Marine; soldier = 'naval seaman'; his-story = 'history focused on men'; etc.

Dave Wilton dave at WILTON.NET
Sat Oct 16 12:28:00 UTC 2010 

The 1947 date jumped out at me too, but I didn't bother to look it up. It's
clearly wrong. I'm not sure of Michener's dates of service, but the Library
of Congress gives the publication date as 1947. He certainly wasn't in the
South Pacific writing it in that year. You might overlook a misuse of a
historical term in literary criticism, but you've got to get the date of
composition and publication right.

Regarding Kurulei and Operation Alligator being fictional, I think that is
pretty clear from the entire tenor of the article-a major theme of which is
utility of examining fictional accounts, as opposed to historical ones, to
gain a broader and deeper sense of history.

"Colonization" has a somewhat different valence in literary criticism than
it does in history, where it doesn't necessarily refer to the formal
political/economic status of a colony. The Solomon Islands were a British
colony both before and after the war, not gaining self-government until 1976
and full independence in 1978. And the US did administer former Japanese
colonies through the UN-mandated Trust Territories of the Pacific from war's
end until the 1990s. And there was of course the neighboring US colonization
of the Philippines and the Australian colonization of New Guinea. In this
sense, the American occupation of the Solomons during WWII was part of a
chain of German/British-Japanese-American-British cultural and political
domination. The fact that the Japanese were much worse oppressors doesn't
change the fact that the native population remained subaltern. So the
discussion of the book in the frame of colonial/postcolonial literature is
legitimate.

I did spot another questionable usage though on p. 44, "empirical events of
history." I'm not sure how an event can be empirical, at least not in the
sense that the term is usually used to divide empirical and non-empirical
disciplines. Perhaps "factual" was what was meant.


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Lighter
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 9:58 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Marine; soldier = 'naval seaman'; his-story = 'history focused
on men'; etc.

It is quite clear from the novel that, except for a handful of clearly
identiied Marines, the military personnel are naval.

Since it isn't linguistic, I didn't bother to mention it before, but neither
the editors nor the writer were aware that Michener's island of "Kuralei,"
the objective of "Operation Alligator," which unifies the tales, is entirely
fictional. The writer assumes that it's real.

Of course, it may not matter, since part of the point is that, while
"[h]istorical narratives considered to be authentic are esteemed, . . .
fictional narratives are censored [sic] as being a concoction of the
imagination."   "Fiction," moreover, "is perhaps the most effective tool
with which the past can be reviewed and reevaluated."  "The most effective
tool"?  I'd think that historical research would be far more effective.

The writer/editors should also have known that the American presence on
Guadalcanal, Tulagi, and many of the other islands mentioned was not the
result of American "colonizing."  (Unless, as is perfectly possible, the
word meant was "occupation.")  The Japanese were already occupying
these islands and treating the locals pretty poorly according to my
information.

Why _Negro_ is repeatedly in scare quotes I can only guess.  That is indeed
the word Michener uses - the same as most polite people of every race in the
1940s.

I charitably assume that having Michener writing the book while on duty in
the South Pacific in "1947" is simply a misprint for "1942."  But that would
be another blunder, since Michener didn't arrive till 1944. By 1947,
(as copy editors used to know) the war was quite over.



JL

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Dave Wilton <dave at wilton.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Marine; soldier = 'naval seaman'; his-story = 'history
>              focused on men'; etc.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
> Looking at the article, it definitely seems some of the usages are based
in
> ignorance. The most striking example I see of this lack of background in
> the
> subject is on p. 52:
>
> "The role of these 'Negroes' in the fateful war as narrated by Michener in
> minimal. In general, 'Negroes' are confined either to the role of
graveyard
> keepers, or are destined to die very early. In contrast, heroic acts of
> white Marines and the men of the Air Force are narrated with vigor."
>
> Of course, blacks were almost entirely excluded from the Marines and the
> Navy in WWII in WWII. Unlike the Army and the Army Air Forces, the Navy
and
> the Marine Corps did not, with some few exceptions, allow African
Americans
> to serve. The only blacks that would be found would be a few in service
> positions like grave diggers or galley stewards. So of course Michener's
> narration would reflect this. A Lit Crit academic from India is not likely
> to know such things. The racial arguments in the article are probably
still
> valid, but they need to be framed differently. The article makes it sound
> as
> if Michener is the one excluding blacks and not government policy.
>
> I don't want to be too critical because it looks like there is some good
> stuff in the article, but it sure could have used someone with a
smattering
> of background in military history on the peer review committee.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Jonathan Lighter
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:09 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Marine; soldier = 'naval seaman'; his-story = 'history
focused
> on men'; etc.
>
> My guess is that the misuse of _soldier_ and _Marine_ comes from the fact
> that "sailor" implies somebody who works on a ship (few of Michener's
> sailors do so) and who may not be in the military.  A "soldier," however,
> is
> in the military and is stereotypically on land. A "Marine," as we have
> noticed before, is popularly regarded as a kind of "soldier," perhaps
> (correctly, of course) with naval associations.
>
> Thus Michener's characters, other than (female) Navy nurses, are
> transmogrified into "soldiers" and "Marines."
>
> Of course the phrases "naval personnel" and "navy men" are available, but
> the writer chooses not use them and the editors choose not to supply them.
> Whether this setms from sheer ignorance or from some semantical dynamic
> is impossible to judge. But the words mean in context what they mean in
> context.
>
> JL
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jonathan Lighter
> <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> > Subject:      Marine; soldier = 'naval seaman'; his-story = 'history
> > focused on
> >              men'; etc.
> >
> >
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > Naturally the source is once again recent lit crit.
> >
> > The academic author taught in India. I don't know if the following
usages
> > are typical of formal Indian English. The writer discusses in a
> > professional
> > journal, published at Wesleyan U., James A.Michener's _Tales of the
South
> > Pacific _ (1947).  Having just reread the book, I can assure you that
all
> > major characters belong to the U.S. Navy:
> >
> > 2002 Madhumalati Adhikari in _History and Theory_ XLI 46: Michener's
> > _Tales_
> > focuses on. . . the Marines stationed on the islands of the South
> Pacific.
> > 52: The American officers and soldiers . . . have been forced to try to
> > live
> > in this war-torn area.  53: [T]he Marines in the tales....
> >
> > P. 52: "In Michener's 'his story,' Tony Fry becomes a hero."
> >
> > Also, _rape_ = 'serious distortion.'
> >
> > P. 44: "Plausible documents need to be created to bridge evident gaps
[in
> > historical records]. This is not a rape of history but a generous act to
> > give credibility and continuity to it." [If "document" means what it
> > usually
> > means, this statement is worth pondering; but the context suggests it
> > may instead mean 'literary works'.]
> >
> > Not in OED is _emplotment_ 'literary plotting; placement in a literary
> > plot":
> >
> > P. 46: "The discovery and emplotment of this new truth becomes an
> > inspiration to act and think differently."
> >
> > Before her retirement in 2003, Prof. Adhikari taught in the Department
of
> > Post-Graduate Studies and Research in English of Jabalpur University.
She
> > is
> > the author of nearly forty professional articles.
> >
> > JL
> >
> >  --
> > "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> truth."
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

More information about the Ads-l mailing list