Doomsday

The “Duck and Cover” film was almost laughable.  I’m sure that people of a certain age can look back on these informative and important announcements from the Federal government not without some nostalgia and longing for a day when enemies were defined and threats confined to the latest few weapons.  The list of potential harm from the atomic bomb is underwhelming and underemphasized.  Nothing about radiation or heat or other harmful effects of the bomb.  No mention that the United States has just deployed one against Japan.  Further, the primitive safety guidelines, though somewhat protective, (“cover your neck with your coat”) are unlikely to make much of a difference in the event of true nuclear warfare.  And the civil defense worker arrives just in time to help Tony!  What did children think of these videos when they were shown in their classrooms?  I imagine a video presentation of this sort making apprehensive young school children even more worried about imminent disaster.  The fact that the average citizen knew almost nothing about the science behind atomic bombs made them entirely vulnerable and dependent on any information that the government distributed.  Additionally, since a lone man did not have any power to prevent the bomb, and since the threat of attack could only be prevented or defended by the federal government, films like these probably inspired more relief than skepticism.  Even the skeptic could try to “duck and cover.”  What did he have to lose in the case of total catastrophe?  Further, the 1950s were generally characterized by post-war quietude and conformity and belief in and reliance on the great American government that had granted them victorious in the war (though this neglects important movements that were simmering just below the surface).  The war hero is reincarnated in the civil defense worker who so kindly helps the little boy with his bicycle.  It’s your friendly hero just doing a day’s work in small-town America.  This was also an audience that had become accustomed to regularly watching newsreels of great importance during the war years.  Films had authority and anything released by the federal government even more so.

The pairing of the Strozier piece with this film suggests the threat of nuclear holocaust to which he has referred and which many Christian fundamentalists anticipate at end time.  But Strozier also points out that this end is a generalized notion of violence and warfare.  What he also notes is a curious sort of dissonance between fundamentalists external placidity as expressed through good works, charitable actions and religious devotion and an attention to violence to come at end time.  Religious fervor seems to manifest itself through intense acts of violence (and sex and domination) all in the name of salvation.  Strozier speak of indoctrination of youth that is so critical to maintaining the movement.  From a young age, children of the faith are inculcated with religious teaching and guilt to steer them in the path of the saved.  Concomitant with this teaching comes an understanding and fear of the wars at the end of the world.  Most intriguing in this piece was Strozier ideas about guilt and fears of end time.  In my own fatalist worldview, everything is going to turn out the worst it can.  It is a relief each time something does not go wrong.  But the anxiety that precedes is something to which I relate.