A Date Which Will Live

This book, by Emily Rosenberg, is a chronicling of the different ways in which Pearl Harbor has been remembered. In a sense it is a history of the history of Pearl Harbor. But it also shows how Pearl Harbor has taken on different meanings since 1941 and how it has been adopted by popular culture to fit individual meanings and the necessities of different times. I am going to relate the aspect that I found most fascinating. The book as a whole is very interesting and I highly recommend it.

Pearl Harbor emerged as a contentious issue before World War II ended. A controversy that continues to this day (in the minds of some) is the question of who is responsible (or culpable, depending on your position) for the colossal surprise the Japanese Navy achieved on December 7, 1941 and the resulting drubbing that the US Army and Navy took that day. The respective commanders on the ground were relieved of duty and discharged without court martial. Soon after the war some began to argue that President Roosevelt knew of the coming attack or deliberately provoked it to shock the American public into war.

There have been many books written on the subject of who is to blame (Rosenberg discusses some) and although the objective works (including Congressional and internal military reviews) have placed the blame across the spectrum of civilian and military officials (though mostly military), including the commanders at Pearl Harbor, arguments have persisted that the blame rests in the Oval Office.

This has never really been what the argument was about, I extrapolate from Rosenberg. The initial fingers pointing at FDR were from vehement partisans who opposed almost everything he ever did -- they were Republicans. Things really got interesting in this debate after Vietnam. Military men (and militant civilians) were disgusted that America lost a war. Of course the war wasn't unwinable [false] so who was to blame? Politicians! for net letting the military do their things (which may or may not have included dropping the bomb until they got tired of it. And so the debate over who to blame for Pearl Harbor (Washington or the army) took on new meaning. Various specious arguments have been leveled attempting to lift blame from the commanders.

But it goes deeper. As Rosenberg shows, for some the memory of Pearl Harbor evokes images of a different America where the masses were stirred to great Patriotic endeavors against evil brown people. This of course wasn't quite the case with Vietnam (see: 1960s, Kent State). Certain people apparently miss the days when men were men, women were women, good guys were good, and bad guys were sub-human.

Now, sadly, everyone hates America, except for Newt Gingrich and the former Strom Thurmond. Both of these gentlemen threw their hat into controversies that touch on these same themes. Interpretations at the USS Arizona Memorial and the Enola Gay (in the Smithsonian), while attempting to present a balanced interpretation of these cultural artifacts, stressing the different ways of knowing, remembering, and understanding them, ended up just hating America instead.

Which touches on another issue: conservative America's fundamental distrust and disdain for professional academics. Newt Gingrich (who somehow has a Ph.D. in history!) had this to say: " . . . most Americans . . . are sick and tired of being told by some cultural elite that they should be ashamed of their country." I think this notion can be boiled down to something that is essential to history: the truth is never simple, in fact something like "truth" in history is not really attainable as a singular notion. There are multiple truths: we call them interpretations. Its as close as ya'll gonna git. Anyone who doesn't grasp that does not deserve a Ph.D. Also, the Park Service (who ran both of these gigs) does not have an agenda, at least not an intellectual one, trust me.

Well, this is neither a book review or response. Its more of a book inspired harangue, but there you go. This one's for you Strom.