Earlier last week I started a new book, one that is somewhat unusual of a read for me. The book in question has been sitting on my shelf for a while, gathering dust with my apprehension to open it up. Flags of our Fathers by James Bradley is by no means a classic or even an extraordinary piece of art. But it is powerful nonetheless, and tells of a tragic, horror-stricken story of six young men thrown into one of the worst battles of American history. Iwo Jima.
I feel I learned much about World War II, the Pacific theater, and the United States Marines by picking up this book and delving in. Although I can say I am happy to have read this and to have experienced this story, as sad and tragic it is, I can't say I've really enjoyed the book itself.
The basics begin with six separate young men from all across America who are thrown into a bloody war. Now the narrative of these stories are constantly interrupted to explain the mechanics of war, the tragedy, the early assumptions, the devilry of the Japanese and their corrupted samurai code. The segway and flow between narrative and fact tends to be jarring, skipping from one to next in short or long bursts, making it difficult to concentrate on one section before being tossed to the next. Maybe that's part of the point, because in real life there are no simple segways between war and life, living and being dead. Maybe it's to prevent the author from becoming to engrossed and invested in a character who's ultimate fate lies in death.
Spoiler: most of the men in the story die.
Welcome to World War II, friends.
I come from a short and small background of academia, having been a history and anthropology major, there are two fundamental issues I have with this book, that has deteriorated my reading experience with this bundle of pages. For one, I am uneasy with portrayal with the Japanese. The author often calls them beasts, maniacs, bloodthirsty, minions of the Emperor. He does not give the men on the other side of the fight a forgiving picture at all. At times, he paints them as less then human. Not superior, but inferior, so inferior in fact that killing them was a mercy. Please don't take this the wrong way, the Japanese in World War II committed some horrendous atrocities, and the Rape of Nanking is one the most brutal acts of war crimes in the twentieth century. The Japanese did some horrible, terrible, atrocious things during World War II, and there is no way to safely get around them. They did some bad shit, some real bad shit. That being said now, I don't think its right to dehumanize a whole ethnic group and country. It's real convenient that Mr. Bradley forgets to add the concentration camps in America where anyone remotely Asian looking were rounded up and sent to. We can skip over that part. And well, the German death camps weren't exactly a walk in the park (to put it very crudely, I mean no offense to readers and survivors of the Holocaust), but he'll still mention that European warfare was 'polite'. Was it on the same level as some of the acts committed by the Japanese? No. But don't make the Germans into misunderstood teenagers either. There was a reason for Nuremburg trials. It bothers me that he perpetuates the idea that the Japanese are an inherently evil people. He makes them into a group of nobodies who should have surrendered early on, because it is their fault that so many American soldiers died. Yes, it was war. Yes, Americans fought against the Japanese. But, that doesn't make them a race of evil, inhuman people that need to be obliterated. The anthropologist in me is screaming, "this is the 1990s! Stop using such demeaning, biased language!" But I know I need to temper myself, that he grew up thinking this. He read accounts of Iwo Jima and met with veterans of this war, for him they probably were the devil incarnate, no matter what traditional corruptions took place.
The next little nuance I have, doesn't have to do with the book so much as the reactions I receive from others - specifically men - concerning me reading it. War has very much, for hundreds if not thousands of years, been a very male phenomenon. Little boys re-enact wartime scenarios, originally only men were drafted, and for a very long time in American history, war was only for men. I think too often this portion of society remains blockaded from women, the idea that women still need to be shielded from this kind of physical and emotion brutality. And that's why I believe women should read war stories more often. One of my favorite books of all time is All Quiet on the Western Front and there hasn't been an individual I've met who hasn't had received this recommendation from me. I think women need to read these books and one some level - although detached - experience the actions, the emotions, the struggles, and the horrors of war. Books allow anyone to enter this on a very subtle level that shouldn't be overlooked. War isn't naturally the realm of men, violence isn't an inherent masculine trait. Just like strength isn't naturally male either. Or courage. There are uplifting stories of compassion, friendship, and courage littered throughout Flags of our Fathers that can give chills to any reader. I think these are stories that shouldn't be passed around just circles of men looking for a thrill through war. Valor and honor are felt by the whole spectrum of humanity. And this part of our world's history is so often split into two sections - Rosie the Rivetor for women and soldiers for men. Why can't the World War II era be a time period that sets an example for walks of life? I understand that it can be difficult for some groups to relate. As a woman, these soldiers held a certain detachment as there gritty, raw experiences as male soldiers. Just like an African American reading this book might feel jaded that not a single African American soldier is mentioned within the pages. These aspects of our person effect our experiences through reading, media, and all other sorts of visual and mental stimulation. But in some ways, history unites on little levels. and reading this book is one of those small levels.
Well, maybe this isn't much of an argument, but it is what it is. These are my thoughts. I recommend to you this book, although it should be taken with a grain of salt, if nothing else.
I feel I learned much about World War II, the Pacific theater, and the United States Marines by picking up this book and delving in. Although I can say I am happy to have read this and to have experienced this story, as sad and tragic it is, I can't say I've really enjoyed the book itself.
The basics begin with six separate young men from all across America who are thrown into a bloody war. Now the narrative of these stories are constantly interrupted to explain the mechanics of war, the tragedy, the early assumptions, the devilry of the Japanese and their corrupted samurai code. The segway and flow between narrative and fact tends to be jarring, skipping from one to next in short or long bursts, making it difficult to concentrate on one section before being tossed to the next. Maybe that's part of the point, because in real life there are no simple segways between war and life, living and being dead. Maybe it's to prevent the author from becoming to engrossed and invested in a character who's ultimate fate lies in death.
Spoiler: most of the men in the story die.
Welcome to World War II, friends.
I come from a short and small background of academia, having been a history and anthropology major, there are two fundamental issues I have with this book, that has deteriorated my reading experience with this bundle of pages. For one, I am uneasy with portrayal with the Japanese. The author often calls them beasts, maniacs, bloodthirsty, minions of the Emperor. He does not give the men on the other side of the fight a forgiving picture at all. At times, he paints them as less then human. Not superior, but inferior, so inferior in fact that killing them was a mercy. Please don't take this the wrong way, the Japanese in World War II committed some horrendous atrocities, and the Rape of Nanking is one the most brutal acts of war crimes in the twentieth century. The Japanese did some horrible, terrible, atrocious things during World War II, and there is no way to safely get around them. They did some bad shit, some real bad shit. That being said now, I don't think its right to dehumanize a whole ethnic group and country. It's real convenient that Mr. Bradley forgets to add the concentration camps in America where anyone remotely Asian looking were rounded up and sent to. We can skip over that part. And well, the German death camps weren't exactly a walk in the park (to put it very crudely, I mean no offense to readers and survivors of the Holocaust), but he'll still mention that European warfare was 'polite'. Was it on the same level as some of the acts committed by the Japanese? No. But don't make the Germans into misunderstood teenagers either. There was a reason for Nuremburg trials. It bothers me that he perpetuates the idea that the Japanese are an inherently evil people. He makes them into a group of nobodies who should have surrendered early on, because it is their fault that so many American soldiers died. Yes, it was war. Yes, Americans fought against the Japanese. But, that doesn't make them a race of evil, inhuman people that need to be obliterated. The anthropologist in me is screaming, "this is the 1990s! Stop using such demeaning, biased language!" But I know I need to temper myself, that he grew up thinking this. He read accounts of Iwo Jima and met with veterans of this war, for him they probably were the devil incarnate, no matter what traditional corruptions took place.
The next little nuance I have, doesn't have to do with the book so much as the reactions I receive from others - specifically men - concerning me reading it. War has very much, for hundreds if not thousands of years, been a very male phenomenon. Little boys re-enact wartime scenarios, originally only men were drafted, and for a very long time in American history, war was only for men. I think too often this portion of society remains blockaded from women, the idea that women still need to be shielded from this kind of physical and emotion brutality. And that's why I believe women should read war stories more often. One of my favorite books of all time is All Quiet on the Western Front and there hasn't been an individual I've met who hasn't had received this recommendation from me. I think women need to read these books and one some level - although detached - experience the actions, the emotions, the struggles, and the horrors of war. Books allow anyone to enter this on a very subtle level that shouldn't be overlooked. War isn't naturally the realm of men, violence isn't an inherent masculine trait. Just like strength isn't naturally male either. Or courage. There are uplifting stories of compassion, friendship, and courage littered throughout Flags of our Fathers that can give chills to any reader. I think these are stories that shouldn't be passed around just circles of men looking for a thrill through war. Valor and honor are felt by the whole spectrum of humanity. And this part of our world's history is so often split into two sections - Rosie the Rivetor for women and soldiers for men. Why can't the World War II era be a time period that sets an example for walks of life? I understand that it can be difficult for some groups to relate. As a woman, these soldiers held a certain detachment as there gritty, raw experiences as male soldiers. Just like an African American reading this book might feel jaded that not a single African American soldier is mentioned within the pages. These aspects of our person effect our experiences through reading, media, and all other sorts of visual and mental stimulation. But in some ways, history unites on little levels. and reading this book is one of those small levels.
Well, maybe this isn't much of an argument, but it is what it is. These are my thoughts. I recommend to you this book, although it should be taken with a grain of salt, if nothing else.
No comments:
Post a Comment