sign in sign up
<<
Home , Duck and cover, Hibakusha, Protect and Survive

CHAPTER 3

MASS PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR – FROM TO

INTRODUCTION: NUCLEAR PREPAREDNESS The period from 1950 to the late 1980s was one where the threat of nuclear war was very real for governments in the UK and the US. Although the threat of nuclear war has not disappeared, this period was one where mass public education campaigns were used to educate the population to prepare for nuclear attack. In this chapter I examine two periods and locales – the US in the 1950s and the UK in the 1970s / 1980s to consider the racial tropes and themes of education campaigns.

DUCK AND COVER: WHITENESS AND CIVIL DEFENCE IN THE US SUBURBS OF THE 1950S The idea that the US is essentially a white nation has a long history. During the early , this idea became a central aspect of both strategic policy and anti-proliferation fantasies regarding nuclear weapons. The sympathetic heroes of strategic government propaganda were always white, and author after author colonised the lived experience of the Japanese to imagine what would happen to the white middle class in the event of a nuclear Pearl Harbor

(Sharp, 2007, p. 170) The white American middle classes of the 1950s could not be thought of as a homogenous group despite the popular cultural depictions of this class fraction. Culturally this group has now become a kitsch signifier of sinister conformity. There are truths and falsehoods in representations of the suburban middle class as hyper-conformist. Town planning and the application of mass production to building techniques produced a bland environment and there were massive governmental and civic to behave in a respectable, patriotic and family centred manner a policy which Tyler May (1999) describes as ‘domestic containment’ (pp. 10–29). On the other hand, the suburban citizen, within the confines of a family, was expected to behave in an aggressively activist fashion in the public sphere including civil defence activities (Tyler May, pp. 80 – 89). Neither was the suburban middle class particularly homogenous. The class composition of suburbia was more diverse than might be expected with a mixture of blue and white collar workers and the newly emerging managerial class (Tyler May, p. 20). Particularly in terms of race, suburbia was a location that brought together a number of white immigrant groups and their children who were not

29

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access CHAPTER 3 formally located in close proximity in the inner cities. This early post-war period represented a time when ‘whiteness’ became even more a unifying identity, with white immigrants no longer representing the constitutive limits as being ‘intermediately white’ (Roediger, 2005) but being notionally accepted as ‘white Americans’, further bringing groups such as Italian Americans and Irish Americans (who had previously operated at the fringes of whiteness – see Ignatiev, 1995; Guglielmo and Salerno, 2003) into ‘whiteness’. ‘Whyte (in his 1956 book ‘The Organization Man’) called the suburbs the “new melting pot” where migrants from ethnic working-class neighbourhoods in the cities moved into the middle class. In the process they lost much of their identity as ethnic outsiders and became simply “white” (Tyler May, 1999, p. 20) The formation of this seemingly cohesive, suburban, whiteness was at the expense of African Americans and other people of colour who were kept out of the suburbs by discriminatory mortgage packages, covenants on land purchases and a continuation of restrictive housing (and labour policies) which began in the 1920s and 30s (Roediger, 2005). Moreover, the white middle classes continued to pathologise poor, rural whites as in earlier generations (Wray, 2007). Suburbia was also a site of the formation of national whiteness against other national ‘races’ and this extended to the manufacture of, and defence from, nuclear weapons (Cooper, 1995). On the level of political ideologies, participation in civil defence was taken to be a sign of ‘American(ness)’, ones patriotic duty and part of the re-formation of national identity and race following World War II. In particular, the Russians, formally America’s allies, were rapidly portrayed as enemies. In part, this involved re-racialising Russians as ‘cold hearted’ and ruthless, particularly with regard to their ability to survive and fight a nuclear war (and this message was emphasised in American schools – see Scheibach, 2003, pp. 72–103). This presented a challenge to the white, suburban middle classes in that to survive a nuclear attack they needed to be equally hardy and civil defence propaganda frequently invoked images of the frontier. Asian people were also represented negatively in the civil defence and nuclear propaganda of the time as being militaristic and dying ‘pleasant deaths’ following the attacks on and (Sharp, 2007, p. 133). In this racialised context, civil defence was a trope of the suburban middle class but the responses made to civil defence, including those of educational professionals and teachers, cannot be read off in a direct way from civil defence policies. The ‘fantasy documents’ (Clarke, 1999) produced by civil defence planners during this time elicited a ‘fantasy response’ amongst actors. This was frequently less than planners expected (the construction of nuclear shelters which was minimal) but sometimes more (in terms of the activities of teachers and school administrators who frequently adopted a more intensive reaction to civil defence than the civil defence planners expected (Brown, 1998) and in the practicing of civil defence drills by suburban women (McEnaney, 2000, pp. 88–122). This was not a direct and conformist following of government orders by the white suburban middle class. Although McEnaney (2000) and Bourke (2006) argue that the post

30

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access MASS PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR

WWII period was one in which militarisation of US society was occurring this was more of a governmental fantasy than a lived reality of suburban families. McEnaney describes the family as the (notional) paramilitary unit of civil defence in terms of participation in civil defence drills, putting together ration kits and building shelters. However, actual participation in these drills was low, and few families followed exactly the advice of the FCDA (Federal Civil Defence Administation) (although this was variable, in some alert exercises virtually whole cities were cleared). Militarisation, at least in terms of hierarchy and mobilisation, was a theme of official documentation but was both ideologically and practically distinct from the actual responses of the white suburban middle classes. Ideologically, militarization of society and acceptance of the command and control structures thought to characterise the were frequently rejected even in the lead in and follow up to atomic attack:-’The center of the FCDA’s philosophy was “self help”: there was a broad political consensus that American style should avoid a centralized Communist-style system and instead reflect the “American” characteristics of voluntarism and self-reliance’ (Sharp, 2007, p. 188) This notion of ‘self help’ was based on fears not only of Communism but also of ‘over-civilisation’ and ‘momism’ (fear that over doting Mothers would lead to weak American sons: Sharp, 2007, p. 200) The ‘self help’ doctrine was indicative of the general approach to civil defence which was more on the lines of what has been called a ‘civic garrison’ (Grossman, 2001, pp. 108–110) rather than a militarization. Civil defence was primarily ‘civic’ defence with an emphasis on the community as self-regulating and internally socially controlling. Promotion of civil defence materials was based on travelling exhibitions to communities, talks to community groups and at the level of the street or the school rather than distributed through national television or film. Not to participate in civil defence was Communist, or morally suspect but this was informally reinforced by neighbours rather than by law enforcement or government propaganda. The proximity of housing in the suburbs and an emphasis on neighbourliness produced the conditions for ‘civic defence’ (located at the level of the neighbourhood). Nuclear war was thus sanitised and domesticated along the lines of suburban homes during that time. The social guidance film ‘The House in the Middle’ (sponsored by the National Paint Varnish and Lacquer Association, 1954) even shows that a clean, tidy and ordered house is more resilient to nuclear attack than a dirty and untidy one. The gendering of preparing nuclear shelters was explicit through the emphasis on women’s work in the stocking of shelters or the care of children during a nuclear attack. The imagery and iconography of both government publications and advertising of shelters during this time often showed the reproduction of the suburban middle class home with strict gender roles intact. Sanitisation involved emphasising the survivability of a nuclear war and also the use of childlike imagery, even jokes, to represent nuclear holocaust. For example, the use of the ‘Duck and Cover’ (FCDA, 1952) programme. In these booklets and short films even the aftermath of a nuclear attack appear to be similar to the after effects of a storm in Bambi’s forest and the cartoon was explicitly aimed at children.

31

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access CHAPTER 3

Figure 1: ‘Duck and Cover’ was shown in American schools in the 1950s and children were expected to participate in ‘Duck and Cover drills’. Children were expected to follow the advice of ‘Bert the turtle’ in the film and duck and find shelter in the event of an atomic blasy. In the ‘Duck and Cover’ cartoon film an African American child only appears when the narrator discusses some of the ‘threats’ faced by the country, the atomic bomb being only one of these. (Source: Public domain image)

Materially, the conditions in which white suburban families in the 1950s lived were paradoxical with regard to protection in nuclear attack. On the one hand, the material conditions were seen to be highly conducive to civil defence efforts in terms of dispersal of the population out of the inner cities, the construction of highways which provided ideal evacuation routes (Tobin, 2002), space and government subsidies with which to construct shelters (Rose, 2001) and even the promotion of ‘underground homes’ (Colomina, 2006) and re-designed schools (Brown, 1988). Experts called for the creation of dispersed and small ‘cluster cities’ (Tobin, 2002; Sharp, 2007, p. 186) or strip type ‘linear cities’ in order to minimise the danger of atomic attack. Urban areas were associated with fifth column activities (Sharp, 2007, p. 186) and poverty with conditions which would increase the fire risk following atomic attack:-’…with large numbers of blacks and poor people likely to be wiped out in the initial blast, officials focused their planning and propaganda on the politically expedient imagery of the white family’(Sharp, 2007, p. 207) Conversely, there is little evidence that suburbia was explicitly planned with civil defence in mind. With regard to the US shelter programme of the 1950s, McEnaney (2000) comments that:-’…the family shelter program was more a phenomenon of policymaker hand-wringing, popular curiosity and media hype than an actual construction boom’ (McEneaney, 2000, p. 65). This paradox can be resolved by considering the dual use of suburban planning – providing not only (or even mainly) protection against nuclear attack but also protection for the newly amalgamated ‘white’ population against the racial other. Architecturally suburbia was an escape from nuclear attack as well as urbanity and race, but was also an

32

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access MASS PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR escape into whiteness, or a fantasy of whiteness. By definition, it was located on the periphery of major cities, away from industry and military targets, and therefore likely to survive a nuclear strike (at least the initial blast, heat and – it was less likely to survive the subsequent fallout, lack of food and water and massive environmental damage). Highways were also devised partly as a route out of the city because of attack (Tobin, 2002) but also formed the bonds by which the ‘white ethnic solidarities’ of suburbia were formed. These were routes into / out of the city and into / out of rurality and urbanity. Therefore, the discourse of shelter construction can be seen as ideological as much as pragmatic:- The family shelter merged the disparate worlds of security planners and suburban home dwellers; it fused the security culture of the postwar defence bureaucracy with the family and consumer culture of suburbia. As one of the most significant icons of the nuclear age, the family shelter must be understood as both policy and political discourse, the outcome of an assortment of political-cultural contests and moods

(McEneary, 2000, p. 66) Central to this ideology was the protection of whiteness as evidenced by government films such as Survival Under Atomic Attack (1951):- In the film version of Survival Under Atomic Attack, a pipe-smoking father sat on the couch reading the booklet to his wife and pointing out significant details. Like the booklet, the film encouraged the family to be prepared for an atomic attack by keeping their home and yard tidy to prevent fire damage. The wife immediately moved to handle the relevant domestic appliances when attack sirens sounded by turning off the stove and unplugging the iron. After making sure to close the curtains and unlock the front door for emergency personnel, the family went down to the to wait for the . While the film briefly acknowledged that there were others who lived in different types of housing, the primary focus was on protecting the idealised white suburban family home

(Sharp, 2007, p. 190) Therefore, the material conditions of the suburban family were suggestive of, rather than causally, associated with protection from nuclear attack. The ‘dual purposes’ of suburban location, highways and re-designed schools were in the protection of suburban, newly forged whiteness whose explanatory purpose as ‘civil defence’ submerged concerns with protection against ‘racialised others’. However, although materially few US suburbanites of this period built shelters or lived in ‘underground homes’, there was widespread engagement with civil defence activities. As Davis (2007) argues, this was concerned with the enactment or dramatisation of civil defence activities. These enactments and dramatisations were also performative invocations of whiteness. That enactments and rehearsals were used as pedagogies rather than lectures and ‘surge education’ (as in the UK of the 1980s) was of critical importance for the antecedent white, suburban middle

33

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access CHAPTER 3 classes. The requirement to create a cohesive effort in terms of civil defence mirrored the requirement to form a ‘unified’ sense of identity (that is white identity) amongst the middle classes. Enactment and rehearsal solidified this sense of identity. White women and children were particularly used as both actors and participants in these enactments.

(WHITE) WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST White middle class women were seen by the FCDA as a key part of the civil defence effort. Although women’s participation in civil defence gave the possibility of proto-feminist forms of activism, the emphasis was generally on maternalism as an orientation for civil defence. However, the activist maternalism required by the FCDA differed from the ‘momism’ which was thought to be responsible for the degeneration of national ‘whiteness’ (McEnaney, 2000, pp. 100 – 101). Women were seen as not only embodying domesticity, but also the independence and frontier skills needed for survival which was also evident in such documents as the FCDA’s ‘Grandma’s Pantry’ (1955) which featured a kitchen stocked with provisions ready in the event of an emergency:- In the pamphlet Between You and Disaster (1958) the Office of Civil and Defence Mobilisation (OCDM, the successor of the FCDA) waxed nostalgic in the opening lines: “Remember grandma’s pantry, its shelves loaded with food ready for any emergency, whether it be unexpected company or roads blocked for days by a winters storm? Today, when we are vulnerable as always to the ravages of nature as well as the possibility of nuclear attack, every wise and thinking family will likewise prepare for emergencies with the modern equivalent of grandma’s pantry.

(Sharp, 2007, p. 207). Women were encouraged to keep and monitor a well stocked kitchen with supplies for possible use in a nuclear attack. They were also encouraged to co-ordinate familial civil defence exercises. For example, the FCDA’s (1956) Home Protection Exercises included a chart to help families to rehearse and score the families performance on a number of activities such as ‘What to do when the signals sound’, ‘Preparation of your shelter’ and ‘Home nursing’. Women were asked to:- ’Keep practicing until you can conscientiously score the family performance as “excellent”. Then review and refresh your preparations and practice at least once every 3 months” (FCDA, 1956, Home Protection Exercises, quoted in McEnaney, 2000). However, exclusively white women were presented in FCDA documentation of these exercises. African American women were largely excluded in terms of civil defence efforts. In terms of race, there was a dynamic of notional inclusion and formal and informal exclusion. Notionally, the FCDA wanted African Americans to join the civil defence effort and some black women’s groups were included in the Assembly for Women’s Organisations for National Security. White women’s groups tried to prevent this. African American women were prevented from joining

34

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access MASS PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR women’s volunteer civil defence groups on the grounds that they might be ‘subversives’ (McEneaney, 2000, p. 92) , and a key African American business woman (Geneva Valentine) was not ever given the presidency of this organisation, allowed only to become treasurer. This is a classic example of what Bell (1980) would call interest convergence in terms of the ideological interests of whiteness (in displaying the supposed ‘equity’ of the capitalist system in the USA by notionally including African American groups) and the material interests of ‘white ethnic preference’. As well as the home, The FCDA saw schools as viable sites for the provision of shelter as one fourth of the American population at that time were in primary schools. Schools represented a central point in organising communities, with hierarchical relationships between teachers, pupils and parents. This resulted in some schools being funded in terms of the construction of fallout shelters (Rose, 2001, pp. 134 – 140) although these did not seem to mitigate children’s concerns in terms of nuclear war (Rose, 2001, p. 140; Scheibach, 2003). Indeed, this was a time (as continued into the 1980s) of considerable fear and anxiety regarding nuclear war on the part of children and adults which teachers were keen to dispel through repeated enactments of civil defence. According to JoAnne Brown (1988) there was a symbiotic relationship between teachers and school children in terms of the types of information that reached children. In fact, teachers were more eager than civil defence officials of the FCDA to embrace various programmes, drills and routines and to create / adapt their own. Teachers embraced nuclear education as a way to display their patriotism and their pragmatism and utility within the ‘civic garrison’. Duck and Cover (1951) was such a programme in terms of both a comic book and cartoon (Brown, 1988, pp.128–129) – ‘Bert the turtle says duck and cover’ (1952) although even within these ‘cartoon like’ portrayals of nuclear war African American children were presented as aberrant and dangerous (Preston, 2007a). The Department of Education also produced a number of pamphlets as part of its Civil Defence Education project. These included a ‘Skit for Planning a Home Shelter Area’ which children were to perform at home (Brown, 1988, p. 129). Through ‘Duck and Cover’ routines, playlets and rehearsals for nuclear war, children were rehearsing the ‘dual purposes’ of civil defence in terms of consolidating a new sense of suburban white identity. This had to be enacted and rehearsed in order to consolidate it from threats from outside, being racialised ‘others’.

PROTECT AND SURVIVE: THE WHITE ‘NUCLEAR’ FAMILY IN 1980S ENGLAND In Bonnett’s (2000b) ‘How the English Working Class Became White’ he argues that the acquisition of whiteness by this group was not attained until well into the end of the Victorian era. Up until this point, the English working class operated at the boundaries of whiteness, classed as an ‘intermediate race’ or as an ‘in between people’ (Roediger, 2005). Imperialism and eventually the universalism of the welfare state brought the English working class from these boundaries into being accepted as racially ‘white’. The 1980s, the end of the Keynesian consensus,

35

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access CHAPTER 3 full employment and the beginnings of the dismantling of the welfare state was also a time where ‘whiteness’ was perceived to be under threat. The new Thatcher government was prepared to use moral panics about immigration, crime and the idle working class, with the support of the ascendant ‘new’ white middle classes, to introduce a number of authoritarian, imperialist and pro-market policies. We can also see in this period the beginnings of the re-racialisation of the white English working classes as a ‘breed apart’ (Bonnett, 2000b), feckless, workshy individuals (who needed to get ‘on their bikes’), lawless and feral. Regional terms for the white working class such as ‘townies’ (Bedfordshire) or ‘Essex boys’ (Essex) were not yet resolved into a national term (such as ‘Chav’ in the 1990s) but the beginnings of such a process were at work, see Preston, 2007b). There are parallels with the work of Wray (2007) in tracing how regional terms such as ‘Lubber’ and ‘Cracker’ became national terms such as ‘white trash’ – whiteness in the 1980s was beginning its fragmentation along lines of class. Therefore, the importance of whiteness as a communally enacted activity was not as necessary in civil defence pedagogies. Rather the enactment (maintenance) of white respectability within the home was seen as being of prime importance. In addition to these cultural differences, the geo-politics of nuclear war were completely different for the UK in the 1980s when compared to the US in the 1950s. More powerful nuclear weapons, shorter warning times and the small size and relative economic resources of the UK when compared to the US made the country especially vulnerable to rapid nuclear attack. Civil defence in the UK was not as systemic and enacted as in the US of the 1950s. Rather, civil defence efforts followed what might be called ‘quick and dirty pedagogies’ of civil defence in terms of their rapidity and in terms of the chaos and resource competition that may have been expected to arise as a result of their implementation. These policies were known as ‘surge education’ for civil defence during the 1980s. For example, as a prelude to CRP (Crisis Relocation Planning) in the US:-’…a ‘surge’ of preparedness training just prior to actual evacuation is said to be the intent with no general involvement of the public prior to that’ (Herr, 1984, p. 76). Such ‘surge’ education had a social control function:- ’Last minute preparation diminishes public controversy but whether surge education can do the job remains questionable’ (Herr, op cit, p. 76, my italics). In civil defence ‘surge’ pedagogies in the UK in the 80s the emphasis was often on the family (and the white nuclear family) as the key locus of civil defence preparation. Through national broadcast mediums (The Wartime Broadcasting Service which would replace all BBC television and radio transmissions at the time of worsening crisis, Campbell, 1983, pp. 250 – 252). It is also likely that a number of information leaflets, or newspaper inserts would be distributed to the population as part of the ‘Protect and Survive’ campaign. Protect and Survive’ (H.M.S.O., 1980) is probably the best known of these campaigns involving a number of media such as booklets, newspaper inserts, short films and radio broadcasts which may have been issued to the population in the event of expected nuclear attack. ‘Protect and Survive’ used a predominantly graphical format similar to that used on airline safety cards with iconographic

36

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access MASS PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR figures used to represent people. Similar iconography was used across the media to carry a number of messages which were often confusing and contradictory (for example the ‘nuclear weapons can kill for up to five miles’, and the ‘stay at home’ message, Central Office of Information, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c). The predominant icon of both the ‘Protect and Survive’ booklets and short (chilling) public information films is of a white outlined, nuclear family (with heterosexual parents, two children – shown throughout) with no facial features (see figure 2). This ideal type survivor family is shown in both the booklets and the animated public information films as compliantly following the state’s instructions regarding preparations for a nuclear attack. Although the use of faceless characters can be considered to be part of the desire of civil servants and graphic designers to homogenise, these are white analogs. Similarly, Pugliese (2005) uses Derrida’s concept of the ‘analog’ to describe the template figures used in pathology. Referring to CRT critiques of the white body as ‘normalised’ the (white) analog of the pathology images is described by its (black) outline and also defined against it. The ‘Protect and Survive’ figures are defined against a black background and are protected by a ring of whiteness. Seemingly, the analog family is ‘literally’ analogous. They are meant to be the default stand in for all households and individuals in the UK. However, by representing the default position, all other family types and individuals can be considered as ‘the other’. It should also be noted that even the advice in the booklets and films is orientated around ‘nuclear’ families. That is, planning is organised around the protection of a conventional white family or individuals. Even the ‘house’ used in the films is a traditional child’s dolls house – a symbol of middle class, whiteness. These are not literal representations of whiteness but metaphors for whiteness – that unless protected the white nuclear family and suburban house will be destroyed. (Preston, 2007a, p. 153)

As the above shows, symbolically the white nuclear family was placed at the centre of ‘Protect and Survive’. Additionally, the material practices of white, middle class families were congruent with survival given the directions in the booklets. Firstly, families were directed to ‘…stay where you are…where you are known and where others know you’. If followed, this direction would obviously benefit people that lived in rural or suburban areas and in larger houses with . People living in tower blocks, for example, were told to remain close to the central core of the block and those in fragile accommodation (such as caravans) did not receive guidance other than that provided by the local authority (which was likely to be poor or non-existent). Secondly, the resourcing of the house (building the ‘inner refuge’ and stocking up with food and supplies) given the lack of public shelters or state aid was likely to benefit those with financial, social or cultural capital who would be able to use these privileges. Although as a number of dramatisations of the early 1980s (Threads (Hines, 2004) and The Day After (Meyer, 2002)) show survival for the white, middle classes would be challenging (to say the least), symbolically and materially the practices detailed in Protect and Survive implicitly benefit the survival of the white family.

37

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access CHAPTER 3

Figure 2. Protecting the white family. The Protect and Survive logo on the cover of the booklet to be issued to British families in the expectation of a nuclear war shows the analog white nuclear family protected by a ‘ring’ of whiteness (HMSO, 1980: Crown Copyright)

Across historical and geographical contexts it can therefore be shown that ‘whiteness’ was a key trope in organising civil defence efforts in terms of mass public education campaigns. However, in this analysis the question of intentionality and design remains. In other words, why is it that disaster education might tacitly have implications for social justice? This will be the subject of the next chapter.

REFERENCES

Allen, R. (2001). The globalization of white supremacy: Towards a critical discourse on the racialization of the world. Educational Theory, 51, 467–486. Allen, R. (2004). Whiteness and critical pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36, 121–136. Bell, D. (1980). Brown vs. Board of education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, 518–533. Bonnett, A. (2000a). White Identities: Historical and International Perspectives. London: Prentice Hall. Bonnett, A. (2000b). How the British working class became white. In A. Bonnett (Ed.), White Identities: Historical and International Perspectives (pp. 28–45). London: Prentice Hall. Bourke, J. (2006). Fear: A Cultural History. London: Virago. Brown, J. (1988). ‘A is for Atom, B is for Bomb’: Civil defence in American public education: 1948– 1963. Journal of American History, 75, 68–90. Campbell, D. (1983). War Plan UK: The Secret Truth about Britain’s ‘Civil Defence’. London: Granada.

38

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access MASS PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR

Central Office of Information. (1980a). The Warnings (Protect and Survive short film). London: COI. Central Office of Information. (1980b). Nuclear Explained (Protect and Survive short film). London: COI. Central Office of Information. (1980c). Stay At Home (Protect and Survive short film). London: COI. Clarke, L. (1999). Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clarke, R. (1986). London Under Attack: The Report of the Greater London War Risk Study. Oxford: Blackwell. Colomina, B. (2006). The underground home. In ‘Igmade’ (Ed.), 5 Codes: Architecture, Paranoia and Risk in Times of Terror (pp. 120–127). Basel: ‘Igmade’, eds. Cooper, K. (1995). The whiteness of the bomb. In R. Dellamora (Ed.), Postmodern Apocalypse, Theory and Cultural Practice at the End (pp. 79–106). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Davis, T. (2007). States of Emergency: Cold War Nuclear Civil Defence. Durham: Duke University Press. FCDA. (1951). Survival Under Atomic Attack. Castle Films / FCDA. FCDA. (1952). Duck and Cover. New York: Archer Productions. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Frankenberg, R. (1999). Introduction: Local whitenesses, localizing whiteness. In R. Frankenberg (Ed.), Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism (pp. 1–34). Durham: Duke University Press. Grossman, A. (2001). Neither Dead Nor Red. London: Routledge. Guglielmo, J. & Salerno, S. (Eds.). (2003). Are Italians White? How Race is Made in America. London: Routledge. Hines, B. (2005). Threads. London: BBC Worldwide Limited DVD. Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish Became White. New York: Basic Books. Ignatiev, N., & Garvey, J. (1996). Race Traitor. London: Routledge. Leonardo, Z. (2005). The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of ‘white privilege’. In Z. Leonardo (Ed.), Critical Pedagogy and Race (pp. 37–52). Oxford: Blackwell. McEnaney, L. (2000). Civil Defense Begins at Home: Militarization Meets Everyday Life in the Fifties. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Meyer, N. (2002). The Day After. London: Fremantle DVD. National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association. (1954). The House in the Middle. New York: NPVLA. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial Formation in the United States. London: Routledge. Ordover, N. (2003). American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy and the Science of Nationalism. London: University of Minnesota Press. Preston, J. (2007a). Homeland insecurity: The eugenics of civil defence pedagogy from the cold war to the war on terror. In J. Preston (Ed.), Whiteness and Class in Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Preston, J. (2007b). Whiteness and Class in Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Pugliese, J. (2005). Necrological whiteness: The racial prosthetics of template bodies. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 19, 349–364. Roediger, D. (1999). The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (2nd ed.). London: Verso. Roediger, D. (2002). Coloured White: Transcending the Racial Past. Berkley: University of California Press. Roediger, D. (2005). Working Towards Whiteness: How American Immigrants Became White. New York: Basic Books. Rose, K. (2001). One Nation Underground: The in American Culture. New York: New York University Press. Scheibach, M. (2003). Atomic Narratives and American Youth: Coming to Age with the Atom 1945– 1955. North Carolina: MacFarland and Company.

39

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access CHAPTER 3

Sharp, P. (2007). Savage Perils: Racial Frontiers and Nuclear Apocalypse in American Culture. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Stern, A. (2005). Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America. Berkley: University of California Press. Tobin, K. (2002). The reduction of Urban vulnerability: Revisiting 1950s American suburbanization as civil defence. Cold War History, 2(2), 1–32. Tyler May, E. (1999). Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era. New York: Basic Books. Wray, M. (2007). Not Quite White: White Trash and the Boundaries of Whiteness. Durham: Duke.

40

John Preston - 9789460918735 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 04:48:40PM via free access