The Many Meanings of the Pearl Harbor Memorial 

By Kalei Stambaugh

When first walking onto the grounds of the Pearl Harbor National Memorial, you are greeted by perfectly lined palm trees, a great green lawn, and are likely to see varying groups of people visiting the memorial. There are several exhibits that feature war wreckage from the events that took place on December 7th 1941, as well as interactive exhibits where you can watch and listen to audio from that day. Looking out past the buildings you will see boats taking visitors to the USS Arizona Memorial. Walking onto the long white memorial structure, you will see lists of names along the walls and oil in the water surrounding the memorial making transparent rainbow patterns. Before leaving, you can visit the gift shop and purchase a souvenir, such as your own paper crane making set, to remember your visit. 

I visited the Pearl Harbor Memorial on April 9th, 2014. Seven years later, these are the memories that stuck with me. I was fairly young and didn’t know much about Pearl Harbor or World War II and to be completely honest, would much rather have been at the beach than at some old war memorial. This was my experience at the Pearl Harbor National Memorial, but the significance of the memorial is different for everyone. In the essay, “Reorienting Pearl Harbor Memories” author Yujin Yaguchi argues that there are a multitude of interpretations and meanings of the memorial for any individual. Yaguchi uses the Japanese contextualization of the Pearl Harbor Memorial to support his argument. This essay contrasts part of an argument made by Vernadette Vicuña Gonzalez in her piece, “Wars of Memory at Pu’uloa/Pearl Harbor”. Gonzalez discusses issues with the simple nationalist historical account given at the Pearl Harbor Memorial and writes to explore the indigenous history that lies behind Pearl Harbor, once known as Pu’uloa. In her essay she argues that the Pearl Harbor Memorial simply functions to instill a sense of American nationalism and militarism in visitors. Yaguchi reveals a flaw in Gonzalez’s argument in which the Pearl Harbor Memorial does not just function to promote American nationalism, but rather allows for a variety of meanings for different people. The unique interactive experiences of individuals with the memorial, varying historical and cultural backgrounds, and remembrance practices, are factors that contribute to what an individual takes away from the memorial.

It is supported that various individuals interacting with the Pearl Harbor Memorial are likely to produce different meanings of significance of the memorial. To first address Gonzalez’s view, she describes her perspective of interactions with the memorial: “[t]he sunken battleship in the harbor, its sacralization as an underwater tomb, and the ritualization of remembrance around it have produced a memorial that generates and responds to unabashed patriotism, leaving little room for other kinds of narratives,” (Gonzalez, 179). Gonzalez argues that the memorial has such a strong connection to patriotism, that it discourages other narratives to be produced by people. In his essay, Yaguchi acknowledges Gonzalez’s view stating, “scholars like Gonzales are an important reminder that the fundamental significance of US war memorials, including the USS Arizona, is to serve and reinforce the appeal of American militarism and nationalism. (Yaguchi, 36). Yet, Yugachi details, this perspective does not take into account the many unique backgrounds that people come from when visiting the Pearl Harbor memorial, which can result in interpretations of the memorial that do not simply fall in the category of a nationalistic view. Yugachi explains that “Memorial history...depends on an active interpretive process that may produce quite different moral and emotional readings among different constituencies,”(Yaguchi, 36). Hawaii is a hot tourist spot for people all over the world. Coming from extremely diverse backgrounds, these people are likely to have various interpretations of the memorial, many not likely even pertaining to American nationalism. With such diverse groups of people attending the memorial, it is likely that the visitors implement their own unique memory practices to establish their own definition of significance for the memorial. One perspective that will be explored later in this essay is the Japanese understanding of the memorial. Gonzalez proceeds to argue that “Pearl Harbor encompasses and exceeds December 7, 1941, temporally and spatially, and this historiographical framing is unsettling, given the overdetermined American nationalistic narrative that pervades this place” (Gonzalez, 180). She provides that the many characterizations of this memorial and World War II are overdone in exploiting the American nationalistic view. However, while “[w]ar memorials generate multiple and competing memory-scapes that are part of national and international narratives, they also produce intensely personal and individualized memories,” (Yaguchi, 35). It is true that one focus of war memorials is in generating the promotion of national and even international narratives, but this does not hinder personal perspectives. Individual remembrance practices also work to insight discussions of the events and help individuals to develop their own meaning of the memorial, outside of the set nationalistic meanings. Considering the individual view of a person is important to step out of the overarching national perspective to give way for alternative interpretations of the history and memorial.

Yaguchi uses the Japanese contextualization of the Pearl Harbor Memorial to depict how those of different cultural and historical backgrounds can derive different meanings of the memorial. Gonzalez writes that “Pearl Harbor’s identity as a place—as a military base and tourism destination—remains firmly tied to an effective narrative arc of innocence, betrayal, sacrifice, and triumph,” (Gonzalez, 179). These few narratives do not encompass the many meanings that can be developed from the Pearl Harbor Memorial. Yugachi demonstrates that the Japanese view of the memorial has a different meaning than the narratives of “innocence, betrayal, sacrifice, and triumph” that Gonzalez believes the memorial to communicate. Many Japanese individuals have their own perspective of the memorial, moreso because they are a people with a direct link to the events that happened at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese Prime Minister illustrates this view referring to Pearl harbor as “‘this beautiful inlet, shimmering like pearls,’ function[ing] as ‘a symbol of tolerance and reconciliation’ that would serve as the solid basis of an alliance between the two nations.” (Yaguchi, 38-39). While Gonzalez might expect the Japanese to observe the memorial as an American militarian representation of past events, Yaguchi explains that they rather define it as a symbol of peace between America and Japan. For the Japanese, the memorial stands as evidence of a growing relationship between America and their nation, as they were able to move on from past histories and become allies. As expressed by Yaguchi, “The USS Arizona Memorial and Pearl Harbor embodied a future with the United States that Abe hoped to secure in the twenty-first century.” (Yaguchi, 39). This meaning behind the memorial for the Japanese shows how the Pearl Harbor Memorial possesses greater significance than an establishment meant to insight patriotism.

Certain practices of remembrance can contribute to the curating of memorial significance for individuals. These remembrance practices can also help to shed light on the suppressed indigenous history that Gonzalez outlines.  In her work, she had discussed the indigenous history underlying the Pearl Harbor Memorial. Gonzalez argued that indigenous history “...is simultaneously a reterritorialization of occupied lands, removing it from the kind of heroic narration that operates as a defense of US militarism, and the signaling of another historical arc that gestures to a decolonial futurity,” (Gonzalez, 183). Gonzalez writes of the Native Hawaiian history behind Pearl Harbor Memorial, that had been suppressed by the nationalistic and militarism narrative, as a decolonization effort. Yaguchi also noted that the Native Hawaiian history is scarcely regarded. He states that even in the speeches by President Obama and the Japanese Prime Minister at the Pearl Harbor Memorial in 2016, there was not

“much discussion of the longer history of Pearl Harbor, an area known as Pu’uloa among Native Hawaiians, that had been taken over by the United States long before the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i in 1893,” (Yaguchi, 44). Both sources agree that the memorial is insufficient in addressing the relative Native Hawaiian history of the site. In his argument, Yaguchi proposes ways in which the remembrance practices can work to provide various memorial meanings. These practices can in turn be applied to provide memorial meanings that are in acknowledgement of the Native Hawaiian History. Yaguchi provides that “...objects like the paper crane and dialogues like the discussions between teachers from the United States and Japan...may increasingly play a significant role in fostering open conversations to expand and conserve different memories at more personal and local levels,” (Yaguchi, 45). At the Pearl Harbor Memorial there is an exhibit that displays the paper cranes folded by a young Japanese girl, who died of radiation following the Hiroshima bombing of World War II. She had folded the paper cranes for in their culture she thought they might cure her illness. The family of the little girl shared the paper cranes with the memorial to help communicate messages of peace. The exhibit featuring the paper cranes now serves to instigate new interpretations of meanings for the memorial. This remembrance practice is one that can help Japanese and other victims of World War II find the significance of the memorial whether it be peace or something else. Another remembrance practice demonstrated was the discussions between teachers on how to educate students on Pearl Harbor. Yaguchi stated that teachers from America and Japan discussed the meaning of Pearl Harbor from both perspectives to get a better understanding of ways the past can be interpreted. They then encouraged the students to consider both sides of the past as well as the Native Hawaiian History to develop their own interpretation of Pearl Harbor. This illuminates another type of remembrance practice that can be used to create various interpretations of the Pearl Harbor Memorial, like some that expand outside the common ideas of nationalism and militarism. To better acknowledge the Native Hawaiian History of Pearl Harbor, tangible objects related to the history can be implemented, scholars can present and communicate the history, or other types of remembrance practices can be instilled to instigate recognition of the native history. 

Memorials can serve as grounds to inspire a multitude of interpretations of the site. While a common take away from the Pearl Harbor Memorial may be a sense of nationalism, there are several other meanings that individuals can apply to the memorial. When it comes to developing significance for a memorial, individuals’ personal interactive experiences, cultural history and background, and various remembrance practices all play a role in creating that meaning. To strengthen her argument, Gonzalez might consider these factors that affect what individuals convey from the memorial. Allowing for the consideration of multiple perspectives would generate new meanings of the memorial besides the overgeneralizing nationalistic view. Perspective is a critical and recurring theme throughout all things regarding history and should not be overlooked when cultivating interpretations.

References

Vernadette Vicuña Gonzalez, "Wars of Memory at Pu‘uloa / Pearl Harbor," Radical History Review (October 2017): 177–184.