Following the Second World War people across the world were faced with challenges that they could never imagine. Soldiers returning home lost limbs and did not know how they could go on living their normal day to day lives. Even civilians faced hardships they could never imagine, people received severe damage from bombs that forever changed them.
In Reconstructing the Hiroshima Maidens David Serlin argues that one of the prominent reasons that American plastic surgeons wanted to help women who received injuries caused by the Atomic Bomb was for them to contrive to a social norm. It was the duty of the United States in Serlin’s eyes to erase the damages done by the Atomic Bomb. In a way it was almost propaganda for the use of Atomic weapons. If they could successfully fix the faces of these young women it could be used as pro nuclear weapon propaganda because all of the visible damages done to the victims could be easily fixed and disregarded. Another argument Serlin implements about the plastic surgery is that “the desire and willingness to undergo the knife in the name of physical improvement, one might argue, can no longer be regarded as a purely Western ideal foisted on unsuspecting populations” (Serlin, 109). Serlin explores how this was used to glamorize the stories of the Maidens rather than being shown as victims they were conforming to standards of beauty that was popularized by films and societal norms. The women who were know as the Hiroshima Maidens, a group of women who were kept in hiding by their families due to severe burns and other damages from the bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II, wanted the surgeries to fix their appearances.
A strength in Serlin’s work is his ability to paint a picture of how the procedures on the Hiroshima Maidens was used a PR move. This is evident from their photographs being plastered across newspapers, such as the one featured at the beginning of the post, and a few of the ladies appearing on This Is Your Life, a reality show where they were confronted with the co-pilot of the Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on their city. This challenged the way I view rehabilitation because it seems as if it should be a private and space place where people can recover from their wounds. However, Serlin expresses that it was more akin to a media stunt.
A weakness in the article is that Serlin did not articulate the connection to the Hiroshima memorial that was being built in the city and the Hiroshima Maidens, it was the expose into the article but it seemed out of place. Serlin did illustrate his argument in a clear and concise manner. He began by exploring what happened to these women not only in their home country but also once they were in the United States. Serlin could have gone one step further by exploring what happened to the Maidens once they returned home to Japan. How did they feel about their plastic surgery? Did it really better their life or were they still seen as social outcasts?
In Mobility redux: Post-World War II prosthetics and functional aids for veterans, 1945 to 2010 by James McAleer explores the role of the government following the Second World War to make better prosthetics for those returning from battle. McAleer addresses that following the War many veterans were discontent with the way they were treated. Veterans matched on Capitol Hill in order to illustrate to the government “we have a big problem–one that affects our lives every day–substandard prostheses for us, returning verbenas, as compared with higher-quality devices prescribed for civilian amputees”(McAleer, 7). McAleer goes on to explore how this demand for veterans who just faced the horrors of war to move on with their everyday life was answered by the U.S. government. The Veterans Administration made it their mission to develop new technology to make advancement on prosthetics and help returning veterans assimilate back into everyday life. They did so by “establishing 30 multidisciplinary amputee clinics across the country in 1949 and an educational program for the specialists who staffed them” and as funding research and advancement on prosthetics (McAleer, 9-12).
McAleer’s strength in is argument is that he illustrated a clear process in which the VA helped to innovate prosthetics for returning soldiers once they demanded it. It was interesting to read how willing the government was to help with little to no objection.
A weakness in the article is that I felt like the process was almost too easy I would have liked his argument to explore any problems the VA faced while trying out these new technologies for prosthetics. A great way the author contributed to his narrative was by addressing how though this program began following World War II it is still being used today. I would have also enjoyed for the article to have more personal narratives of soldiers rather than just the one of them marching to Congress. This article challenged the way I look at rehabilitation because McAleer addresses that it is not over once someone is given the tools they need in order to go on living life. Prosthetics are always changing and improving in order to aid people to live the life that they did before they got injured. A few questions I have for McAleer following his research is why did it take so long for the government to take responsibility for providing the best medical care for returning soldiers?
Serlin and McAleer have very different arguments in their works. Serlin’s expose on plastic surgery on the Hiroshima Maidens has more of a negative light on the process he paints it as a publicity stunt that could be viewed as a form of propaganda for the Western world. McAleer in comparison argues that the Federal Government made it their mission to help veterans when they demanded their voices be heard. They did so not as a publicity move but rather as a way to prove that they were there to aid those who had suffered during war, this is similar to the the services set up for veterans following the war such as the GI Bill, better job opportunities, and housing. Both articles gave insight into medical rehabilitation that was used following the Second World War which gave a historian a different angle into challenges that many citizens faced.
McAleer, James. “Mobility redux: Post-World War II prosthetics and functional aids for veterans, 1945 to 2010.” Journal of Rehabilitation, Research & Development Vol. 48, (November 2, 2011). 7-16.
Serline, David. “Replaceable you: engineering the body in postwar America”. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 57-110.
I think you make a really valid point about how David Selin claims that America only wanted to help these women to help itself. I feel like America really was trying to gain the forgiveness for something so horrendous and unforgivable. I feel like the second article that you read and wrote about seemed really interesting. I think it is understandable for the Veterans to demand better rights and better equality.