecology as a discipline had progressed significantly by the time of these writings, so that concepts like the importance of the mangrove ecosystem are understood. Previously, there was an assumption by scientists that nature was in balance and the withdrawal of human intervention would restore nature to its previous state. In Vietnam, scientists are beginning to learn that humans can permanently alter the succession of an ecosystem, realizing “Herbicide attack appears to prevent the reestablishment of any new plant community.” Human impact can be in some sense irreversible. For all these discoveries, the AAAS stops short of a full indictment of the herbicide campaigns. In response to the data showing increases in birth defects where Agent Orange was used, the AAAS team wavers, saying “many other factors could account for the trends.”
ReplyDeleteJohnstone critiques the U.S. government and military for their use of herbicides in Vietnam. His account shows how the post-war dominance of the U.S. gives rise to a sort of “American exemptionalism.” As the dominant Western power, the U.S. believes it can pick and choose from the Geneva Conventions to what suits the national interest. The Nixon administration only will accept the Geneva Conventions if “it does not prohibit the use in war of riot-control agents [tear gas] and chemical herbicides.”
Both Boffey and Johnstone show the wider development of a new environmental consciousness in the United States. Both articles were published in 1971, almost a decade after the publication of Silent Spring (1962) and the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963. The ethical landscape is completely transformed from that surrounding the military occupation of the Philippines at the turn of the century.
I think one of the primary differences between the Panama Canal Construction, World War II, and the Vietnam War is that the in the former two the government had the unquestioning trust of the public. The Panama Canal was seen as a technological triumph, a symbol of US preponderance in the Western Hemisphere, and during WWII the country came together after the attacks on Pearl Harbor in unprecedented support. However, at the time of the Vietnam conflict, there began to be a division of opinion within the American Public.
ReplyDeleteAnti-war demonstrations became public, and many began to condemn the idea of supporting dictatorships for the sole purpose of preventing communism. This belief that the government was engaging in covert, or underhanded actions caused the public to question every aspect of the war, including the use of herbicides. The unpopularity of the conflict lead to an idea that the government was a separate entity from the people, and many began to believe that it did not always have the publics best interest in mind. From this doubt, and with the addition of television footage of the violent destruction, the term ecocide was born.
There were several factors that likely influenced the attitudes of Americans towards their environments. First, of all it seems that Americans have always been willing to subdue the environments that they’ve inhabited during wartime but the extent that they were able to do so dramatically increased during this era. Even during WWII, Americans had no problem using DDT hand-bombs and those sorts of devices because those were the means most advantageous tools to accomplish their goal of achieving victory. Also, Americans definitely saw themselves at war with their environment in the Philippines/Panama in the early 1900s and the Pacific in WWII.
ReplyDeleteThese attitudes existed before the Vietnam War.
Americans found a use for Agent Orange when the Vietnam insurgency began to use the jungle as a tool in their warfare. Instead of adapting to this type of warfare, Americans were willing to use the easier (and obviously more environmentally detrimental) method of just destroying the jungle than overhauling their techniques of warfare. Since the environment was a tool of the Vietnamese, it became the enemy as well in a very real way. Even when the results clearly displayed the very harmful and long-lasting impacts of herbicidal warfare, the U.S. government instated a phase-out program instead of totally ending the practice. Are we drug addicts looking to recover? Americans simply did not want to admit that the total destruction of the environment was not working in the war. Additionally, the fact that America didn’t want to see the Geneva Protocol as applying to their use of chemicals in the Vietnam War is rather disturbing, especially when one considers the impacts of the herbicides on local Vietnamese farmers.
Like everyone has mentioned, I feel that attitudes have certainly changed. I believe that the main reason why the attitudes have changed was because of the change in time periods. For example, when the Americans conquered the Panama Canal Zone’s environment, it was evident from the readings (especially Woodruff’s) that there were areas in which science and technology have not yet developed, such as having solid, concrete, and factual evidence. With that being said, there could have been few opportunities to explore the negatives of science and technology. But when we get to the early Cold War, there were enormous advances in science and technology. Man was now capable of nuclear fusion and fission, leading to the hydrogen and atomic bombs. I believe that because of the huge scientific advancements, there is also now the capability of scientists and others to explore the negatives – such as more and advanced testing, evidence, and publications. Additionally, I feel like events like the Panama Canal Zone had a solid purpose – to overcome and conquer disease. But later on in history, DDT, pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals become increasingly widespread and widely used. The application of defoliants and herbicide in Vietnam seem to be without purpose too, applied widespread and almost everywhere – Johnstone adds on: “the defoliation of one area merely forces the enemy to change his habits of movement, at most a logistical inconvenience” (Johnstone, 714), thus deemed often ineffective and leading to even more defoliation. He also mentions that the herbicides used for crop destruction was the least effective – “long after food denial ceased to be a serious strategic objective, the crop destruction program continued” (Johnstone, 714). Furthermore, Johnstone emphasized that the damage inflicted on Vietnam affected the noncombatant civilians, not the targeted enemy. All of this could have been due to the fact that it was the easy way out, a short-term solution that turned out to be a long-term problem.
ReplyDeleteAs emphasized by the AAAS, scientists, the military, and the public began to see the negative consequences later on through physical evidence – damage to the environment, forests, and people, and through testing and data. However, I personally think the term “ecocide” was used to tug at the heartstrings of the American public like Rebecca said. Obviously, it is clear that America should stop using the toxic chemicals but for what purpose? Because we’re killing the environment – ecocide? Or is it for future America’s integrity? Johnstone writes, “Does the United States wish to be identified with a program which can so drastically affect environmental balances where it is used?” (Johnstone, 718). It seems to me that yes, America’s actions had drastic and negative consequences on the environment, but it was also a liability, not environmental, issue. The United States would be liable to its actions imposed on the environment as well as the people and even more so, its relations with other countries would be damaged.
I agree with Catherine G. that the language used seems to indicate a radically different attitude to the Vietnamese farmers than the previous attitudes towards the Filipinos and the Japanese, however I think it's important to note that the context the military experiences the Vietnamese farmers in is also very different from the previous two situations. We were at war with the entire nation of Japan, not just one part of it as we were in Vietnam, it's much easier to vilify and entire race and show absolutely no concern for them if not even a fraction of them happen to be the good guys. I think the while the Philippines may be a more accurate analog to the Vietnam situation than Japan because we were fighting against only the insurgency there and the other part of the population were already in concentration camps similar to the strategic hamlets of Vietnam, there is still an important contextual difference in that the military was there trying to conquer and subdue the people into being obedient American subjects rather than trying to fight with them to eradicate a common enemy and then leave. It's harder not to be sensitive to lives and needs of the people who are working with you. I think its a change in military attitude influenced by the different combat context that rubbed off on the investigating biologists rather than the biologists awakening to human concerns first and trying to keep the military in check since I think at the top there was a sympathy and recognition of needing to work with the south Vietnamese and realizing their humanity--I think the role of scientists was more to make sure appropriate actions were taken on the ground.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the AAAS report does mention lack of precautions taken by "military authorities" I'm curious as to what level of authority it is. "Authorities" like the word "scientists" are words so vague that are so general they barely communicate anything.
The article on the Geneva Protocol is much freer and more forthright with it's criticisms and belief in an urgent need to protect the environment what i notice most of all rather than the presence of conviction over chemical warfare use is the absence of concern over weather control which debuted as military tactic at this time. I don't know if this was because it was classified at the time or because it wasn't particularly successful but i wonder in a time forward looking environmental regulation why this was not a major concern.
By the 1960s and 1970s, the vernacular used to describe American policies abroad in regards to the environment changed immensely. As various others have already noted, the change was largely a consequence of shifting ideologies. Americans no longer wanted to simply conquer the environment as they did in the Panama Canal Zone and in the Philippines; rather, they were more focused on conquering their human enemies and utilized the environment as means of achieving their goals. The use of the term “ecocide” and the two readings for this week further highlight a shift in American ideologies. Scientists no longer praise American efforts and contributions abroad, but rather expose the military’s crop destruction program and use of tear gas and their detrimental effects to Vietnamese ecosystems, health, economies, and over all standards of living.
ReplyDeleteTo state that the term ecocide has derived from an increasing environmental consciousness in the 1960's and 1970's is a very accurate assumption. When we look at the 1960's and 1970's we finally look at a time period when the science has developed to the point where the United States understands its environment and. American scientists along with military personnel were able to asses the environment well enough to knowexactly how the weapons, chemical or explosive, would impact the areas of contact. In the case of Vietnam, the environment posed just as much if not more of a threat than the North Vietnamese Army and the insurgency combined. The United States viewed the Vietnamese jungle as a combattant itself and saw it as something that needed to be taken down with force. The immorality of Agent Orange exposure to our own soldiers is a tragedy in its own, but the use of the chemical to destroy jungle is completely justified in respect to the serious danger of the United States position. Countless miscommunications between our own military officials and between the military and civilian leaders made the use of this chemical necessary not only to advance the United States position against communism in Vietnam but to survive in order to keep our military afloat in a war that many Americans claimed was not theirs.
ReplyDeleteThe scientists seem more aware of the psychological and spiritual attachment to nature of some populations in Vietnam. Boffey explains the negative psychological impact on the rural populations, including how many peasants thought the US was destroying their economy to make them dependent on the US. The new awareness of the relationship of human beings with nature developed upon understanding these psychological effects.
ReplyDeleteThe scientists seemed less concerned with doing research in Vietnam than in previous regions subject to American imperialism. They knew the dangers of using herbicides, yet they continued anyways. In the Philippines and Central America, the scientists conducted research on the populations and the environments. Although these included racist, dangerous tests, the American public probably saw them as justified in the name of science. On the other hand, in Southeast Asia, the scientists gave the military the tools to wage a deliberately destructive war against nature. Upon seeing, understanding, and analyzing this war, Americans developed a heightened desire to protect the environment and and felt more accountable for its destruction. The "ecocide" in Southeast Asia is definitely reminiscent of this new consciousness.
The Panama Canal Zone, Philippines occupation, and the early Cold War texts discussed the ways in which military power and American technology were used to extract resources for profit and to dominate nature for public health reasons. Scientists boasted about the new technologies that were used to prevent the soldiers from getting diseases such as malaria. These technologies changed the environment around the soldiers to keep them from getting sick, in this weeks texts, the reader sees how new American technologies actually affected American soldiers negatively.
ReplyDeleteThere was a change in scientists attitude from the previous texts because scientists realized the negative and destructive effects that chemical technology created in Vietnam. Military power sprayed herbicidal technologies over the land created an “ecocide.” These herbicides not only destroyed the Vietnam environment but also severely affected the American soldiers who handled them. “Many scientists have expressed concern over the possible effects of herbicides on humans. The Agent Orange, was banned from further use in 1970 due to preliminary evidence of the possibility that it produced birth defects after it had been used extensively in Vietnam.” (Johnstone 718). Due to the various findings of the horrible effects that these new technologies had on humans and the environment, it lead to the transformation of the American environmental consciousness in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
American scientists view the relationship between humans and nature a lot different than back at the turn of the century. During that time, scientists tried to protect themselves from the wildness of nature. It was not so much the nature that was causing the harmful aspects of areas of the Panama Canal Zone and the Philippines but the natives of the land. Specifically with disease that traveled by insects, there was an idea that this was just part of the uncivilized world. The best way to rid the whites of the disease was separation from the infection and better infrastructure. The scientists of this era were not using technology to change the environment but rather protect themselves from it. During the time of Vietnam War, there was an increased use of chemicals within warfare. When the environment became an issue, the military destroyed the problem factors. American scientists were no longer advising working around the issue but controlling nature in its entirety. Ecocide is a good term to describe the relationship with the environment during this time. There was not much of a concern for the future of the Vietnamese environment but rather to win the war. This is the major difference between the relationship between nature in the past 70 years. In Vietnam, the United States are not trying to protect themselves from the environment but rather destroy the environment to further hurt other populations of people.
ReplyDeleteLike Catherine said, I agree that the term “ecocide” signifies a change in ideologies. As seen in the Panama zone and the Philippines it was all about “conquering nature” or “dominating the environment”. However, this term “ecocide” is very powerful. It reminds me of the word homicide or genocide, and like Catherine has said, it is a very negative term. I think that people were very conscientious now of how total war affected both the Vietnamese people and the environment. We’re starting to see a point where America is starting to really understand its environment, unlike previous wars. For example, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring really showed that we were intertwined, and the destruction of nature affected us as well. This change in vocabulary is brought about by a new environmental consciousness in America. Where before scientists were praising the domination of the environment with the use of chemicals as a means to control it, they are now denouncing it, pointing out the many negatives.
ReplyDeleteClass readings from the Panama Canal, Philippine occupation and Cold War eras extolled America’s ability to conquer nature to meet its economic and political goals. This week’s readings represent a change in attitude among some American scientists toward the use of technology to promote America’s economic-political agenda at the expense of the environment. I agree with Amanda and Catherine that the term “ecocide” is a clear expression of this change, and conveys a message of death and destruction, not the triumph of American ingenuity present in the earlier texts. In the AAAS article, scientists report on the widespread damage to Vietnam’s hardwood and mangrove forests and the country’s farms and peasant food supply due to America’s use of herbicides, and notes the then unknown damage to human beings exposed to Agent Orange (dioxin) and other chemicals. The Johnstone article almost scornfully highlights the patently disingenuous argument put forth by the US government that the way in which tear gas and herbicides were used in Vietnam equated to their domestic use in riot control and farming. In domestic riots, tear gas was not “delivered by mortars, artillery, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and mechanical blowers” and “most frequently used as a conventional military weapon to bring about indirect lethal effects.” Tear gas was most definitely not “a humanitarian weapon” in war as the US government maintained. Likewise herbicides were not used in domestic farming to destroy food, a “very high percentage” of which was “destined for civilian, not military use.”
ReplyDeleteDespite the destruction recorded in the AAAS report, the Johnstone article is in some ways the most troubling. The AAAS report suggests that the government was concerned by the political impact of its findings and was phasing out the herbicide program in response. The Johnstone article on the other hand suggests that the US continued to insist on its right to pursue policy through environmental warfare, despite knowledge of its costs. The article makes it clear that people knew “the crop destruction program [was] considered by many to be the least effective U.S. program of the war,” and that “neither the crop destruction program nor the defoliation program was anything but a liability to pacification.” Yet despite the ineffectiveness of the programs as weapons of war, and their widespread environmental destructiveness, the US government maintained they were not covered by the Geneva Protocol restrictions on chemical warfare. Johnstone calls on the government to recognize that “this era will be judged according to its ability to advance its technical capabilities for growth and development and to retard or restrict these same abilities for destruction.” Nonetheless, according to Johnstone, the US wanted to “keep its options open for the use of tear gas and herbicides [because] these weapons will be more useful to the United States than to any potential enemy in future wars,” an arrogant and extraordinarily short-sighted belief. The Protocol was not ratified by the US until four years later.