Vietnam & After

Where is the line between human being and reality within us?

To people who have never seen war, the massacre at My Lai 4 on March 16, 1968 seems like the most henious crime soldiers could commit.  This was not something our American boys could do!  But it did happen, and our boys did it.

In 1969, a year after the massacre, an interview was published by the New York Times, in the words of Paul Meadlo, a  participant in the massacre:

                    "Why did I do it?  Because I felt like I was ordered to do it, and it seemed like that at the time,  I felt I was doing the right thing, because like I said I lost buddies.  I lost a damn good buddy, Bobby Wilson, and it was on my conscience.  So after I done it, I felt good, but later on that day, it was getting to me.  (My Lai Testimony, Experiences of War, pg.263).

Why did the three units of Charlie Company murder almost 500 innocent old men, women and children in My Lai 4?  Paul Meadlo stated that he was "ordered" to do it.  Yet, he admits to the "pleasure of revenge!"  Is there a confusion as to who the enemy was?  The VC and NVA were Asian in stature.  So were all the villagers in Vietnam!  Did these soldiers "dehumanize" an entire race of human beings, and subconsciously make all of their population the enemy?  Where do we draw the line at the murder of innocents?  Were they killed for aiding the enemy, or did it not really matter?  They were "defenseless gooks", and made an easy target for pent up retaliation.  Could hate and revenge have gotten so consumed that reality is meaningless on the battlefield?  Where is the "breaking point" between the human being and the murderer within us?  Are so many participants of war psychological casualties?  Why weren't the commanders of the field held responsible for the actions and mental fitness of their men?  Is this the way we conducted the war?

A Red Faced Monster in all of us...

Herbert Marcuse gave a deeply personal and eye-opening commentary on the William Calley Trial, a case that charged Calley with many war-crimes and the killing of approx 109 Vietnamese. In Marcuse's commentary, he questions the core of the average American, pondering if Calley is truly what Americans see as a hero, not a criminal, and furthermore, wondering if public support of Calley's crimes could led to a new policy in the US Armed Service. In the following quotations Marcuse challenges American mind-set:

"Once again we are confronted with that principle of disease justice which was pronounced at Kent State and which expresses so neatly the perversion of the sense of guilt: "not the murderer but the murdered one is guilty"

Marcuse questions the ideals of Americans above. He challenges the "politically correct" rhetoric so common by the American people and dares to accuse Americans of being blood hungry, violent loving people. Is it true though? Is it fair to say Americans are supporters of war-crimes because the enemy is a tough one, an enemy that supports different ideals? I think Marcuse is extreme in thought but I also believe he is deliberately over the top to provoke thought. We all have to take a look at ourselves and our believed and wonder- is it okay to beat the innocent if they are on the side of the enemy? Where is the line draw?

The Black Man's Stake In Vietnam

Eldridge Cleaver was an African American who was very outspoken about the impact the Vietnam War had on African Americans. He detailed the possible effects in a piece called "The Black Man's Stake in Vietnam".

Cleaver believed the Johnson Administration was facing a 2 front war: one in Vietnam and the other against the Negro revolution in the United States. He believed the two were linked in several ways, mainly from the relationship that connected the treatment of human beings in Vietnam and the treatment of blacks in America. The biggest threat to the U.S. at this time was undeniably the liberation movements around the world. Cleaver believed for the U.S. to achieve success in putting these movements down, it must be united and stable at home, which it was not because African Americans in America were aware their situation and their struggles.

Cleaver also believed that if the United States were able to form an alliance with the Soviet Union and they are then able to "unleash their anxious fury and armed might against the rising non-white giant of China", then the white population in the United States will then turn its aggression to the blacks once again. Cleaver wants some type of guarentee that the reign of terror against African Americans in America is not just being temporarily suspended (like it was for a short period of time after the Civil War but ended after Reconstruction), but banished completely.

In terms of the Vietnam War, Cleaver believes that the black man's interest lies in seeing a free and independent Vietnam, able to live on its own. He brings up past history relating to Vietnam, by saying when Africa, Asia, and Latin America were under colonial rule, blacks had no rights or voice and were supremely oppressed. However, once those nations began their attempts at freedom and independence, African Americans seized their chance at it as well and voiced their opinions. Therefore, Cleaver and his supporters urge all blacks in America to unite under one cause and one voice and lay everything they have on the line.

From a Young Woman's Point of View.

During the 1960s, many women in America were crusading against discrimination from the household to the workforce.  After Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act under the Kennedy Administration, there were several issues that many women from different feminist groups were addressing. 

From "bra-burning" rallies, to boycotting beauty pageants, there was still much concern for the men who were servicing the country, for reasons they believe were not justified.  If these women were not in feminist groups or somehow related to those stationed overseas, they could have also been high school students or college students that strongly opposed the war.  Through underground media outlets, and networks such as CBS, ABC, radio and mainstream newspapers, many individuals were made aware of the situation in Vietnam and surrounding territories.

As seen in the photo, it was apparent that one did not have to go overseas in order to face the risk of getting injured or being killed.  Lorraine Brill and her boyfriend took part in the March on the Pentagon in 1967.  What was supposed to be a protest, turned into a riot after soldiers became involved. From Brill's eyes, she witnessed her boyfriend limping after he was brutally assaulted.  Fortunately, both were able to make it out of the riot alive, but the intention behind the March was not to have injuries or any other form of abuse imposed at the end of the day.

General..but not a General

General Baker Jr. is an African American who had the unique experience of traveling to Cuba during the Vietnam War.  This journey was unique not only in the location choice, but also in the route Baker had to take to get there.  Since the United States banned traveling to Cuba, Baker and eightythree other young men rerouted through Paris, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, then Newfoundland to finally end up in Cuba.  Most of the students were a part of the Cuban Federation of Students; Baker was specially approached because the group needed African American involvement.
 
Playing baseball with Fidel Castro, talking with Che Guevara and interacting on a daily basis with Vietnamese peers  made Barker aware of how ujust the American involvement in Vietnam was.  In response to a draft letter he received when he returned to the United States Baker gave a slu of reasons for which he woudl be first in line to fight, but he ademetly refused to go to Vietnam.  He was sent a draft card regardless and was scheduled for September 10th.  This date became the name for a movement he planned to organize - a movement rallying angry blacks to protest the draft.  The slogan of the movement was "Destroy the Draft."  The movement never took place and Baker did go into the induction and even went through with most of it.  He refused however to say the oath.  When confronted by officials - he kept refusing and eventually was put on a 24 hour watch. For quite some time his every movement was recorded.  Super secret information of the

"...General Baker was seen leaving Philadelphia with three bags of dirtly clothes..." (Appy, 148) 

sort.  
                                 

The War in America

    "To support draft resistance was, of course, itself against the law. Nevertheless, in New York, Boston, San Francisco, the number of demonstrations at induction centers increased geometrically." (Young,200)

     I thought this quote was rather interesting because many people wanted to be able to refuse the draft. If I was around at the time thid is something I would participate in. I do not believe in a draft, I believe that someone should want to serve in our country it shouldn't be a forced issue. There were random protest all throughout the country about the draft situation. One in particular that I read aboutwas the Whitehall Street Induction Center protest where people would be wearing signs talking about the draft refusal. This would ususally cause a riot because then police would come in and begin beating and dragging mean and women who were protesting. Then they were transported to boot camp. I found this to be quite interesting all because people were trying to get a point acroos.

      

One without the other

" It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor- both black and white-through the Poverty Program. Then came the build up in Vietnam, and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war."

                                                                - Martin Luther King Jr

The Vietnam War did not just effect all of those directly effected by the military draft or military service. The families of the young men lost some, of the most important people in their lives, but America itself did not only lose citizens it lost a sense of hope. During the 1960s, the US should have been focusing on their internal affairs. I feel that even today War is viewed as more important then the needs of the country and that specific time. I do believe that if we are fighting a war such as the first and second WW, that it does require a lot more attention but In Vietnam, the people at home were angry, upset, disappointed and demanded answers. They had lost trust in their president Johnson, and saw his ideas of social reform go out and the window. Now faced with an internal war of race taking place, and poverty and other things being left in the dark the people were on their own. I never really thought about the War in that kind of sense. I find it almost unreal that they could turn their backs on their own people's needs but ship every kind of product into a foreign country. They tried to pacify and please the South Vietnamese people, why not do the same for their own? The government knew what they had to do or try to do to win the people over in another country,  but forgot about their own country and the needs that they needed addressed.

"I always use Tide."

The etiquette of warfare has changed drastically in American history. In the era of the Revolutionary War, cannons and rifles was the technological advancement. As we approach a more modern time period, chemical warfare is introduced.

"It was early 1966. A woman in the suburban town of Redwood City, California, answered her doorbell. Asked to sign a petition against the local production of napalm, she responded, "Napalm? No thank you. I'm not interested. I always use Tide." ( H. Bruce Franklin, Burning Illusions)

The reality is that no one knew what Napalm was and the deadly consequences for using it. America was, in a sense, keeping their citizens mis-informed about what was really going on overseas in Vietnam. Napalm is a highly flammable sticky gel. It was originally thought up in World War II. It had two purposes, to stick to human flesh and burn and to "strategically bomb" cities in the air.

Anti-war movements at Stanford were formed. Their main goal was to petition for the end of the Vietnam War. They were called the Stanford Committee for Peace in Vietnam (SCPV). Although they were devoted to ending the war, they had no interest in any long term programs to change American society. That is an example of how odd and backwards some American people can be.

No Sir No Sir!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDk6Qal2DCI

From Duncan on, the antiwar soldiers could not make their peace with the cynical use of torture and the elimination of women, children and civilians in accordance with what one of them called a "kill them all, sort it out later" philosophy. Louis Font, who felt Vietnam was a war of aggression, became the first West Point graduate in history to refuse war service, and Dave Cline, wondering why a man he just killed was dead while Cline was alive, came to feel that continued silence was "part of keeping the lie going."

One of the least-told stories of the Vietnam War is that of the antiwar struggle within the American military. The current presumption is that war protests started on college campuses, but they were actually sparked by the soldiers themselves. Sir! No Sir!" recounts the struggles of the men and women who audaciously challenged the American government and its reasons for remaining in Southeast Asia for so long.  Our brave military struggled each day with the orders handed down to them to kill innocent people, women and children.  Our Vietnam soldiers could not.  They rebelled against their commanding officer's and began one of the biggest protests of all time.  Many American's believe that the Vietnam protests started on college campus's but in fact, they started within our military structures in Vietnam.  Our soldiers knew they did not belong there, so that fought, fought against our government to get out.  Sir no Sir, was a great depiction of their heartfelt stories.  It sheds a light on what really happened in Vietnam.

A Letter To A Son

“You see, there are constitutional ways to change the US government and I agree that it desperately needs changing. However, if you choose to try to change it by revolution, expect to get shot. Mother and I will grieve but we will gladly buy a dinner for the National Guardsman who shot you”

This is a quote from the Paul Williamson reading. And it is directed at his college age son. Wow, that’s all that came to my mind after I read his short letter to his son. You can clearly get the sense of the father’s views of the war, as well as the sons’. We can gather that the son is a “radical college student” during the time of the Vietnam War, and we can assume he has or will join some protests against the war. His father by contrast is a doctor and has a very high sense of nationalism and love for America.

The father is basically saying; if you don’t want to get shot and killed, then do not protest with other college students. Williamson almost seems like he wants his son to get shot, so he can be taught a lesson and learn. He is very blunt about his feeling towards his son and America; I think he is more for America then his son.

In this short reading we can gauge a bit, how America was during the latter years of the Vietnam War. There were older adults who seemed to have a high sense of nationalism and felt that protesting the government was the wrong thing to do during a time of war. And on the other hand you had a younger generation that was anti-war, and veterans of the Vietnam War, often joined these college students who were protesting. I believe that America was not split so much between war and no war, but rather America was split between protesting the government, radically and protesting the government in a more formal way.