Yonkers and History (and something else...)

The battle of Yonkers section in War World Z is perhaps the most visceral and shocking scene because of it frantic pace, intensity, choice of a common foot soldier as narrator; and the maddening frustration of the military command failure on display.  With so many of the stories in the book being about politicians, entrepreneurs and "idea men" and women ( remote agents in the war against Zack), I find these more personal tales of survival very harrowing and compelling.

The zombie, to me, has always been much more important as metaphor rather than monster.  The success of the zombie genre is surely due to the pliability of these cannibals as symbols.  They can represent nearly anything.  In the original Night of the Living Dead, it was racism, the new sciences of destruction emerging from WWII, and other things.  In 28 Days Later, it was rage and aggression.  At the Battle of Yonkers, I think they represent history's tendency to repeat itself. 

Great armies throughout history have been defeated through a failure to understand the nature and mindset of their enemies.  In War World I, the British military and T. E. Lawrence had a difficult time getting the Arab Revolt to understand the new tactics and destructive capabilities of emerging technologies.  In Vietnam, we failed to realize the commitment of the Vietcong and their brutal guerrilla tactics.  In the '80s, Russia underestimated the low-tech, high-return strategies of the Taliban. We did much the same thing in 2001. 

In Yonkers, the US military falls victim to their own technological sophistication and the complacency created by that over reliance.  Additionally, ingraining tactics into the minds of soldiers is a major part of today's massive, complex armies.  A conglomeration of thousands must think as one and move as one to achieve success.  But what do you do against an enemy that is utterly incapable of the same, a mass of independent soldiers immune to the confusion and pandemonium they create?  Training an entire army to respond to such new and unnatural tactics would require huge amounts of time and resources along with careful, outside-the-box leadership.  Today's modern system just isn't set up to handle that. 

As a last observation: Why is it that apocalypses always seem to be a victory for Thoreau-types dedicated to simple living, rejection of technology, and smaller communities?  Its always the old ways (bow and arrow, pointed sticks, isolationism, and the KISS method) that win out.  Is regression just the natural result of social collapse, or does apocalypse fiction fulfill some common desire to escape all the complexities and difficulties of the modern rat race?  Does everyone sitting down to watch the news at night who sees the nonsense and disharmony going on in the world secretly want to reset the clock?  Or are you more afraid of what would happen if it did?

My Preferred Databases

The UT libraries website has a number of great resources.  Conducting a few brief searches on some of the databases, I think that—in terms of this paper—the Literature Resource Center and MLA International Bibliography will be the most useful.  Both provide a number of search options and seem to have a large selection of scholarly sources.  The LRC includes many of the articles in PDF format on their site without needing to link to another outside database like EBSCO.  MLA International, however, does provide links back to the libraries' website for locating a hardcopy in the event that it is not available online, which is helpful.  And MLA seems better equipped for refining searches in-process and locating related topics through links in the descriptors.  So, I am leaning towards the latter database.

As an accounting major, ProQuest's accounting and tax database looks to be extremely helpful.  It is well formatted, clean without being overly simplistic, and provides nice advanced search options. There are journals on related topics as well as current news articles that with be extremely usefully to me during my career at UT following and exploring practical examples of accounting and business processes, principles, and important developments in the field.  

Dr. Strangelove and Childishness

I've seen Dr. Strangelove perhaps half a dozen times, and it continues to reveal new layers to its comedic portrayal of a nuclear apocalypse.  The main satirical focus of the film seems far greater than just a cataclysmic event like the cold war instigating an all out conflict between the U.S. and Russia. The target of the movies appears to be political and military power in general.

The film offers us two different military leaders in the form of the psychotic and conspiratorial General Ripper and the manic, child-like general Turgidson played brilliantly by George C. Scott.  Most men depict military leadership as being fundamentally dillusional and banal in their obsession with secret Communist plots and power grabs. 

Turgidson is continually shown exhibiting childish behavior.  There are more overt displays such as when he wrestles with the Russian ambassador over a hidden camera (that the General might have planted) and, like a young boy, mimes the motions of an airplane while joyfully describing the maneuvering capabilities of a B-52 bomber.  Also, their are more subtle clues like Turgidson's constantly chewing of gum which is reminiscent of a baby's oral fixation. 

General Ripper is, on the surface, far more serious, but displays a similarly immature mindset, absence of logic, and boyish obsession with the flashier elements of war: big guns and big military gestures. 

The difference between these two is that, while Turgidson's paranoia is tolerated, Ripper's is not.  The difference?  Ripper challenges political authority by sidestepping the President and starting war with Russian himself.  Turgidson, whether he likes it or not, plays the game. You see, the political leaders, the U.S. President and his Russian counterpart, are equally childish as evidenced in their silly argument over who is sorriest. 

The filmmakers are saying that childishness and foolishness are tolerated in military and government powers only so long as you don't step on the toes of the bigger, more important kids sharing the sandbox.

The film succeeds quite well at its depiction of power because in operates on overt and more subtle levels.  Much of the satire was lost on me the first time I saw Dr. Strangelove, but it reveals more and more levels as you watch.  This technique is very effective and almost necessary when satirizing such hot button issues as nuclear war and current institutions like our difficult marriage of government and military powers.