After the conclusion of World War II, there were many unavoidable societal changes. Some pertained primarily to the dealing with returning soldiers, wounded or intact, as a collective society, while others dealt with figuring out where displaced children belonged. In all cases, however, one thing was for sure: World War II made people of all involved nations aware of the international presence of other nations and the people whom inhabited them.
Germany is an easy country to pick on for having an socially unaccepted view on humanity within its own society leading up to and during the second World War. They interned Jewish peoples in concentration and labor camps. Yet, in the United States, people of Japanese descent were also interned. Avoiding the comparison of their conditions, the two sovereign states, as well as many others did not treat humans appropriately or fairly, to say the least. It was important to moving forward as a world that people of all nations become more aware of their fellow human beings. Thus, a commission for the Family of Man art exhibit was raised.
In a press release from the Family of Man art exhibit, it is stated that the exhibit was designed for “portraying the universal elements and emotions and the oneness of human beings throughout the world” and that “it is probable the most ambitious and challenging project photography has ever faced and one for which […] the art of photography is uniquely qualified.” The goal was to capture the emotional tensions created by anything and everything in the lives of people, something that was no easy task. The whole project was undoubtedly an effort to use photography as propaganda for a cause that might be considered worthy of humanitarian praise. It was designed to raise awareness and bond a wounded and disconnected world. Yet, the same press release made a point to mention, “We are not concerned with photographs that border on propaganda for or against any political ideologies.” They wanted it raw; they wanted a natural depiction. It appeared that they did not want photographs that were able to be leveraged. Or did they want photographs that could only be leveraged in ways that strictly benefited their benevolent goals?
Family of Man Exhibit
With the consciousness of societies and the individual humans inhabiting the Earth, people began to care more for the individual. Human rights were established and re-established on world-wide fronts. Studies were conducted involving the definition of human rights beyond the basics with an emphasis on other-than-American peoples, as illustrated in Human Rights. As we can see today, rights of the individual person, whether upon natural birth-right or of any other nature are still under debate today. But one thing is for sure; without the courses of action taken prior to, throughout, and immediately after World War II, societies today might not have become as conscious of human rights.
I enjoyed that you included information from the primary sources on Human Rights in your blogpost. I also liked your image from The Family of Man exhibit it gives the reader a clearer image of how the exhibit flowed.
I really think you made a good point by saying that WWII made all nations aware of each other. I think this is really shown with the reactions of nations towards one another. I like how you pointed out that while tragic, Germany is not the only country who mistreated its citizen’s for having a different race/religion. I also think it is important that we talk about The Family of Men exhibit because I think it gave many people an eye opener while it also made others question the reasoning behind it. I think you did an overall really good job!
I like your inclusion of the press release. I don’t buy into the belief that there was some subversive nature of The Family of Man. I think Steichen just wanted to depict real humans in their everyday lives around the world. He saw the horrors of war, as well as the rise of authoritarian regimes. I just think he wanted to rehumanized the world, and make people aware that their are other civilizations outside of America and the West.
I really like how you bring up the issue of Japanese internment and some of teh human rights violations that America committed. I agree with Ben however that I don’t see it as subversive in any way, even for a noble cause. I think it did a very good job of painting what his perception of family was and allowing viewers toform their own ideas around it.
I like that you brought up the Japanese internment camps in your post. Though the United States did not slaughter millions of people as did Germany, the internment of Japanese Americans without cause was clearly a human rights violation. I believe that it is necessary for we as Americans to understand this simple fact.
I like how you bring up the new focus on the rights of the individual following the Second World War. Up to that point, it was pretty widely assumed that on the international stage, the country of which you were a citizen would protect you and provide you with rights. But it became painfully clear in the Second World War and through the numerous crimes against humanity that took place there that there was no protection for someone should their own country attempt to ethnically cleanse then from the land or even exterminate them as a distinct people in the case of the Jews. In the wake of this, new considerations had to be made and it became clear that some people, whether it be a minority group or a single person, needed to be their own legally substantial entity, regardless of citizenship or lack there of.
Good question: were the pictures chosen to invoke a raw emotion, or to work for a seemingly benevolent/democratic goal as Turner suggested? I’d like to believe, and hope, that the pictures were indeed to promote unity as human beings, even if it was pushing a subtle agenda. You’ve raised really good points, and made awesome clarifications!