Bomb Ecologies (Leah Zani)

In Bomb Ecologies, Leah Zani shows that the institution of war cannot be separated from everyday life through her study of bomb ecologies. Zani defines bomb ecologies as “zones in which war profoundly shapes the ecological relations, political systems, and material conditions of living and dying.” Zani’s work focuses on the former battlefields of the Vietnam-American War in Laos. From 1964 to 1973, the United States military dropped 260 million cluster bombs over the course of 580,000 bombing missions, leaving nearly half of Laos contaminated with bombs. An obvious marker of bomb ecologies are “bomb villages” constructed out of war debris such as emptied ordnance and cluster munitions. The military labels this debris as waste because it failed in its purpose of warmaking. For example, bombs that failed to detonate are considered waste. Clearance operators and development organizations label this debris as waste because of its effect on the local ecology through contamination. Zani argues that the label of waste imagines war debris as a natural consequence of human existence and diminishes its association with war. However, the violence of war is not self-contained; it includes the messy politics of processing the conflict and repurposing battlefields. The aftermath of a war transcends the conflict itself. Zani takes particular note of the symbolic connection between bombs and fruit. The bombs of the Vietnam-American War so resemble local fruits that they are often referred to in Lao by fruit names. For example, the BLU-3 is called the “pineapple bomb.” The time-sensitive task of deactivating bombs before they explode is a kind of harvest and even coincides with a literal harvest when bomb technicians forage for wild foods during breaks. Zani explains that bombs take on spiritual value in the local Buddhism through the merit accrued by explosives clearance. This resonates with the Theravada Buddist legend of the Land of the Fruit Eaters, a utopia inhabited by beings who only eat fruit and are free from violence and war. The bombs-as-fruit analogy emphasizes the transformation of the tools of war into elements of everyday life, an idea which Zani captures in her field poem “The Fruit Eaters.”

Zani’s findings are a testament to the cultural power of language and symbolism. They establish a connection between top-down language prescriptions which strip war debris of its wartime associations and the incorporation of war debris into the daily lives of bomb village populations. However, Zani neglects to explain how this connection developed over the period of time between the war and the time of her fieldwork. Zani’s implied critique of the “bracketing of conflict” demonstrates that there is no clear distinction between the end of the war and the beginning of the postwar period. I would be interested to explore the timeline of how bomb ecologies developed and particularly how they were conceptualized by the Pathet Lao government which seized control of Laos in 1975. The communist Pathet Lao government had an incentive to use memories of the war to promote nationalism and elicit anger at the United States. Since the bombing of Laos ceased, tens of thousands of Laotians have been killed by unexploded ordnance (UXO) and many more have been maimed or permanently disfigured. Therefore, it is impossible for Laotians to completely dissociate bombs with violence and death. Zani’s thesis would suggest that Laotians consider UXO deaths and injuries as tragic facts of life rather than direct consequences of the war. However, the real answer may differ between the generation of Laotians who were born into bomb ecologies and the generation who lived through the war. Are members of the older generation who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder comfortable living in bomb villages? Another population with a nuanced relationship to the war and resulting bomb ecologies are the ethnic Hmong, who were recruited by the United States to thwart the Vietnamese army’s progression into Northern Laos. For the Hmong, the incorporation of war debris into daily life may be a painful reminder of their role in the war and subsequent persecution. These factors complicate Zani’s monolithic depiction of Laotian attitudes towards the war.

Questions

1. How should the Laotian government intervene in bomb villages where there is a genuine safety hazard?

2. What is the role of field poetry as opposed to more traditional ethnographic notation?

Quotes

1. “A scholarship that engages with what war leaves behind may transcend war and the political claims that bracket conflicts.”

2. “The exceedingly virtuous eat only fruit that freely falls without knowledge of death.”