Tuesday, November 1, 2011
AS.100.369: Unleashing the Insect War
Having read various views of the American war on insects from 1944 to 1962, what do you think ultimately was behind the war--i.e. what motivations or values propelled these relentless campaigns of extermination? Did Americans just flat out hate "bugs" during the period? Or was there something else going on here? Other thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems to me that the Americans were more interested in displaying their power and abilities rather than actually getting rid of the bugs themselves. For instance, I found it to be really interesting when the author discussed the British in the article “Insect War May Backfire.” The British used Lethane 384 to control head lice, especially with the women firewatchers who guarded London and other British cities. The way the author portrayed the British women seemed to be slightly patronizing: “Coming from all walks of life, some of these women were more fastidious about preserving the permanent waves in their hair than about the cleanliness of hair and scalp. Daily de-lousing of the pillows, mattresses, and blankets on which they rested during their watches was impossible under war conditions. So head lice became a real problem and the British authorities are grateful to Lethane for solving it” (92). The author then proceeds to emphasize that the Americans are skeptical of Lethane and that “a few experiences, not yet published, make them wonder how the British escaped serious skin and scalp injury” (92). Therefore they should have a “cautious attitude” (92). I found this to be ironic and not quite fair. The author was pointing out the British’s flaws and supposed carelessness, but at the same time, Americans themselves seemed not to take a cautious attitude when it came to DDT and surely had a few shortcomings of their own. It seemed to me that the author in a way wanted to put the spotlight on the British as well to exemplify that the Americans weren’t the only ones at fault. In other words, the United States doesn’t seem quite so willing to admit that they made a mistake. This is especially seen in the 1956 article in the Science News Letter’s “The Insect War”: scientists and insecticide manufacturers quickly blamed the DDT’s problems on local conditions or that it “was not being applied properly, or perhaps some insecticide other than DDT was mistakenly being used” (266). The U.S. at first did not seem willing to take into account that it was possibly actually their own fault, which may exemplify ethnocentrism; that America is too good to make mistakes. In the Science News Letter’s “Total Insect War Urged,” the author does say that “DDT is poisonous to man and the warm-blooded animals generally if swallowed in sufficient quantity, or absorbed through oil on the skin. However, as commonly used at present, there seems to be an adequate margin of safety” (5). Indeed, the author is recognizing that yes, DDT can be dangerous to some extent, but America has the situation under control (or so it was thought).
ReplyDeleteLike Alyssa, I believe that Americans were using the extermination of insects as a means of displaying power. I also think that these discussions of the war on insects are highly suggestive of the other wars being fought during this time. The language surrounding insect control is filled with wartime imagery. For example, in “Total Insect War Urged,” the author illustrated insects as “victims”, writing, “Prospective victims suggested by the speaker for future anti-insect blitzes include Japanese beetle, gypsy moth, browntail moth, all kinds of malaria mosquitoes, bedbugs, lice, fleas and houseflies”(5). It seems awfully ironic that the “Japanese beetle” was listed as the first victim. Additionally, Henry Pierce’s 1956 article “The Insect War” draws a blatant parallel between insect control and the nuclear arms race, stating, “A worldwide armaments race is under way between chemists and insects” (266). The ability to control and even annihilate these “obnoxious” species could enable the United States to demonstrate power not only over nature, but also over its enemies abroad.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, these parallels between the insect war and the war abroad were used to demonstrate the dangers of chemical warfare. For example, in “Insect War May Backfire,” Jane Stafford wrote, “There is dangerous backfire from this kind of chemical warfare just as there is in the gas warfare which military authorities hesitate to use” (90). Furthermore, Rachel Carson wrote in Silent Spring, “the methods must be employed such that they do not destroy us along with the insects” (440). There existed the fear that overuse of insecticides would be detrimental to human life. This fear was similar to the fear that nuclear warfare, while able to destroy the enemy, could also destroy America as a nation and a people.
One difference between WWII and the War on Insects was that the War on Insects was much more controllable. I think a lot of the language being used to argue the use of DDT, pesticides, the eradication of insects, etc. stems from the fact that Americans felt they had much more control over this problem than fighting the Japanese or the Germans of WWII. America might not be able to definitively state that they will win WWII, but it can state that it is valiantly fighting the War on Insects. I do find it interesting that these articles use war-evoking terms to describe this problem, such as "chemical warfare," "gas warfare," "insect war." The insect war almost parallels WWII on the home front. Civilians cannot see the physical effects of WWII combat, but can see the physical effects of diseased vegetation. Furthermore, this infestation of "vegetative cancer" affects the "Victory Gardens" of patriotic citizens, an even more emotional blow. The extent of this emotional vendetta against the bugs is clear because even in 1944, scientists know and publicize DDT's harmful effects, yet civilians are adamant to win the war on insects despite these warnings.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I do think that this insect war does partially stem from a hatred of bugs destroying crops and that the increase in pesticide use stems from developments in plant genetics and chemical research. I believe that chemical and atomic research occurring on behalf of WWII extended to this pesky problem. If America is fighting it's largest battle with chemical research, why not adapt this defensive mechanism to smaller, more solvable problems?
It appears throughout the readings that the military industrial academic complex was pervasive even in the media of the time, the majority of articles, while mentioning the dangers, championed the work between the United States government and private research institutions. Pierce writes, “A world-wide armaments race is underway between chemists and insects” (Piece 256). This language suggests that while World War II has ended, the Defense Department still has an epic battle ahead.
ReplyDeleteReading through the documents it is disturbing to note the overly liberal application of DDT. While an extremely effective insecticide, the environmental damages, like the famous case of its presence preventing the hardening of bald-eagle eggs, can be devastating. Rachel Carson’s work pointed out the potential dangers, but not before rampant abuse had taken place. Similar to when someone begins an antibiotic treatment, but does not complete their dosage, leading to drug-resistant bacteria because only the “stronger” bacteria survive to breed, insecticides like DDT lead to more pervasive forms of pests.
I agree with Catherine that the main motivation for the war on insects was to gain some form of control over a seemingly uncontrollable situation. In Stafford’s article, she states that insects “cannot turn on us with a gas attack of their own death-dealing dusts and sprays” which characterizes the nature of this one-sided war. I personally think that Americans undermined their authority and power in the actual war by placing so much importance on a war against a non-human opponent. The war metaphors seem a bit ridiculous. Referring to the eradication of insect transmitted diseases as “a world-wide armaments race…under way between chemists and insects” (Pierce) turns a public health intervention into an exaggerated and unnecessary war comparison that takes the focus off the positive effects of insecticide use. Pierce also noted that the Army had spent roughly $200,000 per year for research on insect physiology. Instead of creating an artificial war on insects, the military’s efforts could have been more focused on the actual war. Of course the use of pesticides like DDT greatly improved conditions during the war, but by emphasizing their use, attention was drawn away from the actual matter at hand. And this doesn’t even begin to cover the negative environmental impacts and health implications of this war on insects…
ReplyDeleteThe chemical war on insects, and by extension war on the environment, has many similarities in with the military war in the Pacific. World War II was total war, in which all aspects of the American economy were involved. The Science News-Letter uses similar language to portray a “total war against man’s insect enemies, with the avowed object of total extermination instead of mere ‘control’...”, which echoes the military tactics in the Pacific, where the enemy would not surrender and so total destruction became the preferred strategy. Carson sees the effect of DDT and other human intervention as a war on nature, establishing that “...the central problem of our age has therefore become the contamination of man’s total environment with such substances of incredible potential for harm...” The enormity of the conflict is the same in each case. As America ascended as the world’s superpower or hegemon during the years of and after World War II, it increasingly extended its power over the natural world.
ReplyDeleteThere is an interesting cognitive disconnect about the toxicity of DDT. Though it was clearly a highly poisonous substance whose proper use had not been established, it was embraced without reservations. Even as Stafford gave the prediction that “Enthusiastic reports of benefits are likely to be followed by reports of harm and, eventually, by knowledge of safe methods of use,” DDT was being used freely.
I agree with some of the above comments that this war on insects was used as a means to show American citizens the US still had control and power. When reading all of these articles I noticed a lot of vocabulary that reminded me of the newspapers that reported on the conflicts during WWII. A great example of this is in the beginning of “The Insect War” article when it says the, “Latest insect victory is one scored by the housefly in the battle against phosphate insecticides…” (266). The article words this as if it were an actual battle the US was fighting, and that the insects were an actual enemy or legitimate opponent of the US. I feel like many of these articles are trying to use the post war American patriotism in order to bolster support for this “war” as well. It uses “battle-like vocabulary” when talking of Americas “victories” over the bugs, and even incorporates the American military as well stating how much the military itself is spending on the insect war and research, as if to add credibility to the war by including the military. I think the motivation behind this war and these articles was due I part to the fact that Americans had not defeated the Japanese “savages” as easily as they had first expected to, which dealt a blow to American ego, and they had to find something to boost their confidence again, and what better then insects (especially since the US had dehumanized the Japanese and related them to bugs in propaganda posters).
ReplyDeleteIn the 1940's the United States was seeing chaotic times with entry into World War II, seeing international insecurity at possibly the highest it had ever been. When a nation is seeing this level of vulnerability in wartime conditions, it is hard to maintain perspective. The general consensus during this time was that any potential threat to the United States, whether it be as large as an opposing nation in conflict or as small as an insect that spreads human disease, it is magnified to enormous proportions and it must be dealt with quickly and effectively. So when insects began spreading human disease both among troops in the Pacific theater and and destroying crops at home, wartime thought lead to strict persecution of the insects. DDT was almost seen has a savior to the American people because it was able to eliminate insect populations so well. When posing a threat to the United States during wartime, anything is likely to be hated and its destruction desired. At the time many Americans did not understand how DDT would impact them in the future with potential health hazard, but many did not even factor those risks in because they were assisted in defeating a dangerous enemy to United States security. With a very determined mentality, the United Sates was able to eliminate various species that it found "obnoxious" and ultimatelyprevent disease for many civilians. As time has passed DDT has been phased out of American society for the most part due to medical advances and understanding of its health effects. However at the time of World War II, DDT could be viewed as a sector of the UNited States military for its campaign in defeating the insect enemy and providing health and environmental security.
ReplyDeleteI do not exactly believe the fundamental purpose behind the American war on insects was to showcase the elite scientific power of the nation; however, this was a welcomed byproduct. I think the threat that insects posed to American food production as well as their physical safety, frightened them greatly. Without this motivation, the war on insects would have been much less pertinent. I do want to be clear, though, and emphasize the fact that Americans would have not been comfortable at all losing a war to a bunch of bugs. In The Science News Letter the author makes the suggestion that because humans were capable of destroying numerous species without even trying, “there seems to be no good reason why he should not be able to repeat the performance intentionally with other species he finds obnoxious, if he will only plan carefully enough and follow through will sufficiently long intensive campaigns of eradication.” When thinking about bugs, most people don’t usually image them as dangerous creatures. If one is buzzing around by a person’s ear, it does not take much of his energy to end its existence. It was this connotation of bugs that made an American victory over them all the more important. At this point the nation’s pride was built on the fact that they could meet challenges with effective solutions. If they could not defeat this war against these tiny creatures, what effect would that have on their symbolic representation as a country? When scientists were able to combat the problem effectively with the implementation of DDT, they were able to reaffirm their beliefs that America was one of the most dominant scientific powers in the world.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these articles, I didn’t get the sense that Americans were planning to use these chemical insecticides to annihilate enemy populations during the war. On the other hand, I noticed, like many of my peers, that the discussions about these chemical discoveries brimmed with American pride and prowess. It seems to me that the continued invention of stronger chemical products, and their ensuing successes, served to instill fear about what American scientists were capable of creating. From lecture, we know that eventually they did apply these insecticides to human beings, so perhaps they were indeed planning this at the time these articles were published. Nevertheless, I found it interesting that the authors never explicitly mentioned or even hinted at this. This contradicts the propaganda posters we looked at in lecture, in which Japanese civilians were candidly portrayed as lice that needed to be exterminated.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, with the exception of Carson’s “Silent Spring,” the majority of the articles focus on BOTH the positive and negative aspects of the new insecticide developments. Unlike later decades, the articles from the 1940s are not as aware of the environmental repercussions of this industry. The authors mention that there are potential consequences, but then immediately disregard this possibility since there is no evidence yet. However, insecticide fallout would take time to materialize. For instance, in the 1956 article, scientists start to notice the growing insect immunity to DDT. Rachel Carson’s 1962 article revolves entirely around these environmental consequences. In discussing her case scenario for a town wrecked by insecticide overuse, she is horrified that “no witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world. The people had done it themselves” (438). The articles leave us with the following question: If insecticides are both beneficial and harmful to the environment, how does one decide which path to choose? Do the benefits ultimately outweigh the costs?
While it is true that insects posed a major public health concern for American troops abroad during WWII and during their other colonial expeditions, the actions that were taken to defend against the insects seem a bit extreme. Like the previous posts mentioned, the actions taken against the bugs were clearly not actually just about the bugs themselves, but were instead a means for the United States to illustrate its power and its technological capacity. The scientific strides that were made to produce these chemicals were a major deal in the global community, and just further contributed to the image that the United States was perpetuating of itself; that it was the most powerful and most advanced nation in the world.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Unite States was attempting to use DDT and other insecticides to illustrate it power, it failed to consider the harmful effects of these chemicals on bodies other than insects. Jane Stafford points out that these chemicals can be just as harmful as certain military technologies: "The new chemical weapons for our war against insects that destroy crops and spread human disease are turning out to be double-edged weapons. There is a danger of disastrous backfire from this kind of chemical warfare just as there is in the gas warfare which military authorities hesitate to use." Not only does Stafford refer to the use of these chemicals as "warfare," but she also essentially equates these chemicals to chemicals utilized by the military. Her arguments just reinforce the idea that the use of DDT and other insecticides served a much greater purpose than just killing the bugs.
I think the most important part of the development of these insecticides and pesticides actually has nothing to do with these particular chemicals at all. In lecture, we talked about the monumental scientific advancements made on the part of the United States, and how eventually those advancements culminated in the use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It seems like the use of these chemicals to exterminate the bugs that were plaguing the troops only foreshadowed the fate of the Japanese people at the hands of the United States military later on in WWII. It is true that chemicals like DDT served the practical purpose of eliminating bugs, but I think these chemicals were more significant because of the message that they sent to the global community about the power and capability of the United States.
I believe that humans may have some sort of dislike towards bugs, but this annoyance was definitely aggrandized in World War II and the subsequent years. During the WWII, Americans realized that insecticides would be extremely helpful in the facilitation of rapid warfare because they allowed for the easier destruction of insects than the methods that were used in the Panama Canal. DDT, for example, became a wartime hero. It seems as though the symbolism between insects and the war itself became bound at the hip as the leaders of Germany and Japan were represented as insects by the media and the new insecticide technology was applauded as ammunition in the "Total Insect War." After WWII, the effort to lower insect populations was compared to the “arms race” between the United States and the Soviet Union. So eventually, the fight against insects took on more of a life of its own, but it was still patronized and seen as a component of WWII and later the Cold War. Fortunately, the negative environmental consequences of being so hasty to use insecticides were noted by many including Rachel Carson.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that humans started out "flat-out hating bugs". However, during the war, chemicals like DDT were necessary to eliminate diseases like typhus. If typhus had spread to all of the troops that passed through Naples, that would have been disastrous. I think that humans saw how successful that was and realized that they had the technology to really take control. This human need to control their surroundings was most likely exacerbated by the fact that the United States won the war, which probably led to the attitude that the US could do anything. Unfortunately, as Rachel Carson said, this led to a never-ending cycle of needing to stay ahead of evolution, as insects are able to quickly reproduce and become immune to the chemicals. Therefore, the reason that humans were so invested in exterminating bugs was because they wanted to prove that they could manipulate nature to their advantage. However, this only led to detrimental environmental consequences.
ReplyDeleteEven before the age of science, I think that humans have had an aversion towards insects. The nickname of “pest” reveals that bugs have been “man’s insect enemy” (Science News Letter) for many ages—if not since the dawn of the human species. However, the Second World War did exaggerate our views about insects, because average Americans started feeling the effects of crop-eating insects. In 1944, Jane Stafford notes this phenomenon, saying, “then came the war and the need for more food. Victory gardens turned hundreds of thousands of lay men and women into small-scale farmers and brought them face to face with the insect pests that destroy crops” (Stafford 90). Furthermore, the resistance of insects to pesticides, as discussed in the 1956 article, reveals nature’s relative resilience, which only reinforces our loathing fro bugs.
ReplyDeleteDo humans naturally have an aversion to bugs, perhaps from some evolutionary mechanism, or is our hatred of insects a product of society and such movements as the total insect war? I think it is possible that both factors are present and play on each other to increase our disdain for insects. For instance, our natural aversion to insects provided an emotional incentive to discovering a way to eradicate insects, and then once we developed DDT, the supposed evolutionary utility of removing pests encouraged us to use DDT, which strengthened our aversion to insects, and so on. This creates a cycle of exponentially increasing insect reduction.
Ultimately, I agree with Catherine (G.) that the War on Insects stems from an almost emotional human need to control and manipulate the environment. DDT gave us the power to eradicate insects, and not surprisingly, we took full advantage such power.
The connection between the Pacific War and the Insect War is crucial to understanding the motivations for the insect war. The motivation for the war against insects certainly stemmed from a public health standpoint in which it was crucial to develop insecticides to protect the army. As we learned in class, the Japanese had a strong spiritual aversion to surrender, so the Americans knew they had to be as strong as possible to win the war. Any hinderances to this strength were hinderances to American power, military prestige, and national pride. Insects, alongside the Japanese, were such a hinderance and thus, American scientists in conjunction with the government and military waged the insect war.
ReplyDeleteThe Pacific War was the gateway to the support for this war on insects because it increased the need for food, expanded the threat of diseases, and stopped imports of pyrethrum. The Americans were about to lose the war on insects, so in developing insecticides, researchers (along with DDT) became true war heros. Stafford comments that DDT "performed a real war service" (92). Furthermore, DDT made a huge contribution to human health in the fight against malaria and yellow fever, so the war on insects was even crucial to maintaining the health of the average American as well as the American soldiers abroad. The 1945 Science Newsletter called DDT "a powerful agent in these postwar wars to make crops less costly and personal life safe, more comfortable" (5). The war on insects became a necessary component to the lives of Americans, in terms of health, safety, food, and comfort. Scientists and researchers were the vanguards of American lives, similar to how entomologists were the vanguards of American imperialism.
To conclude, Carson hints at the motivation for the war on insects when she writes that man has "acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world" (438). Americans harnessed this power and expanded upon it to protect their image as a world leader.
I believe that the motivation behind the war on insects was primarily hygienic and as a means to increase crop production. As stated in "The Insect War" in the 1956 issue of Science news letter, prior to the invention of DDT the principle means of fighting insect infestations involved using calcium arsenate and drainage programs that resulted in the loss of wildlife in swamps. I feel that this was one of the driving factors behind the zeal for DDT and the insect war, we finally had a way to fight them without collateral damage.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found very interesting was that the first article chronologically, "Insect War May Backfire" was the only one of the three that contained a negative view of DDT and other insecticides. What was curious was the amount of praise Stafford gave to Lethane based insecticides and their effects on women fire watchers in Britain and potato field yields.
Overall I think that while some officials may have seen the war on insects as a symbol for the war against the Germans and Japanese, I strongly believe that the scientists and academics behind the insecticide projects did so for the betterment of troop fighting conditions and agricultural production.
I believe that the rise in chemistry developments as it coincided with World War Two led to the attitude apparent in these articles, however the “war on insects” was more of a scientific development than a violent war effort. The “War on insects” has been a struggle in most American ventures overseas, such as when the Americans went to the Caribbean and feared diseases carried by mosquitoes, but during this wartime the apparent success in eliminating insects came out as an American victory. The vocabulary used in these articles such as “victory”, “total war”, “enemies” and “weapons” are words, which bring out a feeling of nationalism and war time sentiments.
ReplyDeleteDuring World War Two the Americans were using these new developments in chemistry to, if necessary, exterminate the population of Japan. Through what we discussed in class yesterday seems that the Japanese people were the enemies and the pests, not purely the government agencies. The similarities between area bombing, which killed many people at once without much thought of the intended and unintended targets and DDT, which was sprayed over great areas, killing the insects as well as the unintended targets of the fruits and other crops in the area, lead to an obvious connection. However, I believe it is more of a coincidence of the times and the overwhelming war sentiment in the hearts of Americans that leads to these similarities. In another time period, such as when Americans explored the Caribbean, the suppression of mosquitoes were celebrated as victories of scientific advancements rather than defeating an enemy. It seems that the battle to control the environment was a long-term development, and as was regarded as a war on insects because it increased nationalism during wartime.
P.s On the left side of the third page of the "Insect War May Backfire" article, the news letter talks about a new hybrid Hevea rubber plant developed to be resistant to South American leaf blight
ReplyDeleteFrom 1944 to 1962 Americans began a relentless campaign against insects, this “war” on bugs began during World War II and continued into the Cold War. In World War II, insects and the annihilation of insects were viewed similarly to the Japanese people; this was due to the propaganda that the War Production Board spread throughout the United States. During World War II, I think the bugs were an actual pest to the American army and caused many health problems. After World War II, I do think the Americans “flat out hated bugs”—we still do, however, I think the way the scientific community responded to the hatred of bugs during this period is a direct similarity to the nuclear arms race. The idea of “new chemical weapons for our war against insects that destroy crops and spread human disease are turning out to be double-edged weapons”, is almost identical to development of nuclear weapons. Scientists did not recognize at the time of developing nuclear weapons that they were creating something that have more negative effects that the one they desired. In both cases of these technologies, scientist thought they will kill, for lack of a better word, “the pest” and that would be it; they did not foresee the possible consequences of these technologies. Also, in The Insect War, Pierce alludes to the scientists and insects being in an armament race, because “the chemists develop new insecticides, but the insects create their own special defenses against these insecticides.” Again, the language in this quote causes the reader to think of the insects as the USSR, as an enemy that poses a threat, disease, and that is increasing armaments against the United States, the development of defenses against the insecticides. To further demonstrate the connection between the insecticides and the nuclear warfare, Pierce actually states that the same energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki will "play an important part in the sterilizing male insects." As I said, I believe that yes Americans do hate bugs and other pests, however, the language and metaphors used in these articles proves that the American public was being told to view them in a similar fashion to the nuclear arms race and race that needed to be annihilated.
ReplyDeleteNo human likes insects, they are “pests,” especially lice, bedbugs, and mosquitoes. Even though these insects are an annoyance to the human race I do not think that was the main motivation for this “war.” I agree with Rachel, when she states that humans want to control their surroundings, especially Americans. This need for control started with the first frontiersmen and Manifest Destiny, the need to “subdue” the “wild.” Later, during WWII, the United States were able to control the Japanese who were dehumanized to insects that needed to be “exterminated.” Post WWII, Americans wanted to control these “pests” that were eating their crops. By using DDT and other chemically made pesticides, Americans were in a “war” with insects. A war according to Rachel Carson, “Insects have evolved super races immune to the particular insecticides used, thus the chemical war is never won due to resistance” (439).
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for me to understand what the American public might have been feeling about the extermination of insects in the context of the war because conditions are so drastically different now. Less than 1% of the American population (according to NPR) now serves in the military which means the average American is less concerned about the war and the soldiers fighting it because they have no personal stake. Even if there was currently a plague comparable to death inflicted by insects following the military I don’t know if there would be as much concern over it—and living in an era where it seems very few life threatening problems have been left unsolved for citizens of our country.
ReplyDeleteYet though I can’t relate or understand the level of panic that preceded and must have been equal to the public enthusiasm for a chemical solution, I have to say from these readings at least there doesn’t seem to be an alternate underlying motivation for the national zeal for extermination. I think it’s more that the military dehumanization effort appropriated the etymological zeal than vis versa—though I suppose after all the racially based propaganda it would vilify insects even more and underscore them in the public consciousness perhaps leading to a newly inflamed passion for extermination in general. All in all I have to day I was most impressed by the there were contemporary articles warning of the toxicity to humans and pets as well as the mention of how several insect such as body lice in Egypt, house flies and bed bugs were showing signs of immunity to DDT so soon after its debut. Gives me a fresh inspiration for skepticism towards claims made by Monsanto…
This week's articles on the "war on bugs" during the 1940s-1960s reminded me in many ways of the earlier readings on the taming of the tropics at the turn of the century. Both sets of readings reflect America's faith in the exceptionalism that allowed it to conquer environmental obstacles for man's comfort and benefit, whether it be malaria and yellow fever or lice, cockroaches and agricultural "pests". Except for Rachel Carson, the authors all support the use of insecticides, while acknowledging significant risks. In describing efforts at insect control as a "war on bugs" during World War II, they suggest this was a battle Americans should fight and win. Pierce, for example, compares the war on bugs to the arms' race: "A world-wide armaments race is underway between chemists and insects." Stafford praises the value of insecticides in producing more food and de-lousing in war time conditions. Science News Letter implies that insect eradication is a worthy goal in writing that it is achievable through planning and follow-through (again, American ingenuity and hard work). The article also extols the spread of "DDT's promise" over public health, household comfort and agriculture.
ReplyDeleteYet each of the articles also acknowledges significant risks with the use of insecticides. Stafford describes the cumulative effects of DDT and calls it "quite poisonous." She also notes that Lethane, used as a de-louser in England during World War II, contains cyanide and could cause serious skin and scalp injuries. Science News Letter describes DDT as "poisonous to man" and animals under certain circumstances. Pierce notes the adaptability of insects and their ability to develop resistance to insecticides. However, the articles do not emphasize these dangers or weigh the benefits against the risks that would inevitably rise over time as the use of insecticides spread and their cumulative effects in the environment increased. The articles show that the dangers of DDT were clearly known early in its use but were unexamined or largely ignored. This suggests to me that the authors believed in America's ability and entitlement to dominate nature through science and its faith that it would overcome any risks that stood in the way through further technological advances. Carson, writing later, was able to see and understand the destructiveness of the cumulative effects of the use of insecticides. Despite the impact of Silent Spring, however, we apparently have not learned our lesson. Today antibiotics are widely used in agricultural businesses, and are transferred from farm products to man. Much like the adaptable insect, this use of antibiotics to manipulate nature contributed to the development of "superbugs," antibody-resistant bacteria that pose significant health risks and have even been found in the water system of at least one major city (Delhi).
While I do not think that insects were the main cause of the Pacific War, I do believe that there were striking correlations between the American desire to conquer the environment and the American effort to win the war. The war on insects, like much of what we have studied up until now, is an extension of the United States’ need to control the environment and a means of exhibiting power. I agree with many other blog posts in that the United States understood the war on insects as something that they were able to exert control over in a time when their national security was out of their control.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that much of the aggressive, war-time language was consistent across each author from this week. Pierce states that, the “world-wide armaments race is underway between chemists and insects.” America’s latest victory was over insects in a battle against phosphate insecticides. Similarly in the article about total war on insects the author claims that, “total war against man’s insect enemies, with the avowed object of total extermination instead of mere ‘control,’ was offered as a possible and practicable program before the American Association of Economic Entomologists in New York.” The reason that humans were so determined to exterminate the entire bug population because, in a moment of vulnerability they wanted to ensure that they were still the most powerful and could effectively conquer the environment. Carson, consistent with the war-time rhetoric concluded that the “chemical war” will never be won and “all life is caught in its violent crossfire.”
There are traces of American exceptionalism throughout the US History. The war on insects is just another way that Americans transcend their exceptionalism throughout species. They had the ability to exterminate full races of insects to the benefit of their own. In the “Total Insect War Urged,” it is discussed how if man has the power to exterminate full races of pests it finds annoying why shouldn’t they do so. This Newsletter finds extermination the best reaction to trying to control the pest problem of the time period. Also the continued development of chemistry and nuclear science gave the Americans another filling of exceptionalism. If they were able to discover and invent insecticides to kill off some pests, they felt that all pests could be taken care of the same way. Americans did not see a possible way of limitation, except later in this time period when they environment was taken into account. There is discussion in the readings about the harmful effect of DDT and it’s no warning traits that it inhibited. Rachel Carson addresses the issues that pesticides, specifically DDT, could have on the environment. From a fruitful spring to a deserted area, DDT had the potential to completely change the environment in a negative way.
ReplyDelete