Cold War – Page 2 – Engaging Peace

Photo of antisemitic Nazi propaganda — Antisemitic Nazi Propaganda. (Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license. From WikiMedia Commons)

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other is a particularly common form of moral disengagement, especially during wartime or other types of conflict.

Another moral disengagement mechanism described by psychologist Albert Bandura, it refers to portraying your enemy as less than human, as some sort of vile creature.

During World War II, all factions in the conflict created posters of the enemy as a subhuman monster. In addition, propaganda and feature films of that era–as well as during the Cold War and the Vietnam War–stereotyped, sub-humanized, dehumanized, and demonized the enemy.

Consider this quote: “…[This nation is] aiming at the exclusive domination of the [world], lost in corruption, [characterized by] deep-rooted hatred towards us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head, and the eternal disturber of the peace of the world.”

Who do you think said that? To what nation was he referring?

The answer to the first question is Thomas Jefferson, in 1815, when he was President. The nation in question was Great Britain. Imagine what might have happened if weapons of mass destruction were available back then. Suppose Jefferson, as President, pushed Congress for a preemptive strike against Great Britain. Would a more peaceful world have been achieved?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.

On December 8, 1941, in a speech to the people of the United States, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared: “Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

Rescuing a survivor of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (Photo in public domain; from Wikimedia Commons)

As most people in the U.S. learn in school, the nation fought a victorious war against Japan, “pacified” it (in part through the world’s first and only use of nuclear weaponry), and directed its transformation into a peaceful and successful democracy.

Following 9/11, President George W. Bush framed the invasion of Iraq in the rhetoric of Pearl Harbor and its aftermath, arguing that once again American force could bring peace and democracy to an aggressive nation.

John W. Dower, in an unheeded message to the U.S. government in the February/March issue of the Boston Review in 2003, warned that Iraq was not Japan, and that an attack on and occupation of Iraq was not the route to democracy in that country. He pointed out that “What made the occupation of Japan a success was two years or so of genuine reformist idealism before U.S. policy became consumed by the Cold War…,” which he contrasts sharply with the prevailing conservative philosophy.

It is appropriate for Americans to continue mourning the loss of lives at Pearl Harbor, and the years of violence and death that Pearl Harbor unleashed. At the same time, it is important to gain a better understanding of the events that led to Pearl Harbor, the events that led to 9/11, and the events that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

John W. Dower’s latest book, Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor / Hiroshima / 9-11 / Iraq, offers considerable food for thought on these issues. In this book, Dower warns Americans again about “how pressures and fixations multiply in the cauldron of enmity and war; how reason, emotion, and delusion commingle; how blood debts can become blood lusts, and moral passion can bleed into the practice of wanton terror.”

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other (Moral disengagement, part 7)

Remembering Pearl Harbor