Sep 30 2007
G.I. Joe, American ‘Victory Culture’ and War Rhetoric
In the days following my post on the United States government’s preference for war rhetoric in public speeches I noticed increased press coverage of the upcoming GI Joe movie. It could not be more appropriate to expand on the war rhetoric discussion than to attempt a look at GI Joe as an icon of what Tom Egelhardt calls the Victory Culture.
In 1945 the film The Story of G.I. Joe was released describing World War II U.S. Infantry experiences. In 1962 the movie inspired the name for the G.I. Joe action figure whose creator, Hasbro creative director Don Levine, originally called a “movable soldier.” “In February 1964, at the American International Toy Fair in New York,
America was introduced to G.I. JOE: ’AMERICA’S MOVABLE FIGHTING MAN.’” (Hasbro.com).
The success of the action figure was probably just a reflection of the American preoccupation with the nation’s military role in the world, the perceived victory in World War II as well as the new found position as a super-power at one end of the axis of the Cold War.
Egelhardt argues that the rise of the U.S. from colony to superpower is due to the culture left over by the colonial triumph over native Americans. Justifying slaughter by revealing the cruelty of the natives, the settlers claimed their triumph and expanded west, or at least that’s the mythology of the Western story. During World War II the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the justification needed for the United States to wipe out Japanese cities. To Egelhardt these two mythologies, the Western story and the World War II story of triumph against outside perpetrators were repeated incessantly within the post World War II years resulting into a very specific concept of American patriotism that permeates American society to this day.
The G.I. Joe example would serve as supporting evidence to this argument. The G.I. Joe rhetoric of war was highly convincing in the context of the “fighting man’s” tales of victory against foreign enemies, which insured the popularity of a series of military action figures. When Hasbro attempted to expand the lines of action figures to include the G.I. NURSE the action girl nurse failed miserably.
During the Vietnam war the popularity of the military action figures decreased at the same pace with the increase in anti-war sentiments. G.I. Joe retired from military services and became an adventurer. “Capturing tigers and gorillas and recovering mummies and golden idols became the order of the day,” according to Hasbro.
In the 1980s Joe changed bylines again and became GI JOE A REAL AMERICAN HERO. This change in narrative coincided with the rhetorical prominence of the Cold War public discourse. For example, NATO references become common in filecard information during this decade. Most of the action figures’ filecard information listed familiarity with “with all NATO and Warsaw Pact light and heavy machine guns” (Complete Guide to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero). Also, in order to recover on the unexpected failure of the victory culture during the Vietnam War, the “mobile strike force” were recruited mostly from Vietnam veterans.
G.I. Joe mythology became effective at willingly indoctrinating its puerile audience who later became today’s adult generation:
Everything I needed to know about geography, world affairs, and US foreign policy was all included in this formulaic show…or so I was led to believe. I learned that the US Special Forces were prepared to intervene across the globe in every terrain and environment imaginable, violence was the preferred (and enjoyable) method to solve problems, and no other fighting force could ever match the strength and wit of the seemingly invincible US military. Watching the show as an adolescent, I had been willingly indoctrinated with all of these jingoistic values. (, Imagining Terrorists before Sept. 11: Marvel’s GI Joe Comic Books, 1982-1994).
The belligerent nature of the G.I. Joe culture does appear to have become more prominent in the past 20 years, but not through an increase of military symbolism but rather through a more aggressive rhetoric emphasizing the duty of the American citizen. Just as G.I. Joe is not the movable soldier any more, the U.S. is not waging war against people but rather the message is that of “intervention” or more specifically, “protecting the American people,” and “promoting peace”:
My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people. And that’s your calling, as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful, and so is your Commander-in-Chief. (George W. Bush, Presidential Address, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, June 28, 2005).
Norlund also argues the point of a rhetoric of war based on an instilled “sense of patriotism and duty.” “By portraying Cobra as disingenuous, disloyal, cowardly, and inauthentic, the reader is then predisposed to identify more with the authentic and establishment-tied GI Joe.” Thus the sense of duty is not to wage war but to react in an precoded pattern when faced with a portrayal of good versus evil.
Whether it is a victory culture or indoctrination through belligerent values, the war rhetoric permeates all isles of the great American marketplace, including toy sections, book shelves and Saturday morning cartoons.
