Karen Yamashita used all sorts of symbolism in Through the Arc of the Rainforest, but the chemical they used towards the end of the book on the birds was called DDT. I was certain there was a substance used at some point that negatively affected birds even though it targeted insects. I couldn't think of the name but I was fairly certain that DDT was not far off. Upon some research (wikipedia), I learned that DDT is the actual name of the now criminalized chemical.
Interestingly enough, the chemical was used during World War II by the allies to kill insects that were carrying the Typhus virus. Also, in 1955 there was a movement by the World Health Organization to help control the Malaria virus that was being carried and spread by mosquitos. It didn't work out too well in Africa, but it proved to be very effective in other parts of the world. Apparently they would go about using DDT the exact same way as it was used in the novel. The only real difference with the chemical was in the way it harmed birds. Environmentalists discovered that with many species of tropical birds, exposure to the chemical had somehow caused the birds to lay eggs with thinner shells. This had a negative impact on the birds populations, which led to the outlaw of the substance (except in India for some reason).
It came to my attention that the author used much more subtle symbolism throughout the whole book. I felt that the Matacao represented oil, which was obvious as were most of her substitutions (I cant think of a better word), but with DDT she just used the same title and amplified the negative effects. I just found this a little out of place, because the actual use of DDT was to get rid of diseases that were spreading naturally. The book had this awful chemical that man selfishly used to solve a problem caused indirectly by greed, whereas there was a much less one sided morality battle in the real life situation.
On the one hand, we were harming the populations of birds, which is awful. On the other hand, Malaria is a horrible disease that no person should have to go through. Im not pushing the use of DDT, I'm just using a specific example to show the two perspectives equally, while in the book I felt the author neglected to do so during multiple instances. Although she did have the authorities apologizing to Batista because some birds would not survive, the perspective of the authorities was delivered in such an evil and unemotional way, while the perspective of Batista and other bird lovers had all of this dramatic emotion behind it. It was a little uneven and I just thought it was too much. It seemed to me that she was criticizing GGG for not acknowledging everyone's perspectives by not acknowledging GGG's perspectives. Just made me think, and in my opinion her approach took away from the books message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Use_in_the_1940s_and_1950s <---Wikipedia Article on DDT.
Interestingly enough, the chemical was used during World War II by the allies to kill insects that were carrying the Typhus virus. Also, in 1955 there was a movement by the World Health Organization to help control the Malaria virus that was being carried and spread by mosquitos. It didn't work out too well in Africa, but it proved to be very effective in other parts of the world. Apparently they would go about using DDT the exact same way as it was used in the novel. The only real difference with the chemical was in the way it harmed birds. Environmentalists discovered that with many species of tropical birds, exposure to the chemical had somehow caused the birds to lay eggs with thinner shells. This had a negative impact on the birds populations, which led to the outlaw of the substance (except in India for some reason).
It came to my attention that the author used much more subtle symbolism throughout the whole book. I felt that the Matacao represented oil, which was obvious as were most of her substitutions (I cant think of a better word), but with DDT she just used the same title and amplified the negative effects. I just found this a little out of place, because the actual use of DDT was to get rid of diseases that were spreading naturally. The book had this awful chemical that man selfishly used to solve a problem caused indirectly by greed, whereas there was a much less one sided morality battle in the real life situation.
On the one hand, we were harming the populations of birds, which is awful. On the other hand, Malaria is a horrible disease that no person should have to go through. Im not pushing the use of DDT, I'm just using a specific example to show the two perspectives equally, while in the book I felt the author neglected to do so during multiple instances. Although she did have the authorities apologizing to Batista because some birds would not survive, the perspective of the authorities was delivered in such an evil and unemotional way, while the perspective of Batista and other bird lovers had all of this dramatic emotion behind it. It was a little uneven and I just thought it was too much. It seemed to me that she was criticizing GGG for not acknowledging everyone's perspectives by not acknowledging GGG's perspectives. Just made me think, and in my opinion her approach took away from the books message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Use_in_the_1940s_and_1950s <---Wikipedia Article on DDT.
I had not thought too much about Yamashita's reference to DDT before reading your post. Learning a bit more about the chemical while looking at your post was very interesting. It gave me more insight into the message Yamashita was trying to convey in her novel.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I agree with you in the fact that it's important to consider both sides of an argument rather than just accepting the point of view that is provided to you; doing so is a very dangerous habit that could have dreadful ramifications. However, in this case I still feel myself more sympathetic to Barista, who saw the entire population of his birds executed to cover the tracks of the mistakes made by GGG. It seemed as though it was a rash decision that was made because it was the easiest solution rather than the best.
ReplyDelete