Metadata
Title
Environmentalism, Aesthetics, & Compassion in 20th Century Japan
Category
general
UUID
5b48fd7ad21949759485b29693a768ad
Source URL
https://campuspress.yale.edu/evst4301finalprojectgeo/
Parent URL
https://campuspress.yale.edu/
Crawl Time
2026-03-10T04:31:09+00:00
Rendered Raw Markdown

Environmentalism, Aesthetics, & Compassion in 20th Century Japan

Source: https://campuspress.yale.edu/evst4301finalprojectgeo/ Parent: https://campuspress.yale.edu/

Introduction

"The Ueno Zoo came into being as part of the Meiji state’s efforts to institutionalize the new ways of seeing encountered in Europe...the purpose of Japan’s exhibitionary complex was to 'develop people’s knowledge and technical skill through the education of the eye'" (Miller 2013, 42)

Beginning in the late 19th century, with the re-introduction of modern Western culture via Commodore Perry in 1853, Japan’s interactions with natural spaces can largely be defined as an exploitative relationship which uses the environment as the ends to industrialization’s means.1 The Meiji Restoration’s rush toward modernization brought with it Western models of resource extraction and industrial development, fundamentally reshaping how the Japanese state approached its forests, waterways, and wildlife.2 Though natural resources and landscapes are still undoubtedly understood through their capitalistic utility there is also something to be said regarding the Japanese relationship to environmental aesthetics. Traditional practices of nature appreciation, from hanami (cherry blossom viewing) to garden cultivation, persisted and even flourished alongside industrial expansion.3 This preoccupation with the aesthetic and entertainment value of nature does not exist separately from the industry-focused colonial actions of the Japanese Empire; instead, it is a coalescence of utility and beauty. The same imperial machinery that extracted resources from Hokkaido and colonial territories also established botanical gardens, zoos, and scenic preservation areas, revealing how aesthetic appreciation and economic exploitation can be complementary rather than just contradictory.4

Through this digital exhibit I will discuss the push and pull between aesthetic value and utility as I explore how obsession with nature can stem from a preoccupation with ecocentric beauty rather than just industrial efficiency. The tension between nature as resource and nature as cultural treasure becomes particularly visible in spaces like urban zoos, where living beings exist simultaneously as scientific specimens, entertainment, and objects of emotional attachment. In this exhibit I seek to utilize the story of the life and unfortunate death of Ueno Zoo’s elephants as a mechanism to showcase how a deep connection with natural subjects can arise out of shared empathy and adoration instead of just utility. The wartime killing of these elephants, ordered to prevent potential danger during air raids yet mourned by countless Tokyo residents, crystallizes this complex relationship and demonstrates how animals could transcend their institutional roles to become beloved figures in the public imagination, even amid the brutality of a total war system.

Japanese Zoos: The Domestication of Exotic Environments

"With the exception of the animals in the war trophy exhibits, domesticates and many native species were weeded out of Ueno’s collection in favor of “rare” (chinjū), “wild” (yasei) and “exotic” ( gairaishu ) animals from overseas. Physically impressive big game (mōjū, literally “ferocious beasts”) from overseas underlined the sense that the domestic landscape was all but tamed, broken by industrial power or, in the case of the nation’s rural periphery, domesticated into rustic simplicity." (Miller 2013, 62)

上野動物園正門 (trans. The Gates of Ueno Zoo ), Tokyo, c. 1952.

Since the Ueno Zoo’s founding in 1882 it has been a critical hub for ecological understanding and intercultural exchange in Japan.5 Especially in the case of Japan as an isolated archipelago, a zoo is not simply a source of family friendly entertainment but a powerful cultural and political tool–allowing audiences to open both their mind and hearts to the beauty of nature.

Through ambitious, and expensive, deals the Ueno Zoo boasted an astonishing array of exotic animals (tiger, bears, elephants, etc.) for tourists from all over Japan to gawk at.6

象と人間の綱引き大試合・日毎阪大義 (trans. Elephant and Human Tug o’ War | Daily Ōsaka Newspaper), c. 1985.

The Menagerie of Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, c. 1930.

The three elephants in the zoo’s possession, John, Tonky, and Wanli, were subjects of particular pride. These playfully elegant creatures quickly wove their way into the fabric of the average tourist’s heart as they soon became a primary attraction of the zoo.7

The Ueno Zoological Gardens, Tokyo, c. 1930.

The Great Zoo Massacre

"Tokyo schoolchildren wrote to the zoo keepers to say that the slaughter of their animals constituted 'unbearable acts of indignity.'"\ (TIME Magazine 1947)

Ueno Zoo records for John, Wanli, and Tonky detailing their birth, life, and unfortunate death, Tokyo.

During the height of the Tokyo air raid bombings of the 1940s, the zookeepers of Ueno Zoo were faced with a terrifying possibility. If bombs were to strike down on Tokyo and destroy the enclosures of Ueno Zoo then this menagerie of cunning predators and gargantuan herbivores would descend upon the chaotic streets of Tokyo to wreak havoc on an already suffering population.8 In their minds this left them with only one option: to kill the animals deemed too dangerous to be let out on the streets in case of emergency. Swiftly under the guidance of the local military forces the animals were killed exhibit by exhibit largely through poisoned food–except for allegedly the three elephants John, Wanli, and Tonky.9

Though some scholars struggle to distinguish fact from fiction, a legend about these three elephants began to spread across the archipelago. The story says that these three elephants were so wise that they knew the food was poisoned and refused to digest it.10 Despite pleas to shoot the animals, honoring them with a quick and relatively painless death, due to concerns over the rationing of bullets for war the requests were denied. This left the zookeepers with the only option of being forced to watch these noble creatures slowly fade out of this world as starvation took ahold of them.11

Regardless of the truth, the deaths of these three helpless herbivores shocked the nation and would open a discourse on the boundaries of the anthropocentric need for self-preservation and calls for an ecocentric empathy.

“Their grim history serves as a reminder of the complexities that enter the historical field when we try to account for the reality that human beings are not the only creatures whose stories matter in historical terms.”

(Miller 2013, 144)

John collapsed, Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, c. 1943.

Self Preservation vs. Ecocentric Empathy

"We cannot fully understand the human experience of this resonant cultural event without paying close attention to the role of animals, including recognition of the physical pain and emotional trauma that shaped the actions of people and animals alike." (Miller 2013, 144)

Tokyo governor general Odachi Shigeo and the Youth Society leading the procession to the Memorial Service for Animal Martyrs of Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, c. 1943. Image courtesy of Tokyo Zoological Park Society.

Abbot Omori Tadashi leading the Memorial Service for Animal Martyrs at Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, c. 1943. Image courtesy of Tokyo Zoological Park Society.

Though Japanese citizens had already become well accustomed to the necessary sacrifices of war these “animal martyrs” struck a chord with those from all walks of life. Leaders from political and religious institutions alike rallied others to act on the kinship they found with these animals and test the boundaries of their preconceived notions of empathy, recognizing that the deliberate slaughter of innocent creatures represented a moral catastrophe that transcended military strategy or logical public safety measures. Buddhist priests conducted memorial services for the slaughtered animals, framing their deaths as a spiritual tragedy that demanded collective mourning. Educators incorporated their story into curricula as a means of cultivating compassion in children who had grown up knowing only war. The animals became symbols not merely of wartime loss but of a deeper question about what kind of society Japan would become: one that could rationalize any cruelty in service of survival, or one that recognized certain moral lines that should not be crossed.12

“The institution [Ueno Zoo] cultivated amiable, respectful relationships between children and animals where less savory institutions—and less civilized nations—merely elicited ’empty amusement’ from the animal world.”

(Miller 2013, 67)

軍用動物の話（4）「ロバ」(trans. Stories about Military Animals (4) “Donkey”), Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, c. 1943. Image courtesy of Tokyo Zoological Park Society.

After the slaughter of the exotic animals in 1943, the exhibits were promptly refilled with less dangerous animals bestowed upon the Ueno Zoo by the Japanese military. The caves and ponds that once housed tigers and bears now contained farm animals and livestock such as: chickens, goats, and pigs–critters that children could see in any rural town. What had once been a window into distant lands and untamed wilderness became a mundane agricultural display, stripped of wonder.13 The mystique and allure of the zoo had vanished, leaving the bleak realities of war in its place. Visitors who had once marveled at creatures from Africa and Asia now stared at domesticated animals that served as grim reminders of scarcity and pragmatism, the zoo transformed from a site of imagination into yet another institution subordinated to wartime utility.

Depictions in Children’s Books

「ぞうが　しんだあ。ぞうが　しんだあ。」\
"The elephants have died. The elephants have died."

This story of animal martyrs not only caught the attention of local action groups and news sources but also storytellers–who chose to cling onto the fantastically melancholic story of those Pitiful Elephants.14

かわいそうなぞう (trans. Pitiful Elephants) was first published in 1951 as an illustrated children’s book adapted from a short story by Yukio Tsuchiya, including illustrations by Motoichirou Takebe, and then translated by Tomoko Tsuchiya Dykes into English, with illustrations by Ted Lewin, and published as Faithful Elephants in 1988.

These stories achieved widespread acclaim and international circulation–permanently cementing the legacies of these faithfully pitiful elephants into the public consciousness.

“The story became a perennial favorite of conservative Ministry of Education bureaucrats and left- leaning grade school teachers alike…Reframed as a fairy tale of popular victimization and national suffering aimed at the nation’s youngsters, the fascist spectacle led by Governor General Odachi was transformed into a pacifist parable.”

(Miller 2013, 160)

Despite the change in title and illustrator the central narrative elements and moral philosophies of these works remains the same. Through these excerpts from Faithful Elephants and かわいそうなぞう (bottom left and bottom right) John, Wanli, and Tonky are characterized through the both the joy their lives brought audiences and the deep sorrow their deaths brought friends of the zoo. This sorrow is not due to a loss of notoriety or over a wasted investment. This fictionalized instance of compassion is rooted in the genuine feelings of empathy that people felt for these creatures. Though Wanli’s tricks and John’s photo-ops provided citizens with an opportunity for entertaining escapism, the impact of their deaths on the public showcases how this connection was more about shared empathy amongst sentient beings instead of just the mundane annoyance of losing a plaything.15

Depictions in Anime and Manga

「さよならトンキー」"Farewell Tonky"\
                 「さよならジョン」"Farewell John"\
                                  「さよならワンリー」"Farewell Wanli"

ぼくの動物園日記 (trans. My Zoo Diary) 第47話「27頭のあいつたち」の巻 (trans. Episode 47: “Those 27 Guys”), 1972.

In addition to picture books aimed at early readers and young families there also exists a myriad of Japanese manga and anime which have brought this story to thousands more. My Zoo Diary (1972-1975) emphasizes the deep feelings of melancholy and regret felt by the zookeepers while Doraemon (1969-1996) highlights the surprisingly deep connection that many young people had with these animals at the time, and how their death felt like the loss of a good friend to the ravages of war.

The story of “Uncle and His Elephant” from Doraemon has made a particularly significant impact as it has been adapted into anime form twice since its debut in 1973. The clip below depicts an older man fondly remembering his days as a young boy doing his best to get through the war while holding onto the small moments of happiness and joy that can be found. In this scene, he returns to the zoo after the war only to find that his beloved elephant Hanao was killed by zookeepers during the war.

ドラエモン (Doraemon)「ぞうとおじさん」(trans. Uncle and His Elephant), 1973.

ドラエモン [アニメ] (Doraemon [Anime])「ぞうとおじさん」(trans. Uncle and His Elephant), 2005.

Uncle and His Elephant (2005) is able to successfully portray the enormity of these feelings of loss for young audiences while still acknowledging the realities of war. What is most critical about this portrayal is that despite the expectation for the old man to be wise, level-headed, and understanding of these necessary sacrifices of war he still relates to the appalled and overwhelmed child inside. He shows the audience that we cannot be satisfied to blindly follow orders of brutal utilitarianship, even in times of uncertainty. Regardless of the net good that you may be able to do for your country or your common man you must either prioritize even the least human of lives or be prepared to take accountability for failures to protect that which is good and innocent.16

Reflecting on the Impacts of Non-Anthropocentric Tragedy

"Like all modern zoological gardens, the Ueno Zoo shares elements of both the exhibitionary complex and the carceral archipelago. It sits uneasily between the two, a circumstance that may help to explain the peculiar feelings of sadness that frequently accompany visits to the zoo. The nineteenth-century zoological garden was a theater of disciplinary techniques—built around the simple distinction between people and animals—in which discipline was often represented as play or pedagogy." (Miller 2013, 38)

Doubutsu yo yasurakani (trans. Rest in Peace, Animals), Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, erected 1975

The impact of the death of these elephants, as well as the other animals slaughtered in 1943, exists as a considerable turning point in not just the history of the Ueno Zoo but in the perceptions of environmental ethics and non-anthropocentric empathy for Japanese citizens.17 The tragedy forced a collective reckoning with what is lost when we subordinate animal life to human imperatives, even those as grave as wartime necessity. Through John, Wanli, and Tonky we do not simply see utility or easy entertainment but we witness some fragment of our own humanity being reflected back at us—our capacity for cruelty when we prioritize survival over compassion, and conversely, our potential for moral growth when we acknowledge the weight of such losses. The story of their deaths became a cautionary tale that rippled through generations, shaping how subsequent Japanese society would approach questions of animal welfare, the obligations we bear toward creatures in our care, and the psychic cost of treating sentient beings as expendable. In these animals we can see nature not for its foreignness or barbarity, but for the multitudes of beauty and opportunities for compassion that it contains. Their memory persists as a reminder that how we treat the most vulnerable, whether human or animal, in moments of crisis reveals fundamental truths about our values and our willingness to extend ethical consideration beyond our own species.

Bibliography

Carlson, Allen. “Contemporary Environmental Aesthetics and the Requirements of Environmentalism.” Environmental Values 19, no. 3 (2010): 289–314. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327110X519844.

Itoh, Mayumi. “Historical Background: Creation of Modern Zoos and Militarism in Japan.” In Japanese Wartime Zoo Policy. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230117440_2.

Litten, Frederick S. “Starving the Elephants: The Slaughter of Animals in Wartime Tokyo’s Ueno Zoo.” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 7, no. 38 (2009). https://apjjf.org/frederick-s-litten/3225/article.

Miller, Ian Jared. “Chapter 1: Japan’s Animal Kingdom – The Origins of Ecological Modernity and the Birth of the Zoo.” In The Nature of the Beasts: Empire and Exhibition at the Tokyo Imperial Zoo. Studies of the East Asian Institute. University of California press, (2013): 25–60. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520271869.003.0002.

Miller, Ian Jared. “Chapter 2: The Dreamlife of Imperialism.” In The Nature of the Beasts: Empire and Exhibition at the Tokyo Imperial Zoo. Studies of the East Asian Institute. University of California press, (2013): 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520271869.003.0003.

Miller, Ian Jared. “Chapter 4: The Great Zoo Massacre.” In The Nature of the Beasts: Empire and Exhibition at the Tokyo Imperial Zoo. Studies of the East Asian Institute. University of California press, (2013): 120–162. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520271869.003.0005.

Saito, Yuriko. “The Moral Dimension of Japanese Aesthetics.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65, no. 1 (2007): 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-594X.2007.00240.x.

Saito, Yuriko. “The Role of Care in Environmental Aesthetics.” The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, no. 69 (2025): 68–86. https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v34i69.160657.

TIME Magazine, “JAPAN: Tiger, Tiger.” https://time.com/archive/6775559/japan-tiger-tiger/.

Wynn, Le Le, and Khin Lye Nwe. The Role of Japanese Aesthetic Concepts in Environmental Conservation. AHLINNEIN MEDIA GROUP, 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359972131_The_Role_of_Japanese_Aesthetic_Concepts_in_Environmental_Conservation.

  1. ↩︎
  2. ↩︎
  3. ↩︎
  4. ↩︎
  5. ↩︎
  6. ↩︎
  7. ↩︎
  8. ↩︎
  9. ↩︎
  10. ↩︎
  11. ↩︎
  12. ↩︎
  13. ↩︎
  14. ↩︎
  15. ↩︎
  16. ↩︎
  17. ↩︎