TRANSCRIPT

– [MUSIC PLAYING] You might be wondering what hockey has to do with strange American stories. We place a lot of emphasis in sports and our politics. Think about the United States and basketball and what happened in 2004. We won the bronze medal and what immediately happened? Every professional basketball player that was American signed up to commit to play for the next three Olympics and we won gold beating every team. That’s exactly the way the Soviet Union was in the late 20th century. They wanted to demonstrate their superiority to the world. The way they chose to do that, one of the ways, was their sports specifically ice hockey and the Soviet Red Army team won the Olympic gold medal in 56, 64, 68, 72, 76, 84, and 88. Parenthetically in 60, 80, it was the US that beat them. But that’s a different story. That’s next year’s story. They revolutionized the way hockey was played. Specifically what became known as the Russian 5. Sergei Fedorov, Igor Larionov, Viacheslav Fetisov, Vyacheslav Kozlov, and Vladimir Konstantinov. All five of these players played for the Detroit Red Wings in the 1990s and changed the game of hockey forever. The problem was how were we going to get them over here to play. Sergei Fedorov was drafted in the fourth round in 1989 by the Detroit Red Wings. The problem was the Soviets had the Iron Curtain. They would not allow any player to come over and join them. They were everywhere the team went internationally. You had KGB agents and you had spies making sure that Soviets stayed with the team and never traveled. So the Red Wings call a beat writer for the Detroit Free Press by a man by the name of Keith Gaines, who just so happened in the 70s was a Russian analyst for the NSA station in West Berlin. So he could speak Russian. So the Red Wings invite gaines to lunch and basically say, hey, we will pay you six figures to go to Helsinki where the Soviets are playing in a pre-season tournament. And just tell Sergey Fedorov and Vladimir Constantinov that we’ve drafted them. And then they can come over here and play. We just need a letter. Now the journalist hesitated. Your journalistic standards, ethics supposed to be covering the team. Now the team offered to pay him as like a subversive pay plus if he gets caught he’s basically going to Siberia when they ever see or hear from him again. That’s the way the Soviet Union works. But he decides to go. And in August 1989, he cashes in some air miles. He flies to Helsinki, Finland. He gets off the plane and then he just finds somebody and says where is hockey being played and they take him on to the arena. He has no ticket. He wanders around into the building. He wanders through the first period of the game finds the promoter that organized the festivities and tells them, hey, I’m an American reporter. I work in Detroit. I happen to be over here on vacation. The Red Wings drafted Fedorov and Constantinov. Is there a chance that I could meet them and talk to them? And of course, the guys are excited about press being there takes it. And after the game, he is brought down into the locker room and he’s able to meet Sergei Fedorov and Vladimir Constantinov. And he basically shows them a list of all the players, the Red Wings drafted and says, “Hey, look Sergei, you were drafted right here in the fourth round. Vlad, you were drafted right here in the 11th round. And he talks to them. And he notices off to his shoulder the KGB agents standing there watching everything he says and at the same moment he hands them a media guide of the red wings with those letters written in Russian that basically said we drafted you. We will pay you. In fact, come to the United States and play for the Detroit Red Wings. He gives them the letter, he gives them the folder. They’re flipping through it. Sergei Fedorov sees the letter and just keeps flipping completely stone-faced. He knows that if he’s caught, both he and this American reporter are going to be in trouble. So he leaves, he flies back home. Nothing happens. That Christmas, the Russian team is in Chicago and the Red Wings meet with Sergei Fedorov. They’ve got a car in the basement of the Drake Hotel. They’ve got a contract. They’ve got money. They’re ready to hightail out of Chicago Sergei Fedorov. Sergei Fedorov says not yet. I want to come. But not yet. He wants to finish up his military contract which expires on January 1st. So he doesn’t want to become a deserter and have the military coming after him. So fast forward to July 1990. The Russian team is in Portland, Oregon. The Red Wings greenlights their immigration reform. They fly out there and they’re waiting at the hotel and literally this is the scene. You’ve got a sedan in the back alley of the hotel. You’ve got a driver. You’ve got Jim White sitting in the lobby and they’re basically waiting for Sergei Fedorov to arrive back to the hotel from the game. He walks off the team bus, walks into the lobby, goes up to Jim White and just casually says “you ready to go Jim?” And they just get up and they walk through the kitchen. They walk out the back alley. They get in the car, and they get on the plane and fly back to Detroit. When they get back to Jim White’s house. Phone rings. It’s the State Department. Jim White, do you know where Sergei Fedorov is? Yes, I do. OK phone hangs up. Three minutes later, a Russian diplomat calls him yelling out in Russian. Why did you kidnap Sergei Fedorov? We want Sergei Fedorov. It basically says Sergei gets on the phone and basically says, I want to play hockey. I’m not coming back. And they file paperwork and Sergei Fedorov starts the 1990 season for the Detroit red wings. The next man Vladimir Constantinov also known as Vlad the Impaler because of his hits that he would unleash on the ice is a different story. He’s a family man. He’s got a wife. He’s got a kid. And he has a 25 year contract with the Red Army. If he defects to come play hockey, He will be considered a deserter which would classify him as a felon which means he won’t be able to get a visa to come work in the US. So they’ve got to figure out how do we get him out of his military contract to come play. And so the red wings use the help of a Soviet journalist by the name of Valerie Mataev who basically concocts some plan. I will take money. And I will bribe doctors and we will get Constantinov diagnosed with an incurable disease that will get him released from his military contract. So he flies over to Moscow. He’s got about $60,000 in cash and he’s sitting there getting to pay these doctors in the hospital diagnosed him with some sort of stage four brain cancer that he’s going to die. He can’t play. The Red army is not going to fall for that. They basically take it to a military hospital. They want all the tests redone to re-diagnose these this decision when they come out. So he, of course, the room says, hey, I need more money. So they just ship more with more money, more cash to Moscow. And he bribes military doctors. They’ve almost got it figured out. But the last military doctor doesn’t want cash. He wants a car. He wants the biggest American car You can get. Well, this is Detroit. So it’s like, OK, so the red wings go and they buy a Caprice Classic. That’s a 1990s big boat car, put in Mataev’s name. They ship it off to Moscow. They give him his car. They all sign off. He’s got cancer. He’s dying. He’s never going to be able to play again. So they’re beginning to walk out. They’re headed to the airport. Vlad’s not quite sure this is real. They put his passport on a no-fly list. So they can’t fly us. So they go back in. They call say, hey, we can try and get out by train before they shut the borders. At this point, if you’re old enough to remember history. This is the exact moment when the Soviet army unleashed the coup against Gorbachev and the fall of Soviet Union. So as they’re trying to get out all of a sudden you have demonstrations, you have tanks you have the military presence all through the streets of Moscow. I mean, the military is taking over and they can’t get out. So they get caught up in the midst of the protests when they finally get to the car. Windows are broken, briefcases stolen. The briefcase has all his medical paperwork, all the fake document plans, his passports, and still about $20,000 to bribe him. They’re like somebody Stole this. It’s going to turn up at the KGB. We are all dead. They get a call. I’m a big hockey fan. I found your briefcase. I give it back to you. And of course, they thought like this was. And then and they get a call to go leave to a park at midnight they’re like, this is the KGB setting the stage. They’re going to come and track us and take us over. When they get out there it actually was just a hockey fan that happened to have a briefcase. So they signed the glove signed sticks signed a jersey. He gave the briefcase still with the bribe cash and everything still in it and now they’ve got everything back. So they call the Red Skins and say that we can’t get out. All week, I can’t get into the US, I can only get into Budapest. So they get on a train and go to Budapest. Jim White gets on the plane, flies to D.C., picks up the immigration lawyers. And then they fly to Budapest. They work on immigration paperwork. They fly back. Vlad is able to come to the US both with his wife and his daughter. So he is not coming to start the 91 season with his entire family. The next person that comes, Vyacheslav Kozlov was the 15-year-old hot shot in the Red Army. At 15 years of age with comparisons to Wayne Gretzky. Even if you don’t know hockey, you know him. He was supposed to be better than Wayne Gretzky to the point that he had a $250,000 contract with the Red Army at 17 years of age that they were paying him that in the Soviet block to play hockey. He was that good. He had no intention of coming over to the US. But he toyed with the remnants that they drafted him in the third round in 1990. Every time, the red wings would come and meet him on an international stage it was like, let’s go drive a car. He just wanted to drive the sports car the red wings rented wherever they were. That’s how he learned to drive was basically driving the sports cars the red wings would rent. The would say come components over to the US and you can buy whatever car you want. Instead, he said at 19 years of age, one month into the season in 1991, he wrecks the car killing his best friend and teammate, and puts him in the hospital. His face is mangled. He loses the peripheral vision in his left eye. I don’t even know if he’s ever going to play again. The Red Army stops paying. He’s in a hospital bed. They don’t care about him. The Red Wings send over their agents, send over their doctors. They’re with him in the hospital 24/7. Again, Mataev gets involved. OK we’re going to bribe these doctors again. But this one’s a little bit more believable that he’s never going to be able to play again. After all, Look at him. Look at him. He can’t see, brain damage in in his face. And again, you have the same situation. They bribe. They get him over here. He’s released from his contract. He’s playing. He starts playing in the spring of that season of 1991. In March, the Soviets take the Red Wings to court. Basically they hired lawyers and they sued the red wings for stealing their players. After all, they lost Fedorov Constantinov and now Kozlov. Eventually the Russians have no money. They can’t pay the lawyers and the case is dropped from the court system. They now have three of what becomes known as the Russian five and he is miraculously healed. At one point, the general manager for the Russian army just travelling happens to watch a Red wings game sees Fedorov, Constantinov and Kozlov playing and he looks at the general manager of the Red Wings and goes… Looks like Constantino is still sit. He was kind of clueless going to be played a bad game that day. So they still had issues. The other two players that joined the red wings were not the not the fet out of the Soviet Union. Right here, Viacheslav Fetisov was a captain of the Red Army team in the 1980s. He is drafted in 1983 by the New Jersey devils. He has promised because he’s at the end of his career, He’s in his 30s now He’s not the prime of his early 20s that he’s going to be released from his Red Army contract to come play. And he basically fights for four years. And finally he’s allowed to come over in 1989 and play for the devils. He just doesn’t play a system. He has trouble with it. And eventually in the summer of 1995, he is traded to the Detroit red wings to help be a mentor to Federov, Constantinov and Kozlov. The final piece of the puzzle is Igor Larionov, center from the Red Army. Now he comes over and starts playing in 1989 but he’s still under Red Army contracts and the way the Soviets were so desperate for cash that they actually let their top players come play and 80% of their contract went back to the Soviet Red Army. So he’s playing he’s not he’s playing for three million a year. And he basically gets about $3,000 a month, all the rest of it goes back to the Soviet Union. So when the Soviet Union falls in 1992, he plays as a free agent and goes and plays in Switzerland. So that his contract will expire because he’s now looking at Federov who’s making eight million a year. He’s looking at Kozlov who is making like five million a year. He’s like this is ridiculous. Why am I not making all this money going back to Russia if all my compatriots are coming up here to play. So he goes and plays and comes back and signs as a free agent with San Jose in 1993. And again, he doesn’t fit. See, the Russian system was a five man unit. You have three forwards and two defensemen but they play as a single unit. At North American Hockey, You have a foreign line, and you have defensive pairs. And they don’t play together. Forwards change out, defense changes, but they don’t change out the five man unit. The red wings and the Soviet system did. So finally, in October of 1995, The red wings traded Viacheslav Fetisov. So now you have what is called the Russian five there in Detroit. And for the very first time in October 27, 1995, they played together for the first time.

[VIDEO PLAYS]

They played for two years. The 95, 96 seasons 96-97 season as a five-man unit and completely changed the game of hockey. In 97, They won the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1954 for Detroit and if there are any Detroit fans here, That’s a big deal. I’m a Stars fan, I hate Detroit But that’s a different story. Everybody wants to play this style of game. Now their festivities were short lived three days after winning the 97 Stanley Cup. A limo carried Vladimir Constantine off his wrecked and putting him in a wheelchair. He will never play again. Back when they relive-when they re-win the cup in 98 they actually have Vladimir on the ice in his wheelchair carrying the cup in celebration for that. I think you’ve seen that one of the But everybody wants to play the Russian style. It’s called puck control and you still hear it to this day. In fact, they so revolutionize the game that these are some of the top players in the NHL today and they are all Russians. Alexander Benjamin just won the Stanley Cup just last year Evgeni Malkin and the penguins over there. You don’t like the penguins. Vladimir Tarasenko for the blues. The top score in the NHL this year, Kucherov right here. And then, of course, you got Stars players. The game of hockey was forever changed and it was changed because sports are just as political as they are entertaining. And they got involved in Cold War espionage and smuggled three players out of the Soviet Union to come and play for them. So if you’ve got some free time after the spring break, We can all fly to Michigan and watch this movie.

[VIDEO PLAYS]

Does anybody want to go to Michigan? And that’s the story of how the game of hockey was changed at the end of the Cold War with the Detroit Red Wings.

TRANSCRIPT

– [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC – DINAH SHORE, “I CAN’T GIVE YOU ANYTHING BUT LOVE”] One of the most powerful aspects of warfare is that of psychological manipulation. People are often aware of the brutality and violence of war itself, but they ignore psychological warfare. World War II offers a vivid example of psychological warfare in the way it was employed to target the morale and sentiment of numerous soldiers. The most fascinating means of dissemination was in the form of leaflets that were dropped from bomber planes. These messages were intended to curb the motivation and enthusiasm of the soldiers. For example, some leaflets depicted scenes of marital infidelity, a theme that no doubt touches on the insecurity felt by many, many soldiers. The power of the psychological warfare is the inability to defend yourself against its effect. Psychological warfare aims at your insecurities and desires, and then uses these means of achieving objectives. Psychological warfare is defined as, “The systematic process of influencing the will, and directing the actions of people in enemy and enemy-occupied territories according to the needs of a higher strategy.” The use of propaganda against the enemy weaknesses lead to a new concept a psychological warfare known as the Fourth Arm of Warfare, requiring its own element of research, strategy, and action against the enemy. War is often viewed as a mechanical approach to human affairs, based on the development of a powerful and efficient war machine. Psychological warfare attempts to subvert the war machine through the attacks on individuals within the system, undermining political ideologies through personal motivations. Psychological warfare focuses on destabilizing the enemy by taking advantage of their most personal characteristics of human life in a scientific manner. Emotions that are often considered the worst and most vulnerable parts of human nature, such as fear, hate, deceit, pain, humiliation, and loneliness are systematically exploited until the enemy is too demoralized to continue to fight. World War II brought with it the beginning of a new style of war. No longer was war a test of superior weaponry and armed troops. It was suddenly a mental struggle for the minds and spirits of citizens and soldiers alike. Throughout the war, the Axis and Allies engaged in massive use of propaganda aimed at psychological manipulation of each of its subjects. They soon discovered that such forms of persuasion could be just as effective against the enemy. Learning from Hitler’s example, Britain began its mission to revolutionize its propaganda by using it on a scale never before imagined. Britain developed psychological warfare into a science through careful studies of the psychological vulnerabilities of the human mind. Now, military psychology was not a new concept in World War II. In both the first and second World Wars, the British government enlisted the help of thousands of psychologists to perform research, testing, and experimentation to determine the selection, the placement, and the training of its soldiers. But for the first time, the scientific application of psychology was used to weaken the enemy while strengthening its own soldiers. At the time of World War II, there was also a growing recognition of the cultural influences on man and how they determined individual motivations. Many psychologists claim that World War II was most responsible for the emergence of social and cultural psychology as a legitimate area of science. Prior to the war, most aspects of social psychology were simply philosophical. When the psychological warfare campaign began, governments began to actively recruit psychologists to take part in planning and testing. And a new style of systematic field research emerged. While Hitler openly and enthusiastically engaged psychologists in his war effort, the British were less inclined to admit that they, too, were using such illegitimate techniques for their own campaign. Throughout the war, they avoided using the term “psychological warfare” and preferred calling it “political warfare.” As a result, they remained very secretive about the psychologist they did employ and largely relied on the United States to perform much of the psychological research needed for their psy-war campaign. Psychological warfare techniques involved the analysis of long-term psychological strengths and weaknesses of both individuals and societies in order to ascertain their most vulnerable points. On an individual level, this is done with the use of personality psychology and combat psychiatry, with the goal of identifying psychological phenomenon applicable to the development of psychological weapons. So there’s two main questions of research here. Number one, how individual fears can be manipulated. And secondly, how the stresses of war can be systematically increased. Combat psychiatry examines the psychological effects of warfare on the individual. Now, as some of you may know, there are five enemies of individual survival. First, there is pain. Then, cold, hunger and thirst. Fourth, fatigue. And then boredom and loneliness. By exploiting these factors, psychological warfare attempts to focus on suffering rather than death. The typical psychological reaction pattern in battle consists of the following. First of all, you have this apprehensive enthusiasm. Troops are very excited to get into the fight. They’re gung ho. But there’s a little bit of anxiety or apprehension, I should say, about going into the fight. But overall, they’re very eager to get into the battle. Now, as they enter into combat, they experience what we call “resignation.” This consists of a chronically depressed state. As you can imagine, the experiences of combat and battle begin to wear on them. They become depressed, yet they are still able to efficiently execute the war routine. But as battle fatigue and the process of being in combat day in and day out continues, they enter into what we call “anxious apprehension.” And it’s at this place where they are most vulnerable in their psychological state. Anxious apprehension is characterized by feeling overwhelmed with loneliness. Imagine, you’re out there in the field. You’re in combat. You’re far away from your friends. You’re 1,000 miles from your family. And everything that is familiar is nowhere to be found. You’re in a completely different environment, a different country. People are speaking a different language. Many times, this is the first combat experience that maybe you’ve had. As a result of that overwhelmed and feeling of loneliness, often times troops would lose their appetite. We know this to be a classic symptom of major depressive disorder. Following that, often times, or coupled with that, is guilt– guilt associated with killing a fellow human being. Many of US troops were Christians. They were raised on the 10 Commandments. Murder is wrong. And so they were having to come to grips with this idea of killing someone who looked oftentimes just like them. Guilt associated with leaving family back home. Leaving a wife. Leaving their children. Leaving aging parents or leaving the farm where they were so useful to their family. Guilt associated with surviving an attack after many of their friends were killed. We call that “survivor guilt.” Coupled with this overwhelmed feeling of loneliness, appetite loss, guilt, we also have this lessening of group identification. After losing yourself into the conflict and the battle and the combat that you are experiencing, oftentimes troops would begin to wonder and question the purpose of the war effort. Much of the propaganda, especially what you heard as I walked out here, tapped into that questioning. Is it really worth it? Why are we really here? That would oftentimes lead to withdrawal of physical and emotional investment. I mean, after you lose so many friends and so many comrades and so many buddies in combat, you begin to question, why should I really invest so much emotionally into anyone? US psychological warfare consists of the integrated use of all means to destroy the will of the enemy and deprive them of the support of their allies. Psychological warfare was broadly divided into three interdependent classes during World War II. You had strategic, tactical, and what we call consolidation. Strategic propaganda was directed toward the enemy in enemy-occupied countries and had the double task of not only undermining the enemy’s will to resist, but also sustaining the morale of those supporting the Allies over the long term. Tactical or combat propaganda was conducted against enemy forces in the forward areas and sought very strategic, short-term goals. Consolidation propaganda was directed towards civilians in the rear areas, in areas recently occupied by Allied troops, to ensure their continued cooperation. The United States had certain weapons in their PSYOPs. The weapons of psychological warfare were those of the civilian media in film, print, or audio form. During World War II, the armed forces relied primarily on the printed leaflet, newspaper, and news sheet. More than 8 billion leaflets were dropped by aircraft or delivered by artillery shells world wide by the Allied powers. In addition, the Allies used motion pictures, still photographs, and broadcasted radio programs to the home fronts of the enemy. On the tactical level, the US conducted front-line radio propaganda programs and used loudspeakers and megaphones. Nearly every campaign in the Pacific theater witnessed the use of some form of psychological warfare, waged by either a civilian population or a military agency. Now, Japanese psychological warfare was modeled on campaigns conducted by the British during World War I and the Germans during World War II. In fact, the Germans actually established a branch of their propaganda ministry inside of Japan, which resulted in a close psychological warfare collaboration between the two Axis powers. As a result, their propaganda themes were strikingly parallel. Now, the Japanese had a three-prong approach to their PSYOPs. First, they had a strategic propaganda that was directed against the home fronts– political leadership and status of Western powers in Asia. In fact, some researchers believe that the invading of China by the Japanese was a way to jab a stick in the eye of Western powers that were located in that area. Secondly, is operational and tactical propaganda. And these were directed against the military forces of the Western powers. An example of this is the bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Now, this was not only a psychological warfare approach or tactic on the part of the Japanese to demoralize the United States. The Japanese believed that we would easily roll over and surrender and give them whatever it is that they were wanting. But it was arguably the biggest mistake that the Japanese ever made in World War II. Because by striking Pearl Harbor, it awakened the sleeping giant within the United States and aroused an anger and a revenge inside the American people that fueled the Pacific campaign that swept across the Pacific Islands and ultimately led to the bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Operational and tactical Japanese psychological warfare also included broadcasts made by Radio Tokyo, especially those of Tokyo Rose and The Zero Hour, which you heard as I came walking out today, as well as the dropping of propaganda leaflets. Radio Tokyo often broadcasted the latest American music. Jazz, big band, bebop, jitterbug. Music by Tommy Dorsey, Glenn Miller, and Bing Crosby could be heard on Axis radio well before Allied broadcast disseminated them. But US sailors were so immune to Tokyo Rose that enemy broadcasts were actually piped through the sound system of Navy ships for the humor and so sailors could catch up on the latest stateside hits. Japanese tactical psy-war against the US troops was judged a complete failure. Author and researcher, Dr. Robert J. Bunker wrote, nowhere has there been such great listenership with so little result. As I close today, I want to talk a little bit about the real victim of psychological warfare. You heard her voice as I came out. Iva Toguri, better known as Tokyo Rose, was born in Los Angeles, California, on July 4, 1916. After graduating from UCLA with dreams of becoming a doctor, she visited Japan to see a sick aunt and was stranded there after the attack on Pearl Harbor. She graduated from college in 1941. Forced to renounce her US citizenship, she refused twice and was left to starve and fend for herself in a foreign country. Toguri eventually found work in radio and was asked to host The Zero Hour, which was a propaganda and entertainment program aimed at US soldiers because of her American accent. She was as American as you and I here today. She read from a script that two British POWs wrote for her. Their sarcasm and satire did more to encourage US troops than it did to destroy their morale. Now after the war, she was returned to the United States and convicted of treason. She served six years in prison. Finally, much later on, President Gerald Ford pardoned Iva Toguri in 1976. And she lived with a terrible stigma of Tokyo Rose until she died at the age of 90 in 2006. [MUSIC PLAYING]

The atrocities of the battle hung in the minds of American troops. An estimated 100,000 citizens of Manila were systematically murdered as the Japanese retreated closer and closer to the bay, their last and only means of escape. The Battle of Manila was the largest and worst urban fighting in the Pacific Theatre. Thousands of buildings were destroyed, including many cultural heritage sites that existed since the founding of the city.

Amidst such carnage, rays of hope also broke through the cloud of war. Manila housed multiple prisoner of war camps. These camps consisted of military personnel from the enemies of Japan and citizens of many nations. They were doctors and humanitarian workers, teachers and business men, missionaries and college students. There were mothers holding children born in captivity. Fathers who had buried children in the camps. Husbands and wives separated, emaciated, and starving to death. They suffered from Sprue and Beri Beri as well as other tropical diseases. They all suffered in captivity and rejoiced in their freedom.

The Old Bilibid Prison and the Santo Tomas Internment Camp each housed hundreds of prisoners. Many did not begin their trial in Manila, but miles outside of the city. Bilibid housed those who survived the famous Bataan Death March. Religious workers from the mountain city of Baguio were initially interned in schools, hotels and homes. Placement in more permanent camps such as Camp Holms and Camp Hay (American Bases) came later as the Japanese War machine organized. This movement from place to place added to the uncertainty of those held captive. Each day brought renewed anxieties as the awareness of this new reality sank in.

Other camps existed throughout the Philippines. Perhaps no camp is as well-known as Los Baños on the south side of Laguna de Bay. Located on a college campus, Los Baños was known for the extreme level of torture and killing that was used against the Filipino people. The vast majority were Filipino natives, those who served in the Filipino military and others the Japanese government felt were a threat.

The degree of suffering and its severity depended on what camp prisoners were in and what military leader was in charge. Much also depended on whether they were a military member or a civilian. Missionaries throughout the region were arrested under suspicion of espionage. Missionaries serving in Japan before the war were better treated than those in other areas of the Pacific. The Emperor of Japan was aware of the religious workers and why they were in his nation. That was not the case in other areas, where there was no way to verify religious workers or their intentions.

In the mountain city of Baguio, expatriates from western nations were rounded up and taken to local hotels for processing. Often crammed into small rooms, those inside would take turns standing and sleeping. There was little air in the rooms and even less food. Once interrogations completed, those considered at a high risk were sent to prison camps. Lower risk individuals (women, children and family men) were allowed to return home. With ration cards in hand, they hoped their lives would return to normal.

Many religious workers moved in to one central house for protection and the sharing of provisions. This was especially the case where single women were connected to a larger group. The threat of rape was a reality in all Japanese held territories. When provisions were needed, these women prayerfully moved through the streets avoiding checkpoints and traveling in groups of two or three for protection.

These house incarcerations lasted only weeks in most cases. Prison camps deemed secure became the home to the clear majority of prisoners. In these camps, close quarters, the lack of clean water, basic personal items, and proper nutrition increased the risk of disease. Lice, mice, and mosquitos constantly inflicted pain and the potential of sickness on those inside the camps.

Food was scarce. Even the most detestable meals were welcomed to those starving to death. Often there was one meal per day made up of a gooey rice soup. One captive observed due to the live worms infesting the rice one could see it move. In many areas fruit trees were in abundance outside of the camps. Avocado, mango, bananas, and other tropical fruits were just out of reach. Some native Filipinos risked their lives to pass food over a fence. If caught, punishment was swift and severe. Yet for the love of friends and family, many attempts were made.

Death was all too common inside of the camps; whether by starvation, malnutrition, or torture. The Japanese had unique ways of exacting information from prisoners. The “water technique” consisted of a long tube being placed down the nose or mouth of a prisoner. Once in the stomach, a funnel added to the tube allowed the torturer to fill the belly of the prisoner with water. The soldier would subsequently stomp or jump on the prisoner’s stomach often resulting in a painful death. A Presbyterian missionary by the name of Gray was killed in this manner as other missionaries waited outside for their interrogation.

Stories of rape, torture, and the mutilation of American soldier’s bodies quickly made it to the American people. This added to the rising tide of hatred and racial discrimination of the Japanese people on the home front. Due to the assumed military threat and the inability to verify at this time, 110,000-120,000 Japanese Americans were interned in the western United States. While torture was expressly forbidden by the US government, loss of property and dignity changed the lives of many US citizens of Japanese descent.

Perhaps no book illustrates Japanese treatment of its prisoners as well as “A Helmet for My Pillow” by Robert Leckie. Leckie masterfully recounts the atrocities seen by American soldiers throughout the Pacific Theatre. These atrocities were only too common both with our military personnel and civilians caught by the grip of Japan.

The Rev. George Bunch fought bravely to free those interned by the Japanese. When he entered the prison after its liberation, he was overwhelmed by the sight of emaciated, sick, and dying Americans joyfully celebrating and thanking God and soldiers for their freedom.

Later, Bunch attended Penial Bible College in Kentucky where Rena Baldwin was among the faculty. She had been a prisoner in the Old Bilibid Prison camp when it was liberated and had been among 2,100 prisoners slated for execution later that day.

War is difficult. It is indeed an aspect of the human condition that is beyond our understanding. For men and women of faith, bad circumstances can open great doors for ministry. In trials such as these, we identify with those through the ages that were perfected through horrible situations. It is remarkable that even in times of war, the words of Joseph stand true, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” (Gen. 50:20 NIV)

TRANSCRIPT

– [MUSIC PLAYING] I think I was about 10 years old the day that my grandfather showed me a piece of history, a secret he kept hidden for decades in a closet. It was a private piece of history from his years of service in the US Army. He had served as a medic, you see, and he would routinely be sent to the front lines of battle, just hours before his arrival. He would look over the troops and see what was happening there. And one day, he found something very interesting. There’s a picture of my grandfather with my boys and my father right there. So he comes to the area where there have been battles just hours before. And he’s tending to the US wounded, and he approached several dead German soldiers. And he noticed at least one of the bodies still had one of these. He picked it up, looked it over. He marveled at the German engineering of this now famous German Luger pistol. It caught his eye. So, being a Price, he just took it and kept it. Tucked it away in his back pocket, into the Jeep, and it made its way all the way back to his hometown of Muncie, Indiana. Well, that day, he showed me this pistol. I was like transported back in time to touch a piece of history that, today, I realize is very sacred to America. You see, my grandfather was a member of what many historians call the greatest generation. These were the young adult men and women of the 1940s, of whom it can be argued that they saved the world. They kept the ideals of freedom and democracy alive for you and I. World War II was the war, friends, that sent men like my grandfather and women like my grandmother to the factories across America, to the front lines overseas, to work the jobs that men left behind. And history informs us that almost every single American wanted to do something to contribute to the war. Men were willing to fight, women willing to work. War bonds were being purchased in mass quantities, and people were more than happy to even ration their own food. But the question I want to answer today is this– in a world way before the dawn of the internet and instant social media, how did all this happen? How did the United States get what seemed like every American citizen on board to contribute to the war effort? I submit to you the answer, as Dr. [? Loeb ?] referred to yesterday and Professor [INAUDIBLE] referred to today, was carefully crafted propaganda, a lot of it. What is propaganda? Well, it’s defined as information of a biased nature used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or a point of view. Now, in the case of World War II, there was propaganda everywhere, with phrases like the buy war bonds, and [INAUDIBLE] of course I can. You saw those. And my favorite– you buy them, we’ll fly them. It was in TV shows, commercials, on the radio. Even Donald Duck was leveraged in the propaganda machine. I mean, what kid back in the 1940s did not love one of Walt Disney’s favorite characters? But the war effort for propaganda was most prevalent through the influence of Hollywood. And many of these influencers were commissioned and paid for by something called the US War Department. A handful of promising young film directors put their careers on hold to join the war effort. These included men like- you need to know these names– Frank Capra, John Huston, George Stevens, William Wyler, John Ford. These men were all featured in the recent Netflix documentary series called Five Came Back. And I really encourage you to watch this three part series if you’re interested in further exploring their contributions to our nation. All of these men paid a very personal price for the war. Some returned to Tinseltown only to find that they had been penalized for being away from the machines of the Hollywood system. Others seemed unable to return to their producing more lighter comedic works. In fact, George Stevens, he was known for his humor before the war. Well, he turned his post-war attention to more somber and sober works like A Place in the Sun and the film called Shane. He once said, I came back and I tried, I tried, to make a comedy. I just couldn’t do it. 1959, Stevens directed The Diary of Anne Frank. You heard Ms. Montgomery mention that film earlier, or that book earlier, where he tried to find a glimmer of hope in a world torn apart by the ravages of war. The narrative films and documentaries these men and others like them produced were laced, friends, with overt propaganda themes. And they were aimed at influencing the American people in their view of the war. These themes were potent weapons that not only motivated the troops to fight and folks at home to pitch in, but it also spread hatred of the Nazis and the Japanese. The mainstream messaging consisted of three powerfully effective themes. One was the nature of the enemy. Number two was the need for men to fight overseas. And three was the need for women to work and sacrifice. So let’s examine them all and see how film shots fired served as the primary propaganda machine of World War II. Number one, the nature of the enemy. This was the most common theme used in many films and poster propaganda during World War II. Stereotypes of Nazis and Japanese were used to spread racism and hatred for the opposition. Characters in a film commonly used offensive language in reference to these adversaries. The goal was to make Americans hate the enemy so much that they would do anything to help the US defeat them. In fact, in popular movies, such as 30 Seconds Over Tokyo and Destination Tokyo and many others, the Japanese enemy overseas are referred to as Japs– you heard that earlier, as well, in our presentations– which quickly evolved into a derogatory term across the entire United States. Millions of Americans began to mimic what they heard in the movies and refer to all Japanese as Japs. And sometimes even as rats and monkeys, whether they were the enemy or simply an innocent Japanese American. Tragically, this led to the mistreatment of thousands of Japanese Americans. Many were held here– you see the picture– in what’s called internment camps for the duration of the war, because of fears that they were spies for the Japanese empire. But the Japanese were not the only enemy targeted in American propaganda films. The Nazis, the German Nazis, received their fair share of film shots fired against them. However, the goal of the propaganda aimed at the Nazis was different than the goal aimed at the Japanese, you see. Instead of spreading racism, blanket racism, against an entire nation, films about Nazis made them appear so brutal and controlling against their own citizens that Americans would feel compassion for the innocent Germans. For example, in the film by Walt Disney titled Education for Death– The Making of the Nazi, nearly every aspect of German civil life was depicted as under strict control by the Nazi party. Genealogical paperwork had to show the child was pure Aryan. Even a baby’s name had to be approved. The film also showed Nazis brainwashing children in schools by instructing them to believe that Germans were a superior race with no tolerance for weaklings or inherited diseases. Perhaps the most crucial propaganda theme, though, was the need for men to fight overseas. Without American men willing to risk their lives in battle, there would be absolutely no way the US and their allies could win the war and defeat the Axis powers. The government had to convince millions of men to leave their families and safety behind to fight in a bloody and dangerous conflict. And yes, there was a national lottery, but let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to win when the troops voluntarily decide to fight for their country. So to aid in this campaign, the US War Department had an idea. They began to tap on the shoulder of the aforementioned Frank Capra, who had already produced two Hollywood hits. You might recognize these films– It Happened One Night and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Under the direction of a name you’ll recognize, chief of staff George C. Marshall, he directed a unique seven-episode series titled Why We Fight, which was aimed at showing American men what they were fighting for and why it was an honor to defend the great nation of America. During their first meeting together, General Marshall told Capra’s mission, quote, “Now, Capra, I want to nail down with you a plan to make a series of documented, factual-information films, the first in our history that will explain to our boys in the Army. Why we’re fighting and the principles for which we’re fighting. You have an opportunity to contribute enormously to your country and the cause of freedom.” Well, after meeting with Marshall, Capra was shown a frightening propaganda film produced by the enemy, the Nazis, titled The Triumph of the Will. This film instantly opened Capra’s eyes to the immense challenge that lay ahead. Capra described the film as, quote, “the ominous prelude of Hitler’s Holocaust of hate.” He said, “Satan could not have devised a more blood-chilling super spectacle.” Capra admitted he was paralyzed to compete against the strong-handed propaganda for the Nazis. He said the film had fired no guns and dropped no bombs, but as a psychological weapon aimed at destroying the will to resist, it was just as lethal. Capra then slipped into what we might call the dark night of the soul. Quote, he said, “I sat alone and I pondered, how could I mount a counterattack against the triumph of the will and keep alive our will to resist this master race concept? I was alone. No studio, no equipment, no personnel.” As he began to calculate his cinematic response, Capra quoted scripture as inspiration. “I thought of the Bible,” he said. “There was one sentence in it that always gave me–” he called them goose pimples. “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” And then an idea was born inside of him. He may have called it a hunch, but I think it may have been more divine inspiration. He suggested to Marshall this. He said, let the enemy prove to our soldiers the enormity of his cause but the justice of ours. Let’s use the enemy’s own films to expose their enslaving ends. He then convinced the general to, quote, “Let’s let our boys hear of the Nazis and the Japs shout their own claims of master race crud, and our fighting men will know why they’re in uniform.” And that, friends, is exactly what Frank Capra did. He secretly began to acquire film reels of Nazi propaganda and began putting them into his own releases. In addition, the Why We Fight films use techniques such as nostalgic analogies to remind people of the challenges America had faced before and how we’d overcome them because of brave men. The films discussed the selling of America at Plymouth Rock, way back to the beginning of our nation, and the building of our colonies. These films idolized how men of valor fought in the American Revolution to defend their sacred freedoms. And that it was now in the hands of their generation, the greatest generation, to do the same for America. Propaganda films were beginning to have a very deep, felt impact on recruitment and morale. Now, think about this. Without Capra’s propaganda and other filmmakers like him, millions of men may not have freely enlisted in the Army, which may have led to a mandatory draft with a much wider net. But maybe more low approval ratings for America’s entanglement in the war, which may have then led to eventual withdrawal and ultimately defeat. But thanks, in part, to film propaganda, that never happened. The third one, though, is the final reel of film propaganda was the need for women to work and sacrifice. This focused the lens on this aspect of Americana. These messages showed how they could help in the war effort by taking those tough-nosed, dirty jobs in factories and manufacturing plants. In one scene from the film 30 Seconds Over Tokyo, the wives of fighter pilots off at war are talking about their lives. And one of them indicates she’s going to get a job in a defense factory because, “I can’t imagine just sitting around in my house doing nothing.” The goal of this film was for life to imitate art and embolden women across America to use their energies on the home front as a direct support system for their men in the military. A film called Women in Defense– it’s a short film produced by the Office of Emergency Management. It was actually written by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, and it was narrated by popular actress Katharine Hepburn. The film script included on-the-nose lines such as, “American women are alert to the dangers which threatened our democracy today. Every woman has an important place in the national defense program, in science, in industry, and in the home.” These films made women feel important and that their physical efforts could make a significant impact in winning the war. Something American women had yet to fully experience, you could say, in the Revolutionary War, in the Civil War, and in World War I. Without American women working in these converted factories and other important plants, the government knew the US would not be able to manufacture supplies and weapons needed in a timely fashion. It was an edge, we could say, that the US military leveraged through messages in these wartime movies. These women were also encouraged by the US War Department to ration food for their families and go without luxuries they once enjoyed. In order for the US to have the best chance of winning, their kitchens would have to sacrifice food like butter and cheese and meat and jams and fruit. And the same rules applied to restaurants. In the film Destination Tokyo, captain of a ship writes a letter to his wife explaining how his son will not be able to get a toy train for Christmas because, quote, “we are in a war.” He continues writing that his son will understand the sacrifice. It’s worth giving up one toy for one Christmas so the US can win the war. He ends the letter with a promise that next Christmas will be different. This film featured, of course, the famous Cary Grant. In short order, women in America became accustomed to rationing and no longer mind doing so, because they knew that it was helping with the war effort. It was a powerful collective mindset planted by propaganda films. So, in summary, whether you agree or you disagree with the use of propaganda, it’s hard to argue its effectiveness in World War II. It created, number one, hate for the enemy. It brought out bravery and courage in men. It empowered women to work in these factories and these plants, and it convinced people to ration their food and help our troops believe in the cause of the war. Its effectiveness, friends, was indisputable. And propaganda films have a very important place in American World War II history. The propaganda during the war aided in creating a groundswell of support for the war. In fact, data shows that from 1917 to 1973, three of the top four years of what’s called inductions into service were from the World War II era– 3.0 in 1942, 3.3 in 1943, and 1.6 million in 1944. Now, these figures represent the number of folks who freely entered, who signed up for service to the selective service system. And in the end, it was America and her allies that triumphed against both the Japanese and the Germans, thanks in part to the film shots fired by the powerful propaganda machine of World War II. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] [MUSIC PLAYING]

TRANSCRIPT

– [MUSIC PLAYING] All right, welcome. Real quick disclaimer about some of the content today. These were illustrations and slogans that were written in the ’30s and ’40s. And so we’ll be discussing them as they were presented. They are very much just plainly racist, the way some of the other nationalities are drawn in caricatures. So I just wanted you to be aware of that before we start our presentation today. Sp let’s get to Comics at War. The isolationist stance taken by the United States during the early months of World War II was quickly dissolved after two years. After Pearl Harbor the principal concern became financing the war effort, which resulted in the US Treasury creating a defense bond program. To persuade Americans to purchase these bonds, propaganda was unleashed in many forms. Most adults would see this propaganda in the forms of posters and in short films before movies. But for children, comic books became the method of this communication. The comic books embodied the virtues of what it was to fight evil during World War II. In fact, the comic book still embodies the same virtues today. Back in 1977 author Michael Uslan stated the following about the nature of comic books. “From the 1930s through today comic books have expressed the trends, conventions, and concerns of American life. Comics have been a showcase for national views, slang, morals, customs, traditions, racial attitudes, fads, heroes of the day, and everything else that make up our lifestyles.” Comic books as we know them today arrived in the late 1930s. In June 1938 Action Comic Number 1 premiered and released and exposed Superman to the world, the character who encapsulated all that was good about America and humanity. And he became a star of the result of this issue. Other characters soon followed, including the Human Torch, Batman, the Sub-Mariner, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, The Shield, and of course Captain America. Superman became popular for many reasons. Like many Americans, Superman was an immigrant, albeit from an alien world. You could argue that Superman was the ultimate immigrant being away from his parents and his family. Secondly, Superman espoused the virtues of hard work, justice, and truth. Comic books also became popular for other virtues during the 1930s, which was experiencing the Great Depression. “Even as a form of escape,” Scott Cord claims, “the comic book allowed readers to fantasize about punishing real life wrongdoers. Since the depression was overtaking the concerns of Americans during the 1930s, readers enjoyed seeing superheroes fight against those who exploited the bad times for their own financial benefits. For example, early characters such as the Green Lantern, Superman, and Batman often took on corrupt businessmen who mistreated poor and desperate workers in the late 1930s.” The effort to win the war went hand-in-hand with the comics. The main focus of comics during that period was to sell war bonds. Most if not all comics used their superheroes to prove their patriotism during the war. Covers of comics during this time usually had graphics urging customers to invest in war bonds. Comic books went the extra mile when supporting the propaganda movement. Publishers often transformed superheroes to fit the ideal patriotic character. The covers of these comics always boasted lines supporting buying and selling of war bonds. The aim of this form of propaganda was directly related to these sales. The key to winning the war was for all Americans to pitch in and do their part. And the availability of war bonds was the way in which all could participate. In 1940 and 1941, many comic books had story lines about the events of the wars in Europe and Asia. These stances, of course, were before the United States entered the war and they were quite controversial. At a time when most Americans wanted nothing to do with another war in Europe, the characters in the comic books did. And many of the writers of the comic book heroes were actually Jewess and felt it was their duty to influence the American public of the dangers of what was taking place overseas. Early editions of Batman comics shed light on the fact that Batman never used guns or killed. But in this 1943 comic book, you can see Batman as he is supplying guns to American soldiers and supporting the seventh war loan. DC Comics also use Batman in the crusade to persuade Americans to purchase war bonds. One cover of a Batman comic, number 18 right here, shows Batman and his sidekick Robin blowing up a firecracker in the face of the Axis leaders. The cover reads, “Ensure the 4th of July. Buy war bonds and stamps.” Other comics include Batman as well as Superman. The cover of a DC winter issue, right here, depicts Superman, Batman, and Robin as selling war bonds at a newsstand. The sign above them reads, “Sink the Japanazis with war bonds and stamps.” Other publishers participated in this comic book propaganda, as well. Superheros such as the Green Hornet, the Spy Smasher, Captain Marvel, Catman, and the Black Terror were all used to fight against American enemies. The US government also joined in the creation of their own comic books. In 1943 the United States was in dire need of plane fuel. By this time workers stationed at oil refineries were becoming bogged down in their work. The government’s Petroleum Administration for War designed comic books to inspire the workers. The first comic, Coming on a Wing and a Prayer, was a huge success and forced the PAW to create the Undercover War comic book series. These comics proved to workers how important their job was. Captain America embodied the use of comic books as propaganda during the Second World War. His character was tailor made to support the overall war effort. A now famous superhero, he was created to sell war bonds. Put in creation in 1941 by Timely Comics, but later Marvel Comics, Captain America became the face of World War II comic propaganda. The main character, Steve Rogers, a frail young man, unfit for service is invited to participate in a secret program to become a super soldier. He participates and now he is the peak of human perfection and he aids the United States in the war effort. Captain America sports a costume with the American flag, carries a shield made out of vibranium from Wakanda and it is bullet proof and used as a weapon. Many covers of Captain America comics show the superhero going toe to toe with Nazi soldiers and even Hitler himself. This created widespread support of the war effort and Captain America comics. The covers of Captain America fighting against Hitler stirred US support and increased the war bond. Fighting for the United States at this time was viewed as the utmost heroic deed. Though a fiction story, the creation of Captain America brought forth the idea that all citizens were capable of supporting those abroad. The addition of Timely Comics’ Captain America was essential to the sale of comic books and war bonds. Captain America’s transformation was relatable to the American population. Citizens realized, as regular citizens they too could contribute to the war effort. The purchasing of war bonds was a way that all citizens could help and Captain America was essential to that. This cover right here was published a full nine months before the United States entered the war. And you see captain America punching Hitler in the face. The writers, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, received hate mail for this cover and expressed concern about the goals of Captain America. They were opposed to such story lines. Captain America stood out in his patriotic red, white, and blue uniform and the ideals of American nationalism. Within a year Pearl Harbor had occurred. And Captain America’s views about evil became the norm. When the war began 15 million comic books were being published a month. Two years later 25 million copies were sold a month. Superman and Captain America each sold a million editions a month. And the largest single customer in the United States was the United States Army. The army originally brought comics as a diversion. But soon many of the soldiers became hooked on the story lines, character development, and the virtuous fight against evil and oppression. Throughout the war, comic book superheroes were involved in doing things to help the war effort beyond just fighting. They did things like deliver supplies, stop spies at home, and do whatever they could do to help the soldiers in the war. The depiction of the character’s actions were simplistic and good always triumphed over evil. The characters are always illustrated warrings and how children could help win the war. Superman was also transformed into a patriotic hero willing to do anything to defend his country. Superman appeared in numerous DC Comics over the span of World War II. The cover of a Superman comic, number 58, reads, “Superman says you can slap a Jap with war bonds and stamps.” Another comic throws its support behind the seventh war loan. And it reads, “And it isn’t Superman who’s doing this. It’s the American people.” However, Superman never fought the war. You would think that he could have ended the war by himself. And the authors of Superman were aware of this and did not want that. So instead they created this comic book story right here where Clark Kent so anxious to pass his physical uses his X-ray vision and reads the eye chart in the neighboring room. And he flunks his physical, is declared 4-F, and is forced to do what he can along the home front. Captain America was the major exception. With his sidekick, 12-year-old Bucky Barnes, they took a firsthand role in fighting the forces of evil. What made Captain America comics different for the time period was they were violent, in fact, shockingly violent for the time period. Characters were shot between the eyes, left beaten and bloodied, and tortured. Another aspect of Captain America that endeared him to many Americans was he always fought by the rules and his antagonists always cheated and lost. Soon other comics followed. Individual stories of bravery and courage ended with the American soldier overcoming fear and saving the day. Meant at first to inspire those at home, the characters would also inspire those actually doing the fighting. Many of the writers of these comic books were part of the Office of War information. And these organizations were supposedly interested in giving accurate information about what was happening overseas. Even the advertisements in the comic books were war related. In addition to those superheroes, ordinary people, women and children, and character’s had their own comics. Boy Commandos was a group of 12-year-olds out to save the world. Wonder Woman did her part fitting in with the stereotypes of the day, though she served as a nurse in World War II, not like some of the comic book covers recorded today. In addition comics portraying real people, like Eleanor Roosevelt, were made showing her contributions to the war. As the war wound down, so did many of the characters. Superman and Lois got hitched and had super babies. Batman went back to fighting the master villains of Gotham. And in 1956 Captain America was canceled. Many soldiers who had read comics overseas found them to be a comfort on their return. Maybe it was escapism, maybe it was habit, but either way they were a solace to many of the soldiers who would later introduce the comics to their children. By 1947 comic books sold 60 million issues a month. By the early 1950s the so-called “Golden Age of Comics,” character’s had transitions to mundane activities. With no evil left to fight, comics like Archie, Veronica, Jughead, and Richie Rich became the mainstream from the middle of the ’50s through the middle of the 1960s. Comic books in World War II played a significant role in the education of a young populace before, during, and after the war. From Captain America punching Hitler in the face before Pearl Harbor to encouraging the war effort on the home front through the actions of advertisements, these pieces of art educated a country at war. The most surprising influence comics had was those who actually participated in the combat. The books were seen as something to take their mind off what was to come and what had taken place. They were cheap, easy to carry, and the comic itself did not require a college education to read. It was part entertainment, part instruction manual, and part psychologist for the soldier. While the comic books did display propaganda, it was also commercialism at its finest. Comic books were big money and they heralded the youth culture to come into the 1950s. The comic book actually became part of the war itself. And it showed what children and young men could do to help the war effort through the character’s actions and through the advertisements in the comic itself. Children used the comic book to keep up to date with what was happening through most of the war. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] [MUSIC PLAYING]

TRANSCRIPT

-[MUSIC PLAYING] We’re going to talk to you today about what I term the non-Nordic ideal– non-Germans in Nazi armies. During the massive D-Day invasion in 1944, American troops captured a large number of German soldiers in the beach defenses, as you might expect. However, the Americans noticed something special about a handful of the German prisoners taken on Utah Beach. They weren’t really Germans at all. But before I tell you who they were, I think we need to lay some ground work on the entire German military. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party that took over Germany in 1933 placed great importance on racial matters. As most people know, they promoted German racial superiority as part of the ideal Nordic sub-race. Different races, including the other sub-races of Europeans were inferior physically, mentally, and morally with the Jewish people being at or near the bottom of the list on all three counts. The Nordic individual, as you can see a good representation of them here, was tall, with light colored eyes, preferably blue but gray or green would do, a long head, and a strong nose. According to certain racial theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this Nordic segment of the European race was proud, honest, individualistic, and innovative. Sometimes the Nazis also refer to the Nordic sub-race as Arians. You may have heard this term before in association with the Nazis. Although really, Arians as a group actually had little connection with Germans in history. The Nazis expected their females to be every bit as hardy and as ardent in their Nazi political beliefs as the males. Notice the Nazi buddy barrel up there, the girl on the right. She’s apparently connecting– or collecting money for the cause. German families were encouraged to have a lot of little Nazis. Beyond that, to promote Aryan racial purity the government developed a program called Lebensborn that rewarded unmarried German women who had the proper racial characteristics for having children with German officers. The babies would then be raised in Nazi families and subsidized by the government. Other racially pure babies that would have been aborted by their mothers were taken and raised through the Lebensborn program. Some qualifying babies in occupied countries like Poland– that is, countries that the Germans had conquered– they were even kidnapped by the Nazis and placed in Lebensborn homes. So how did Hitler himself stack up as a Nordic type? I’d say he might have been given a C on a normal grade scale of A to F. He had startling blue eyes all right and he was certainly proud and individualistic and innovative, but he was barely medium height and his hair was brown– not at all blond. Now let’s look at a few of the Nordic specimens the Nazis pubs publicized to show the kind of man they were looking for. This young man was on a recruiting poster for the German army, and a major German newspaper described him as being, quote, the ideal German soldier. This SS major had the facial features and coloring that the Nazis idolized. Now from those two guys, the surprising thing is that one of them is actually a Jew. The man on the right, his name is Private Werner Goldberg. He was pictured on recruiting posters until they discovered what his family background was. Then he was kicked out of the Army, and the posters were taken down. Sometimes, even when the truth was known, racial inferiors were tolerated by the Nazis. Field Marshal Milch, pictured here, was half Jewish, but he continued to serve in the German military throughout the war. A considerable number of German officers, some of high rank, were part Jewish. For one reason or another, great ability or sometimes just past ties with Hitler or other Nazi leaders, these men were allowed to stay in spite of the Jewish family background. The German military was stretched so thin across all of Europe that by 1942, they had to open the doors to non-Germans. First, they recruited men from nations that were racially like the Germans, especially other Nordic countries, those in the northern part of Europe. The Norwegians, for example. They weren’t Germans, but they would make excellent ski troops. Now how did the Nazis convince men from countries that they had conquered to fight in the German military? One answer can be seen in the recruiting poster in the middle, and also the one on the left. Can you make out the term Bolshevism? In other words, communism. Hatred for communism was so strong among many of the people in Europe that they preferred even the Nazis to Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. It wasn’t unheard of among other nations to enlist foreign troops in their armies. For example, as you can see here, the Free French military forces under General Charles de Gaulle had tens of thousands of Africans in their units. The British army had troops from a number of other countries all around the globe, countries that were part of the British empire. These soldiers are Gurkhas, that you see here, from the Himalaya nation of Nepal, but they are part of the British army. And while they weren’t exactly foreign troops, the United States used many Japanese-Americans, who were just a tiny minority group in the United States. Most of these men were concentrated in what’s called the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Now this unit did not fight against the Japanese in the war. They were used in Europe against the Germans. In fact, this unit, the 442nd, received more decorations for bravery than virtually any other American combat unit in the war. No one could match the Germans though in using troops of other nationalities. The Waffen-SS was a special elite branch of the German armed forces, separate from the regular army, that accepted volunteers from a great many nationalities. The regular German army conscripted foreigners as well. As time went on, Germany needed more and more men, and their racial standards were lowered. So men from southern Europe and Eastern Europe and even eventually Africa and Asia found their way into Hitler’s military. And I want to read what Otto Skorzeny, a colonel in the SS said here as he listed the different nationalities that were part of the SS forces in the war. “Albanians, Bosnians, Britons, Bulgarians, Cossacks, Croats, Danes, Dutch, Estonians, Finns, Flemings, French, Georgians, Greeks, Hungarians, Italians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Norwegians, Romanians, Russians, Serbs, Slovakians, Swedes, Swiss, Ukrainian, and Walloons, as well Armenians, Byelorussians, Hindus, Tartars, Turkomen, and Uzbeks served under their own flag in the Waffen-SS. Almost all of these peoples were represented in my unit.” So many Soviet soldiers, that is Russian soldiers, hated their own dictator, Stalin, and the communist government of the Soviet Union that hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops that were captured by the Germans volunteered to fight alongside them against the Soviet Union. Captured Russian general Vlasov, and he is pictured here, was placed in command of many of these troops in the war against the Soviet Union. When the Allied forces invaded Normandy in German occupied France on D-Day June 6, 1944, they faced German troops, of course, but also they faced a few Indian soldiers in the German army, pictured here with Field Marshal Erwin Rommel the German commander in France at the time. In addition, they had to fight Polish troops in the German army, Russian troops, and as you can see here, various others, including even some from the Far East. The next slide was to have the numbers of troops from foreign countries that served in the German military. Â鶹´«Ă˝ 2 million of them from other nations in Eastern Europe served in the German military during the war and tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, from areas really near what we prayed for today in the Caucasus Mountain region, we prayed for Armenia. Probably 100,000 Armenians served in the German army, thousands and thousands of other Europeans, quite a few from Central Asia. It was a large number, and it helped the Germans very much. Now I suppose I’d better explain why those German prisoners or who those German prisoners were that I mentioned to you at the very beginning of this presentation, the ones that were captured on D-Day but weren’t Germans at all. I think perhaps the strangest odyssey of any troops in the war involved this group of people, a handful of Korean soldiers drafted at first into the Japanese army in 1938, who then were captured by the Soviet Army in border fighting with Japan in 1939. And the Soviets drafted those guys into their own army and sent them to fight the invading Germans in 1941. Those Koreans were captured by the Germans and eventually forced into the German army and eventually sent to France, where they ended up fighting against the Americans on D-Day and being captured yet again. Sometimes it was just hard to tell who was on the other side of the battlefield from you. Thank you. [MUSIC PLAYING]

Dr. Bruce Rosdahl concludes his vlog series over the fundamental dignity that belongs to every human being. Rosdahl explains the necessity for society to return to a Biblical understanding of the image of God and how that image is reflected in all individuals regardless of gender or ethnicity.

TRANSCRIPT

– [MUSIC PLAYING] As a theologian and as somebody who is interested in church history, it pains me to know that it is a reality that we in the church, us not them, us, me, theologian, that we developed a theology, that actually asserted, that women do not bear the image of God equal to men. Did you know that? You see, this theology can be traced in the patristics and, of course, the chief theologian of that period is going to be Augustine. And Augustine said directly, that women– he argued that women were inferior in mind and body, and, therefore, they do not bear the image of God equal to men. Can you imagine that? Ladies, you do not bear the image of God. You’re not equal. Well, then let’s move to the Middle Ages, let’s get the prince of theologians of that period. Well, now we’re talking about Aquinas, and what does Aquinas say? He’s actually in agreement, that women are the glory of men, but they don’t bear the full image of God. And ladies, I know you’ll love this. You’ll appreciate this greatly, because you are the ornament of men. Thank you for making us look good. OK. Of course, the sad thing is, it’s just not even funny. He agreed that women were basically some way defective. It’s just blatantly unbiblical. I don’t know what else to say. Women bear the full image of God equal to men, and the Bible is emphatic about that. And what we need is a return to the biblical understanding of the image of God. And in a world that is trapped in moral fog, we need a clear message of what scripture tells us, that all people, at all times, everywhere, bear the image of God. And so I’d like you to look with me just for a brief moment, and I recognize this is a little long getting us to this, but I think we can do this quickly, here, today.

And that is what does the Bible say about the image of God? We can turn to Genesis, where it always begins students, because Genesis provides so many foundational truths, they become paradigmatic for the rest of scripture. We get a principle that’s laid out, and then is applied all throughout in a paradigm, and that’s true when we’re talking about the sanctity of life. You see we read in Genesis 1, the creation story, how God creates out of chaos and brings order and beauty. And He creates an incredible world. All God’s creation is glorious, every aspect of it glorifying Him. And it’s why we need to be good stewards of our world. But at the height of God’s creation, on that final day of His creative power, what does He do? He creates humanity. And in Genesis 1:27, we read this. That God created humanity in His image, and, in the image of God, He created them. Now help me for a moment, students, because I want you to put your Bible study skills together, OK. I’ve color coded this to help us a little bit. So in the image of God, He created them. Male and female, He created them. I think you see there’s a pattern there. This is not happenstance, this is done intentionally in Hebrew poetry. This is a chiasm, a chiastic structure, you see how it repeats that God created humanity in His image. And now, let’s repeat it, in His image, He created them. The A, B, B, A structure so common in chiasm. It’s not meant to say two different things. It’s saying one thing, that God, Elohim, created humanity in His image. But what I’m so glad of is that it didn’t just stop there, because I’ll be honest with you, the way our history is going that we will tend to say, oh, well, He’s talking about men. But God wants to make it clear He’s not just talking about men, because He says, here, that He created them male and women to bear the image of God. Men and women equally bearing that image. The message is clear that all of humanity has the image of God, men and women equally, in tselem Elohim, in that image of God. And so what does that mean? Quickly, if I could just point out four truths I think are really important for us. And then, I’ve got something I really want you to see, today. You see the image of God is intrinsic to who we are. If you are human, you bear the image of God. It doesn’t matter who you are. It comes from our relationship with God, our creator. He has endowed as with this. It’s not from the state. It’s not the evolution of nature. And it’s not conferred by society. And so, this is really important, the image of God is not some changing attribute that is different qualities of different people. We all bear the image of God equally. That’s why we can’t downgrade anybody. Nobody bears the image more than another. Every person has it intrinsically. It is a corporate idea, that the image applies to all of humanity as a group. It’s what separates us from the rest of creation. And as I’ve said before, if we deny that in us, we deny it in each one of us, individually.

You see biblical Christianity doesn’t allow for any form of racism, prejudice, and stereotypes. I know this is maybe not as profound for some of you, related to some of the philosophers we talked about or mentioned today, but if I could be allowed to quote from Mandisa and Toby Mac. [AUDIENCE CHUCKLING] We all bleed the same. It’s not only incorporate, it’s individual. It’s not just us as a whole, but every person is made in the image of God. And this truth is essential for recognition of individual dignity and rights. Now, students, I want to be really clear, this doesn’t mean everyone is saved. We recognize that you can only come to salvation by grace through faith through Christ. There’s only one way, we recognize that. But that’s not what we’re talking about, we talking about the image of God. Because whether you’re saved or not, believer or not, whatever lifestyle you’re bound in, you are made in the image of God, and you have value and dignity, and we treat you accordingly. And it’s also egalitarian, as we said, every man and every woman created in the image of God. Well, what I want to do, now, is really ask this question, so what does this mean for us in SAGU? We’re believers. This institution has as its core value, that we are Bible-based. I don’t think I’ve told you anything today that you don’t know, in terms of our commitment to the value and dignity of every life. That we want every person, here, every person that walks through these doors, every person that we would come in contact with, to know that we value them and be treated with dignity. But what I would like to do for a moment is I’m going to invite you to listen to your peers, your classmates, to help us think through this issue. If we could play this for a moment.

[MUSIC PLAYING] That I’m an athlete and that I play sports, and although I did for a very long time, it’s kind of a let down, just because I have so much more to offer, and basketball was never my end goal, you know. I wanted to become someone who creates film and create different things and just goes far in the industry. But, you know, I’m, kind of, put into a box, whenever someone’s idea is that, oh, he’s an athlete, so he’s probably not smart, probably just knows how to play football, or just play basketball, or run track, and has, kind of just like, peanuts in his brain. But it’s not that at all. Fundamentalist, racist, misogynist, and that’s not as a merited stereotype there are quite a few people like that, and it’s not one of the worst stereotypes in the world. Like it hasn’t personally degraded me constantly, but it is something I’ve had to deal with, then outwardly tried to show, that I am not one of those people. A lot of my friends would say stuff like Angie, you’re white on the inside, or like you’re not black, or if they listen to rap music, they would say, I’m blacker than you. And I’m like, that’s not really true, but, like, I used to take it as a compliment, because I was very– I was at a time, that I didn’t like the fact that I was African-American. And so, I would say, hey, that’s a good thing, kind of thing. But no, like, now that I look out about that. That’s a very toxic kind of mindset to have. There are certain assumptions that come with my last name. The assumption that I only speak Spanish at home, the assumption that I come from a low socioeconomic status, that if I’m not wearing a certain clothes or dressed a certain way, the assumption is that I’m either a gardener, or a lawn caretaker, or that I am a criminal of some sort. My mom is Hispanic, and so my entire mom’s side is Hispanic, like speaks Spanish, cooks the good food, like that good food. You know, I lived in Southside San Antonio for a good portion of my life, so I grew up around a lot of Hispanic culture, but I look completely white. So it was an interesting journey for me growing up, growing up around this Hispanic culture and looking the way I do. And then encountering other people, who, I felt, I identified with, who I felt comfortable with, kind of reject me, because I didn’t look Hispanic at all. You know, I would say something about Hispanic culture and I was immediately shut down, with OK like, who’s this white girl trying come in and infringe upon our culture? But I felt it was a part of my culture too. Some stereotypes I’ve dealt with, that I’m a rapper, if I tell people I do music. They’re like, are you a rapper? I’m like, no I don’t rap. I sing, but it’s not as funny to me. Growing up, you tell somebody you’re from Dallas, they automatically assume that you’re just angry, or violent, or that you have an ulterior motive every time you go to do something you. Go in the gas station, they’re watching you. They think you’re gonna take something. [MUSIC PLAYING] I think one of the things where I’ve most clearly felt with my experience, particularly being black in America, is that I’ve always felt I’ve had to almost compensate, I’ve had to almost prove, maybe not my worth, but prove my worthiness. I’m not sure how to explain it, but it’s almost as if I’ve had to work twice as hard to get the same recognition is maybe my white counterparts, or to get the same advantages, or the same benefits. When I was in junior high, I remember a woman told me that, this is a man’s world, and we’re merely just living in it. And at the moment, I didn’t really understand it, but then as I’ve gotten older and I’ve come to understand more things, I see that, that is a mindset for a lot of people. As a black person, you know for me, my American experience has been one that’s been filled with a lot of great pride and happiness. But also one that has been filled with a lot of grief and disappointment. I was in a Burger King with a friend of mine, and we were getting ready to buy a meal. And there was a white male, that was standing behind my friend and I, and he proceeded to refer to my friend and I as the n-word. For me, that was the first time that anyone had to refer to me using that term, and it was the first time that I had felt the stinging venom of that word. I think growing up, especially with a lot of the social justice issues, I was fairly oblivious to them going up. I mean, a lot of us were, especially a lot of white people were. But as I started to grow, I started to see the tensions a lot more. And as I moved down to the South, obviously, just like in the Dallas area, there’s a lot more tension there. It’s been interesting to me in America that whenever someone, who looks like me or someone who’s African-American, complains in some way about something that they find immoral in American politics or American policy, they’re told immediately, well, if you don’t like it, then you can leave. And I remember going through the Bill of Rights and thinking, how that’s so intrinsic to our society. And I always thought that there was a disconnect with that, when minorities express their First Amendment right, that they were shut down immediately. [MUSIC PLAYING] It’s been a really good experience, I will say that. I haven’t heard any– I, personally, never had any encounter issues. I’ve never had any blatant forms of things that I felt that just rubbed me the wrong way. I guess, if anything, I would say that there isn’t too much openness to other ideas. Yes we, in the different departments, we talk about those ideas and we bring them up, but for someone to actually hold to them or to have some leaning toward them, is almost seen as just a horrible thing. And that’s probably one of the things that I’ve probably disliked the most about being here at SAGU. But apart from that it’s been pretty good. I have a lived in Savel throughout my entire experience at SAGU. So this is my fourth year in Savel and this year I’m an RA. And when I first got to SAGU, Savel was dumped on. Like immediately people were like, oh you live in Savel, you live in the ghetto, you live in the party dorm, the athlete dorm, the dorm that doesn’t care. And I was really confused, because I was like, what, you guys have never lived in Savel. And over the last couple of years, it’s been really cool to like watch this transition of that stereotype. It’s still there, but there has been change and there has been progress with that. So I think one of the things that, for me as a black student, that has affected my experience, here at SAGU, is the lack of representation. And while I don’t assume that it has been intentional or that there hasn’t been any effort made in order to bring about representation and to bring in more faculty members and more speakers that would represent my demographic, its just been my experience in the last four years that, that has been lacking. My experience here in SAGU has been phenomenal. I’ve enjoyed it for sure, especially the department that I’m in, media and communications. My goal is to definitely push the culture forward and to see this place grow and to turn around and be a top-tier school in this industry. And I believe that there’s been moments where, you know, without conscious or without, you know, malicious motive, that things were said in a certain way, or a certain tone, or questions were raised that just weren’t delivered in a way that would show the love of Christ, or that would show embodying unity and diversity. [MUSIC PLAYING] Let’s make it a cohesive culture, instead of a, you know, as a woman, it’s your responsibility. Don’t look at them too long. Don’t dress this way. Make sure you’re dressing not too feminine, so that way you don’t catch their eye. I think let’s make it a teamwork effort. Let’s hold our women accountable. Let’s talk about it from a godly perspective. And let’s hold our men accountable, and talk about it from a godly perspective. I think that we can be a lot more mindful about our liturgy and how unitive it can be. And it’s not just necessarily an entertainment liturgy, one that just makes us happy or feel good, but liturgy that actually is sharp and incisive towards our culture. Recent scholarship by evangelical scholars, such as Michael Emerson, George Yancy, and Christian Smith, has actually shown that although there’s no longer legal segregation that in the church, the evangelical church, there’s still, in fact, what they call de facto segregation. In fact, one of the most alarming things that their research has found, recently, is that a large amount of evangelicals, when polled, reported that they would be more open to having a relationship or marriage with someone of a different religion than someone of a different race. And I think these are things that we need to face as lovers of the church and as members of the Church. We need to understand that we’re working toward something that’s revealed in scripture, with every tribe, and every nation in every tongue worshipping together in unity and in harmony. And if we can admit that we have blind spots and admit that there’s a problem, we can work towards bettering those things and representing the kingdom of Christ. One of God’s commandments was for us to love our neighbors. And, I feel like, if everybody embodied that and we saw people and we didn’t look at them by the color of their skin or how they dress, and just embraced each other, because everybody goes through something. I think we all look at each other and feel like we can’t relate. Maybe we all can relate more than we actually think. We would grow as a family and this school would change, the dynamic would be shot, just because everybody can recognize that we can love past what each other has been through and what we look like. [MUSIC PLAYING] [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE]

Obviously, I need to give thank you to Angie, Antoine, Payton Bernhard, Jordan [INAUDIBLE],, Weston Combs, Malik Golden, Emily Hudspeth, Devon Petty, Demari Williams, and I need to give special props definitely to Andre Gray, who helped head that project, for me and Kevin Kazadi, who did all the masterful editing. So thank you SAGU students for helping us with this issue. Yes. [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE]

So how do we respond to what we’ve heard today? Let me suggest three things just quickly. The first one is it’s time to change our lenses. Let’s just start there. How do you view other people and yourself? Do you first see race, do you see culture, or color, do you see status, maybe even political party? That’s how we first see one another. Or as you’re standing here looking at me, is the only thing you can see is some old white male? Or do you first see somebody created in the image of God? When I see you, do I first see an Asian, a Hispanic, a Middle Eastern, male, female, what do I see? Can I change my lenses to first say, you know what, you are a person created in the image of God, no matter who you are. And whether we agree or disagree on certain issues is not the point. You have dignity and value. We need to change our lenses and to acknowledge the stereotypes. And by the way, I’m not saying that just for you. This is an area of deep passion for me. I have to acknowledge I have my own blinders. I do have my blinders, which is why we need to hear one another speak, and to listen and not be defensive. That’s hard for me. I want to be defensive. This is a passionate area for me. I think about it, and yet, it hurts to find out when I’ve got blinders, and I have misspoken, and I have not treated somebody properly. So we need to, yes, enjoy our distinctive cultures, do not think I’m suggesting that we are colorblind or that God is colorblind. No, I actually believe it takes the colors and all the diversity of our cultures and races to glorify Him, and it just exhibits the greatness of who God is in our diversity. But that diversity doesn’t divide us. We can enjoy our distinctiveness, but still recognize each one of those distinctive traits are very much part of the image of God. So we need to change our lenses and get rid of our prejudices and mistreatments. And what about changing our speech? How do you talk about other people, not just race issues, students, any person? I’m not only talking about the words out of our mouth. I recognize we did a lot more talking today through our thumbs. What do you post? How do you talk about people, when you post about them, the tweets and the things that are out there and all this stuff I don’t even know. I feel like I’m cool just because I can say tweet. [LAUGHTER] But are we pejorative towards other groups of people, races, ethnic groups, parts of the country they’re from? Ephesians 4:29, Let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth. Let no unwholesome word come out of your thumbs, your fingers. Finally, besides change our lenses and speech, I would call upon us, because I think this is our hearts desire, I don’t think I’m talking to a school, to a faculty, to a student body, to administration, who doesn’t want this. I think this is who we are. So then, what I’m calling us to do is then change our actions. Put into action the second greatest commandment. All of us were moved. I was moved, when Dr. Clarensau preached, and he called on us to put into action loving our brothers and sisters. You could sense, here in the chapel, this hitting our hearts. So I’m just calling on us to do the same thing here, at SAGU and every person we meet around the world, to treat all people with dignity and respect. Because students, every person, everywhere, at all times, has human dignity, created in the image of God. God bless you. [MUSIC PLAYING]

In part one of this vlog series, Dr. Bruce Rosdahl shares how modern society has neglected the fundamental dignity that belongs to every human being. Rosdahl breaks down the cascading consequences of a changing worldview-a worldview that has redefined personhood and quality of life based on personal opinion as opposed to a Biblical worldview. This change in view and declination of a Biblical worldview has crumbled the foundation on which human dignity stands.

TRANSCRIPT

Well, students, we’re going to get right into it today on an area that is pretty challenging, for sure. I’ll begin just– before I do, I should mention that today I am definitely indebted to two books that have been an influence on my thought. And I thought they would be important for you to kind of recognize them before we begin. And one is called Why People Matter that is edited by John Kilner, Dr. John Kilner, who is really addressing how this concept of the image of God interacts with unbiblical worldviews, and what does that mean. He also is author of a book called Dignity and Destiny. You will definitely see the influence of both those books on my presentation today. And so we want to make sure due honor is appropriately there.

Students, today my heart really is broken. And that’s where I want to begin. I’m broken today as I watch a nation, our nation, and our world deny the fundamental dignity of humanity. Now, I recognize this is not a new problem. I’m not naive. We’re not naive. We recognize this really reaches back to the roots in Genesis 3 and the fall. But nevertheless, all around us we see the cascading consequences of a changing worldview. We’ve either forgotten the foundational principle, or we just have chosen not to live it out. And that is that all people, at all times, everywhere have dignity. Can I say that again? That all people, at all times, everywhere have dignity. And I’d like you to say that with me, because that is the heart of our message of my presentation today. Would you say it with me? All people, at all times, everywhere have dignity. I’d like to have you walk with me just for a moment through the pages of our news recently where this does not seem to be the case.

I mean, we just could talk about the resurgence of white nationalist movements within our nation and the world. Our nation watched as several hundred white supremacists, nationalists, neo-Nazis, and Klansmen marched chanting “White Lives Matter,” “you will not replace us, the Jews will not replace us.” Poland saw 60,000 people march in defense of nationalism, each march, every movement denying the fundamental dignity and value of African-Americans and Jews. We could talk about human trafficking. My goodness, over 20 million people are victims of human trafficking around the world. Now, the United Nations reports that 79% is sex trafficking. The majority, somewhere in the 90s, is comprised of men– I’m sorry, of women and girls forced into sexual slavery. And students, this is not just foreign countries around the world, but it’s here in the US, and in Texas, as well.

You may be surprised to know that Texas is second in the nation in regards to sex trafficking, with only California in front of us. Just in October 2017, right here in our DFW area, a sex ring was discovered that were enslaving seven women that was busted in Fort Worth. Women, girls, men, boys treated as a commodity, exploited for selfish pleasure. This is not how we treat people who are created with dignity, people who have intrinsic worth. We could talk about the Me Too movement. Over 17 million women reported some type of sexual abuse since 1990– listen to that. 17 million. Now, I know and I recognize that there’s a huge debate that exists whether the– on the accuracy of all the claims. But let’s be clear, one woman who’s been abused, one woman who has been sexually exploited is too many. I want to say that again. One woman exploited, that is way too many. And the fact that 17 million women would report such a thing is just shocking. The mistreatment of women is a denial of their fundamental dignity as people. And we’re not going to excuse it as locker room talk. We’re not going to call it boys just being boys, this is just kind of the way it is. No, women have dignity. They have rights. They have value. And they must be treated accordingly. This is true in the halls of government, in the boardrooms of our businesses, and the sanctuary of our churches.

It’s also true– and let’s be clear about this– in the privacy of our bedrooms. And this is what I mean. Let us not acknowledge and feign disgust at the mistreatment of women while all the time gazing at pornography in private. I recognize it is not just of women. I recognize it goes both ways. But let’s be clear, pornography degrades women. It makes them into mere objects, and robs them of value. And it goes against the fundamental idea that all people, everywhere have dignity. We could talk about eugenics in Iceland. And I recognize this is not easy stuff. I mean, we got right into it right away this morning. Last year, Iceland made news for the virtual elimination of Down syndrome children. Well, how was this accomplished? Through prenatal testing and abortion. Around 80% of the women who discover their baby has Down syndrome will abort the baby in Iceland. 80%. But Iceland is not the only one. You see– you reckon in France, 77% do the same thing. In the United States, 68% do the same thing. And 98% will abort Down syndrome children in Denmark. You see, the reality is this, that we have determined that people with Down syndrome do not have a life worth living. And it’s defended by a worldview that has redefined personhood and quality of life. It grants human dignity only to those who we deem have value. That is an undermining of the biblical worldview.

Now, we could also talk about abortion and sex-selective abortions. You know, I know for this generation today a lot of times we feel like, well, that’s so passe. But let’s be clear, there are still 40 to 50 million abortions around the world. 40 to 50 million a year around the world. And in some countries, sex-selective abortion is still an issue. You go, well, what is that? That’s where families have decided that they prefer a boy over a girl. And it never goes the other way. You see, the answers– I mean, the issue is this, that a baby girl is just not wanted in some of these countries or granted the same dignity as a boy. So what’s the answer? You abort her. And you know, let’s just try again till we get the boy that we want. And what does that say about the intrinsic dignity of women? But you know, it’s not only the unborn children who suffer. How many stories have we heard and how many stories do we have to hear about parents abusing their children? Of course, recently we have the couple in California, as you know, chaining their kids to their beds, starvation, beatings, and horrors beyond imagination. We watched– the story captured the news for so long about Sherin Mathews, who was left dead by their family at a culvert just here in Dallas area. It’s estimated– and of course, the statistics are hard to demonstrate in every area, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 700,000 children were abused last year in the US. 700,000. Students, children are people, too. Children were created in the image of God. They are valuable. They have dignity. And we’ve lost sight of that.

So where do I stop? My goodness. We could talk about euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, cloning. We could add to the mix genocide. We heard about that recently. What about the use of torture techniques, religious persecution around the world? We could discuss poverty and politics and refugees. And do I even dare add the fact that the 20th century has been called the most bloodiest century of all times because of our modern war techniques. Students, all around us what we see is a world struggling to find a reason for dignity in people. Now, what has led to this demise? I think you recognize that I would not be intellectually honest if I tried to suggest there’s just one answer. It is just far too complicated for that, and I recognize that. But what is certain is that the decline of a biblical worldview is part of the problem. It has crumbled the very foundation on which human dignity stands. Let me say that again. A biblical worldview is going to provide a very foundation from which we find human dignity and value. Every justice movement, every social agency, Christian or not, religious or not, all of them defend human rights. And what do they appeal to? They appeal to human dignity, that there is a uniqueness in humanity that should be protected and cared for in some fashion.

Even our own Declaration of Independence assumes that people are– you know the words– endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. But that dignity, the uniqueness of humanity is in peril in a world that no longer affirms a creator. I mean, think with me just for a moment. What does it mean for humanity if the image of God does not exist? Then who are we? What becomes of human rights if people have no intrinsic value? If value is something that is given by the state or we confer as a society or it’s developed somehow naturally, then can it be taken away? How do you defend gender equality or race equality from a naturalistic perspective? And who says the weak shouldn’t be oppressed? Who said they should be protected? Maybe they should be eliminated. The fact is, students, our world is struggling today at the most fundamental levels to defend an objective value of all people.

To be sure– and I don’t want to overstate the case, but not everybody agrees with Nietzsche. He was convinced that the death of God meant that life is now meaningless and purposeless. Not everybody agrees. But I will tell you this. When you read the literature– and we’re talking about the sophisticated literature, not just popular literature. We’re talking about philosophers and ethicists wrestling with this question. They do have answers. They have ideas that they propose. But the more they seek to find human dignity apart from God, the more it’s like nailing Jell-O to a wall. It’s getting nowhere. I mean, let me just use as an example naturalism. If you’re not familiar with the term, naturalism basically posits that there is no ultimate reality beyond the material world. Hence, naturalism. What’s nature, what’s here. So it rejects the existence of a creator who endows humanity with dignity. So it searches to find human dignity in a world that is devoid of any transcendent design or purpose. And that’s the struggle. You see, Darwinian evolution has forced many to conclude, even of its artist supporters, and I quote, that humanity has no unique special value. Put in other words, there’s nothing special about us. We’ve just evolved just like everybody else has. And yes, we’re different, but we’re not unique. There’s not special dignity to us.

In fact, in short, humanity is no different, no more special than any other animal. I think you may be overstating it there. I encourage you to look and read the arguments of Peter Singer and others, who will actually give more credence and value to certain animals of higher cognitive ability than they will of humanity. And it’s one of the reasons why Singer will defend that you’re not even a human till at least about 30 to 45 days after birth. So infanticide is no big deal. It’s not a problem ethically. Now I know this sounds a little alarmist, but I remind you what CS Lewis said. The abolition of God leads to the abolition of humanity. When you take away the very foundation that gives you and I and every other person in this world dignity, then where do we end up? In fact, Kilner warns us this. And I’d like you to look at this on the screen because this is really kind of my heart today, my concern. Kilner warns us that the problem today is that many people have a life outlook that is incapable of supporting their conviction that people matter. They’re not even aware that there’s a contradiction in the way that they believe. Certainly, they want to defend their individual rights and value, but they don’t want to extend it to other people– we will march for my rights, but forget anybody else– not recognizing that that worldview is actually undermining human dignity and value for all of us.

And again, I recognize this sounds so alarmist and Chicken Little, the sky is falling, my goodness, but history has taught us what can happen when we don’t acknowledge human dignity. If all people, at all times, everywhere don’t have dignity, well, just consider for a few moments what we can do. My goodness, we could spend days and weeks talking about examples, but let me just give you a few here for a moment. What about the eugenics of a case called Buck versus Bell, 1927? You may not be familiar with it, but in 1927 our Supreme Court actually approved eight to one the forced sterilization of individuals deemed– and I quote– feeble-minded and imbeciles. Now, think about it. This is a legal case. The court is deciding that certain individuals are imbecilic and feeble-minded. And Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr– and some of you will recognize that name if you know your history, because he has certainly supported the eugenics movement– he actually wrote in defense of this practice, saying, you know what? We have an obligation to eliminate the defectives from society. See, rather than allowing these individuals the right to procreate and to negatively impact society– and again, I quote– society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Oh my goodness. That we would have a court that would decide who has dignity and value and worthy of procreating and those who do not. Now, I don’t want you to miss the rationale that they are definitely saying that these people do not have the image of God and are of equal value. Over 70,000 people have been subjected to forced sterilization simply because they were deemed defective.

Well, what about people who were considered, you know, less civilized than us? Certainly not as evolved. It’s an unfortunate reality in our own history that we declared Native Americans as not bearing the full image of God. And you may not be aware of that. See, we said Native Americans do not bear the image of God like white Americans do. And this is not just a white/African-American, white/Native American issue, we’re talking about all people, everywhere with dignity. But in this case, we decided that Native Americans do not bear the image of God. And they said that directly. Once again, Oliver Wendell Holmes, arguing in the New England Society Orations, said that there is an inferior race that deserves– and I’m almost embarrassed to use these words– they deserve to be, in his words, rubbed out. How do you just rub out people? We’re not talking about some word on a page that you just erase, we’re talking about people. You go, well, my goodness, Rosdahl, maybe you misunderstood him. Well, listen to what he says. “And so the red crayon sketch is rubbed out, and the canvas is then ready for a picture of manhood a little like God’s image.” Of course, he meant his image. Not Native American image. I don’t think it’s going to come as a surprise to you that the same arguments were used that enslaved and mistreated so many African-Americans because we denied that they also carried the image of God. And I recognize that some of this is offensive, and I apologize in advance. But you need to hear it directly that some justified slavery by arguing that black men and women did not bear the image of God equal to white Americans.

In a book which I was shocked the first time I ever saw it, in a biblical defense of slavery, you see, one of the problems, if you can defend that the Bible does not believe that all people– Hispanic, Asian, African-American, Native American, Middle Eastern, Indian whoever you want to put– that all people have the image of God, if you’re going to deny that, then what do you do with the Noah account? Oh, but he had a solution. And this is where I apologize how offensive this is. It’s not a joke to me, students. He actually argued that if you want to see and know where African-Americans came from, where black people came from, they were part of the animals on the ark. So go ahead, domesticate them, beat them, enslave them. They’re not really made in the image of God. And Charles Carroll’s book, which has been popular for over 100 years, called The Image of God, first published in 1900, argued that, if white was created in the image of God, then the Negro was made after some other image.

Now, if you understand why this is so important in terms of the image of God, you recognize that a key issue for the abolition of slavery and the mistreatment of any people and the issue of civil rights was founded on the issue of the image of God. And you know this. I mean, listen to the Gettysburg Address as Lincoln appealed to the proposition that all men are created equal. It was a commitment that every person has the image of God in them. We could listen to Martin Luther King Jr, who called the nation to put away hatred and injustice and live out the true meaning of these words. What words? “That we hold these truths to be self-evident.” Come on, you know it. “That all people, all men are created equal.” And he argued, if you look at his address on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he argued for the image of God in every person. And I love this part. He didn’t argue just for one race or one group of people, he said, because he understood directly, that if we deny the dignity in anybody, we deny it in ourselves, as well. And he said that our destinies are intertwined, our freedoms are intertwined. To deny dignity to anybody is to deny it for us all. And he wouldn’t let us do that. So we could talk about– we’ve talked about maybe denying it based on race or intelligence or inferiority or some other issue, but you might be surprised to know we also denied this based on gender. (Continued in Part 2)

TRANSCRIPT

On October 24, 1770, Captain Thomas Preston entered the new courthouse on Queen Street. He, with William Wemms, James Hartigan, William McCauley, Hugh White, Matthew Kilroy, William Warren, John Carrol and Hugh Montgomery, had been charged with the murder of several Boston residents and if found guilty would hang. The men, all part of England’s 29th regiment had arrived in Boston to maintain the peace and form tax collection under the Townsend acts and protect the crowns revenue at the customs house. Over 4,000 soldiers were housed in close proximity to Boston’s 20,000 residents. Conflict between the soldiers and the Bostonians was common. Military rules of the day require that the soldiers pay for their own uniforms and the food beyond their normal rations. The poorly paid soldiers often took jobs in the city to earn extra pay, putting them in competition with local workers for the same jobs. But how did the accused find themselves in a court room? There are mixed and conflicting accounts of the event known as the Boston Massacre, but the basic facts are these: On March 5, 1770 at approximately 9 p.m., sentry Hugh White stood guard outside the customs house. A group of townsmen led by Edward Garrick started insulting Private White. Some of the boys in the crowd began to throw snowballs, chunks of ice and oyster shells. Those passing by stopped to see what would happen next. As tensions rose, someone entered a nearby church and rang the bell. In a time before fire departments, the bell was the signal that fire had broken out in the city and help was needed to put out the flames. Still, more people poured out into the streets in response to the bell. As additional soldiers arrived to reinforce the sentry, Captain Preston attempted to control the crowd but violence followed. Armed with sticks or clubs, a group of men came up from the docks, joined the conflict, and some began to strike the soldiers with their weapons. Fearing for their lives, the soldiers attempted to defend themselves as best they could. Someone in the crowd taunted them, daring the troops to open fire on the crowd. One of the attackers threw a club at Private Montgomery, knocking him off his feet. Montgomery fired a shot into the air and then received the second blow from the club as he tried to stand. In the confusion that followed, additional shots were fired leaving Boston residents Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, James Caldwell, Crispus Attucks and Patrick Carr dead or dying. John Adams wrote of his own experience on that night:

“The Year 1770 was memorable enough, in these little Annals of my Pilgrimage. The evening of the fifth of March, I spent at Mr. Henderson Inches’s House at the South End of Boston, in Company with a Clubb, with whom I had been associated for several Years. Â鶹´«Ă˝ nine O’ Clock We were allarmed with the ringing of Bells, and supposing it to be the Signal of fire, We snatched our Hats and Cloaks, broke up the Clubb, and went out to assist in quenching the fire or aiding our friends who might be in danger. In the Street We were informed that the British Soldiers had fired on the Inhabitants, killed some and wounded others near the Town house. A Croud of People was flowing down the Street, to the Scene of Action. When We arrived We saw nothing but some field Pieces placed before the south door of the Town house and some Engineers and Grenadiers drawn up to protect them.” Concerned for his wife Abigail, Adams made his way home but found the crowded street difficult to maneuver. In the solitude of his home he found time to consider the events. He wrote in his diary, “For months uncertain busy characters had to work to spark quarrels between the lower classes and the soldiers. I suspected that this was the explosion which has been intentionally wrought by the designing men. They knew what they were aiming at better than the instrument employed. If these poor tools should be prosecuted for any of their illegal conduct, they must be punished. If the soldiers in self-defense should kill any of them, they must be tried. And if truth was respected in the law prevailed must be acquitted.” To Adams, a verdict rendered on a motion rather than the law would disgrace the country. “Paul Revere and others seize the moment to stir anti-British sentiment” is now famous print of the massacre that hit the street within weeks. No effort was made by Revere to ensure accuracy. It was after all a propaganda piece designed to enflame passions. The event took place after 9 in the evening. Snow covered the ground and the deaths were the result of chaotic mingling of soldiers and civilians. Yet the prints suggest that innocent civilians were gunned down in full light of day by an organized military under the command of a determined officer. The trial was postponed to allow hostility to die down but the soldiers found it nearly impossible to find legal counsel in Boston. Only John Adams would take the case and that after a time of personal struggle. Adams was in the early stages of building a law practice in Boston. He had some success and was building important contacts and a growing client base. His young family was dependent on his continued success. He knew well the political climate of Boston and what was at risk should he take the case; that he stood to lose clients and friends seemed clear. Placing his family in physical danger was also a very real possibility. Finding strength in a treatise by Sassari Beccaria, an opponent of capital punishment, Adams copied these words. “If, by supporting the rights of mankind, and of invincible truth, I shall contribute to save from the agonies of death one unfortunate victim of tyranny or ignorance, equally fatal, his blessings and years of transport will be sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of mankind.” In the end it came down to his bedrock belief that all men deserve a fair trial with capable representation. If no one else would defend the soldiers, then he must. Assisted by Josiah Quincy, Adams first defended Preston, arguing that it was impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Preston had given the order to fire. In fact, Preston had been standing in front of his men when he allegedly gave the order to fire – hardly the logical actions of an able commander. The jury acquitted Preston on the grounds of reasonable doubt. In December, a second trial was held to determine the guilt of the soldiers. In his closing, Adams called on the jury to lay aside emotion and decide the case only on the evidence. “I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, are inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence. Nor is the law less stable than the fact. If an assault was made to endanger their lives the law is clear. They had a right to kill in their own defense. If it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snowballs, oyster shells, cinders, clubs or sticks of any kind, this was provocation – for which the law reduces the offense of killing down to manslaughter. In consideration of those passions in our nature which cannot be eradicated, to you candor, and justice, I submit the prisoners in their cause.” Of the six defendants, four were acquitted and the other two soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter. Those two were branded on the thumbs and sent home to England. Meanwhile, England had repealed the detested Townsend acts, and at least for a while life settle down to its normal rhythm. Although facing immediate criticism and the loss of clients, Adams’ principled stand and able defense actually seemed to advance his young attorneys’ standing in the community. He was elected to several offices and played a significant role in the birth of the nation. With revolution likely in the spring of 1776, John Adams pinned his thoughts on government. At the Second Continental Congress he urged the independent states to adopt constitutions, creating self-government. The Declaration of Independence in July of 1776 made this step critical. In Massachusetts, the state legislature attempted to create a constitution on its own but it met with resistance. A constitutional convention was then called in 1779 and John Adams was elected to represent Braintree. The convention selected John and Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin to draft the constitution and they deferred the task to John. Seated at his desk in Braintree, he worked through the fall completing the draft in October of 1779. The Massachusetts Constitution was ratified the following June. Adams also served as the first vice president of the United States under George Washington. After years of active participation in decision-making, he found the office a disappointment. In a letter to his beloved Abigail, he complained, “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention a man contrived or his imagination conceived.” The nation honored Adams for his service, electing him president in 1796. In 1800, he participated in the first contested presidential election, when he a Federalist was challenged by the Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson. The campaign was marked by personal attacks on both sides, producing years of animosity between these former friends. Only at the end of their lives was the relationship restored. Looking back at the sum of his life, Adams wrote that above all honors bestowed upon him, the part he took in defense of Captain Preston and the soldiers procured be anxiety and obloquy enough. “It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would’ve been a foul stain upon this country as the executions of Quakers or witches anciently.” As the evidence was, the verdict of the jury was exactly right. Holding to his core belief that all deserved a fair trial with able defense, John Adams took greatest pride in this trial and that he had responded with actions beyond mere words.