The aftermath of September 11 has provided a relevant theme for a seemingly endless amount of reportage, analysis, and punditry. But in keeping with the idiosyncratic orientation of Action Speaks, the thought-provoking annual lecture series at AS220 in Providence, our present predicament will be viewed through such unexpected prisms as the debut of Mad magazine, the Kennedy administration's support for fallout shelters, and the breakthrough of rap music.

Action Speaks, which highlights under-appreciated days that changed America and last year won a Schwartz Prize from the National Endowment for the Humanities for best locally produced program, began about seven years ago as a way of injecting political discourse into the community of people that utilize and surround AS220. Marc Joel Levitt, host and creative director of the series, says Bert Crenca, AS220's artistic director, "was very interested in democratizing and making available complex ideas about contemporary political and cultural topics."

The series, a panel discussion with audience participation, starts next Tuesday, October 1 at 5:30 p.m., with a look at President John F. Kennedy's 1961 call for fallout shelters.

Here's a rundown on subsequent weeks in this year's Action Speaks lineup: October 8, First issue of Mad magazine hits the newsstands (1952). Dissent and satire: can we afford it? Can we afford to be without it?; October 15, Hays Moral Code introduced into Hollywood (1934). Sex and pessimism: does the American public need protection?; October 22, Rockefeller Drug Laws (1973). Drug laws introduced on the heels of the 1960s: prison population swells; October 29, Reagan's Department of Education publishes "A Nation at Risk" (1983). Massive assault on public education begins; and November 5, Sugar Hill Gang releases "Rapper's Delight" (1979). First commercial rap hit breaks out: a "mad" new culture is born. Each forum runs from 5:30 to 7 p.m., and will be broadcast on WRNI (1290 AM) on the subsequent Sunday at 8 p.m.

The Phoenix, a co-sponsor of Action Speaks, plans to preview the series by offering an interview with a panelist in advance of each discussion. The guests for next Tuesday's program include Ken Rose, author of One Nation Underground: The Fallout Shelter in American Culture, and a professor of history at California State University at Chico. Rose spoke from his office earlier this week.

Q: Why did the Kennedy administration actively support the building of fallout shelters years after the advent of atomic weapons?

A: By the summer of 1961, there was another crisis over Berlin. [Soviet Premier Nikita] Khrushchev was threatening to cut off Western access to Berlin by the end of the year. Kennedy gave a speech in which he said that the US would defend Berlin even to the brink of war, and he asked for $3 billion more for the military. And he also asked for $207 million to mark and identify buildings which could be used for shelters. Then, in the weeks to come, he encouraged Americans to begin thinking about building their own fallout shelters. That's when the whole issue really heated up.

Q: What effect did the government support for the construction of fallout shelters have on the psyche of Americans?

A: Eventually, Americans as a whole, for the most part, are going to reject fallout shelters, for a number of reasons. First,
their expense. Most experts recommended
a minimum outlay of about $2500. This is
at a period of time in the early 1960s when the median family income was about $5300. Right away, that's one of the negative aspects of fallout shelters -- a class aspect. Now people are wondering, will only the well-to-do be able to afford shelter for their families?

If there was a rich vs. poor aspect of this, there was also a neighbor vs. neighbor aspect, which was usually referred to as "the gun thy neighbor policy." This was, if you own a shelter, are you justified in killing your neighbor if they try to get into your shelter when the bombs start falling? Many people announced that they would kill their neighbors if they tried to get in. There was also what I would call the city vs. suburb aspects. The fact that survival in a nuclear war would be greatly enhanced by residency in the suburbs. And even if a city dweller had the money, they obviously couldn't build their own shelters. Almost everyone -- even shelter promoters -- said defending American cities against a nuclear attack was virtually impossible.

Now, there are a couple of other reasons that [explain why] Americans rejected shelters. One of these was the basic question, would these shelters work? Most basic fallout shelters, for instance, did not provide protection against blast or fire. And many people believe that these nuclear blasts would create massive firestorms and only the most elaborate shelters would provide protection against that. Even if a family were to survive a nuclear attack in a shelter, what kind of world would be left?

Americans did not like the images of themselves burrowing into the ground to protect their own hides.

Q: What does the fallout shelter program show about our desire to achieve security in an insecure world?

A: I think it's a natural desire for people to want to provide as much security as they can for their families, but there are certain areas in which that simply is not possible. It's a dangerous world. And it's not always a secure world. This is one of those areas.

Q: What are the similarities and differences between the heightened anxiety that came with fallout shelters and the terrorist attacks of September 11?

A: We'll certainly, the realization that we live in a dangerous, unpredictable world is similar in both cases. But I would say that the threat during the Cold War -- the threat of nuclear annihilation -- was a much more serious one than the threat of a terrorist attack. The scale of destruction, two enemies, both armed to the teeth, who didn't seem to be interested in reaching any middle ground or compromise. It was an extremely dangerous time.

Q: How accurate is the popular image that the only proponents of fallout shelters in recent years are survivalists?

A: Recently, there's evidence that the well-to-do in America have been installing what are now called safe rooms. What these are are rooms of very heavy construction with bulletproof walls, huge blast-proof doors, their own generators, supplies, and this is a trend that started before September 11, apparently with the idea of the possibility of intruders. The recent Jodie Foster movie, Panic Room, is a good example. Now they're being installed with the idea of terrorist attack. What I've been reading is that contractors who are putting in these rooms say this trend is trickling down to lower-priced homes. And, really, what these things are are just fallout shelters of a different name.

Q: Are fallout shelters more of an emotional response than a rational one?

A: It's natural to want to get as much security as you can in a troubled world. I think the trend that we see historically is that during times of crisis, there's great interest in things such as fallout shelters. But typically once the crisis is over, the public lapses back into apathy or lack of interest in these things.

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com.

Issue Date: September 27 - October 3, 2002