How was opposition to the Vietnam War portrayed in contemporary literature, film and popular song?
History Coursework
How was opposition to the Vietnam War portrayed in contemporary literature, film and popular song?
Literature:
During the Vietnam War, so many people were opposed to it they began to write articles and stories to address their community and fellow Americans. They tried to express their views on America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Most of the middle classed youths were destined to be drafted and through these articles and stories they tried to sway the public opinion. In the early seventies they began to make pamphlets and magazines, which contained pictures and information about the young men at war who had lost their lives in the conflict. These radical youths were most definitely biased, they didn't believe in showing both sides of the argument, as it was these children who were going to suffer at the end of it all.
However, apart from these radical youths, there were the newspapers. These newspapers still wanted to keep patriotism alive within America, so they were highly conservative, supporting the war and every move America made. Any tactics or information about the war the government released these newspapers supported because it was the government kept them employed.
Although the newspapers were conservative, there was a new form of "news" to hit America, a magazine called "Life". It was introduced to the public in 1969 and its contents stunned the American civilians into antiwar protests. It was an anti-war magazine, but it didn't force people to oppose it, it gave them the choice. However it did manage to sway most Americans opinion by showing pictures of almost 250 young men who had been killed in Vietnam including the 46 who had been killed at "Hamburger Hill" that previous week. These men were Americans, and what shocked those back home was that they were normal Americans, no younger nor older than their own children. The "flower power" generation were overwhelmed and shocked as they based their ideals on peace, love and harmony.
Film:
Back in the time of the war televisions became an everyday object in the average household. There were very few channels but on these channels was the news. This newsreel had a very important role to play in the shift of opinion from the public's perspective, although it did not intentionally do so. Because the television was relatively new there was no such thing as censorship, so when footage of a peaceful antiwar demonstration turned into disaster people were horrified. This demonstration was at Kent State University, were young flower power students were protesting against Americas efforts in the War but when the students resisted and stood up for what they believed in a small number of them were shot dead on the spot by the national guard. Many people thought that these demonstrations were unpatriotic and that there was no place for it in America but after these deaths antiwar protests were seen in a whole new light.
Then came the shocking images of Vietnam itself. Clips and videos of everything that was happening in the battlefield was being broadcast all around the world to hundreds of millions homes. This faced America with a new type of movement they hadn't expected. Whatever was happening in South Vietnam was happening in the average persons household. The slow realisation was now dawning upon the American public, that they were fighting a lost cause and that all the antiwar protesters were in fact right. They witnessed the tactics America used such as Napalm, bombing and search and destroy missions. Images of children be scalded alive by chemicals shifted Americas opposition from Vietnam to the once nationalist American home. Other incidents like the burning down of hundreds of innocent Vietnamese homes and Vietcong being executed added to the cumulative uproar against this war.
From the revolutions of T.V came the ever-popular cinema. The power of cinema then and now has the power to change the most toughest critics mind. And that's what it set out to do at the start of the Vietnam War. A new generation of film was about to start and the first in line was a film called "The Green Berets". It was released during the war in 1968 when most people were still supporting it and was strongly pro-war. It starred the superstar of the time John Wayne; the much-loved actor played a colonel who lends his forces against the enemy (Vietcong). It was the very first Hollywood treatment of Vietnam and it proved a commercial success. It became a box office hit grossing in over $8 million. The reason behind this because most people secretly liked the idea of containing communism. It reinforced their natural nationalism and patriotism. It was still conservative and made America out to be fully in charge.
Then, the complete opposite of this nationalist reviving epic came about. Released in the same year this documentary called "The Year of the Pig" hit the big screen. Because it was a documentary, it was more real and different from "The Green Berets". It was like a long-winded version of the news however it set out to change the publics mind. It was composed of archival footage of battles and interviews with soldiers themselves. It showed soldiers limbless and bloody, it showed how the war really was compared to the fancy tweaking and finishing touches that were made in " The Green Berets". The humiliating "old glory" song complimented corpses being dragged away from the battle scenes. When this was screened, those who believed that War was the right answer were undoubtedly proven wrong. This film made people see the truth; this truth was the start of the generations of antiwar protesters that followed. It was a strong and bold antiwar film, which the people had been waiting for, many directors were too afraid to make such a statement.
Near the end and after the war, the impact of media was still affecting the public opinion, although now America tried to look on the more comedic side of things, maybe as a way to cover up the failure. One of these shows was called M.A.S.H. It was set in South Korea during the Korean War. It was a comedy, which focused on a group of doctors and nurses whose job it was to tend and heal the wounded, who arrived at the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital. Although it was set in South Korea, and not deliberately linked ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Near the end and after the war, the impact of media was still affecting the public opinion, although now America tried to look on the more comedic side of things, maybe as a way to cover up the failure. One of these shows was called M.A.S.H. It was set in South Korea during the Korean War. It was a comedy, which focused on a group of doctors and nurses whose job it was to tend and heal the wounded, who arrived at the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital. Although it was set in South Korea, and not deliberately linked with Vietnam, it still related to the war efforts. In gave people an insight into the casualties at war, and even though it sometimes exaggerated the brutalities it was a less violent way of showing what war was like, in a humorous manner.
Again, after the war had ended more films were released. Some were to get any patriotism, which was lost, back, and others were to do the opposite. One of these films was called Taxi-Driver. It was released a year after the war had ended, following an ex-marine and it showed the mental and physical effects the war had on him. Two years later The Dear Hunter was released (1978). It was about three steel workers who were sent to Vietnam and expected so much more, and how it alters the rest of their lives. And then the epic Apocalypse now was released one year on. An American military assassin goes to Cambodia to find and kill a colonel who has gone beyond the limits of the military code of warfare. Although fictional, even after the war they affected the perspective of the Americans involvement in the war.
Popular Song:
Throughout the Vietnam the antiwar music industry was beginning to grow. Like literature and film it had its supporters and its critics. There were many songs written about the war effort with over 80% against it and it was because of this war that many of the artists felt it was necessary to write and sing about the evils of what was happening. They wanted to spread the peace and harmony, which the flower power generation had introduced. Music was extremely popular because of how quick it could be produced. It literally took two weeks to write, record and release an antiwar song as opposed to the long duration it took to make a film or book. Many of the public's favourite artists such as Johnny Cash and County Joe and the Fish were in the centre of these new unheard of antiwar songs. During this era, many people were affected in different ways by the events that had occurred overseas and this had created the antiwar atmosphere. Similarly also affected the people. It preaches of peace, protest and freedom.
One of this songs was called "Feel-like-I'm-fixin'-to-die-rag" by none other that Country Joe himself. He used explicit lyrics, which was directed at the Vietnam War. He says of how the American public have no idea or concept what this war was and what they were fighting for:
"And it's one, two three,
What are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn!
Next stop is Vietnam."
This was used to show how confused and the bewilderment of the disoriented soldiers who were flying into war, and overall their death. These lyrics satirically dehumanised those young men going into combat, labelling and regarding them as unimportant figures.
"Come on mothers throughout the land
pack your boys off to Viet Nam
come on fathers don't hesitate
send your sons off before it's too late
and you can be the first ones on your block
to have your boy come home in a box"
This type of music forshadowed the destiny of the many young men who were inexperienced and again as stated just figures, in this vietnam war.
Another antiwar artist was Loretta Lynn. A relatively new artist on the scene in 1966 she was one of the first to stand up against the government and to recount the events happening in vietnam. She was an inspiration to many artists at that time as it was her strong point of view and here catchy lyrics which was to change public opinion. Her song " Dear Uncle Sam" is dedicated to all those who had lost loved ones in the war. This gesture of sympathy hit a lot of the public hard, as it was them who had fathers, brothers and sons who were amongst the casulties.
"Dear Uncle Sam, I know you're a busy man,
And tonight I write to you through tears with a tremblin' hand.
My darling answered when he got that call from you.
You said you really need him, but you don't need him like I do.
Don't misunderstand, I know he's fighting for our land,
I really love my country, but I also love my man.
He proudly wears the colours of the old red, white and blue, while I wear a heartache since he left me for you.
Dear Uncle Sam, I just got your telegram,
and I can't believe that it is me shakin' like I am,
for it said, "I'm sorry to inform you..."
Next the powerful Johnny Cash became among these antiwar singers releasing his hit Drive on. It specifically dealt with the trauma, which many of the soldiers fighting were left with when they came home. The impact of his song was vast and related to those Vietnam Veterans who everyone in their own community knew and loved. The effects of war on them were apparent and Johnny Cash explained this through his song:
'Many a good man
I saw fall and even now,
every time I dream I hear the men
and the monkeys in the jungle scream'
He also refers to "The Green Berets" in this song. He tries to make the public realise of the impact of the film and attempts to explain how it really is.
"It was a real slow walk in a real sad rain
and nobody tried to be John Wayne"
He also implies not many of the soldiers were expected to come home alive and that even those who came home and had had long-term mental issues were still regarded as miracles.
"I talk, but my letter read from Whiskey Sam
you're a walkin' talkin' miracle from Vietnam"
Finally Perry Friedman, an artist who through his song told of how the government acted towards those who refused to go to war.
"My Name is David Mitchell,
I am twenty two years old,
I refuse to fight in Vietnam,
and that's a crime, I'm told.
I refuse to kill in Vietnam
Good folks like my own,
And I know I'm in the right, judge,
And I don't stand alone.
The U. S. judge in Nuremberg
Who judged the Nazi crimes
Said killing's just as bad a sin
When it's done six million times,
I wouldn't do it once, judge,
I never could atone,
And I know I'm in the right, judge,
And I don't stand alone.
I saw the moving pictures
of homes in napalm flames,
I saw men burning children,
Men with American names.
To fly those wicked missions,
I'd never leave my home,
And I know I'm in the right, judge,
And I don't stand alone.
They dragged me in this courtroom
'Cause I won't play their game,
I won't burn peaceful villages,
won't torture, gas, or maim.
Thou shalt not kill, the Lord said,
that's what I learned at home,
and I know I'm in the right, judge,
And I don't stand alone."
Conclusion:
In conclusion we can see that at the beginning of the Vietnam War there was a large majority who supported it. This was known as the natural nationalism and patriotism experienced by the American public. Literature and media were also in favour of this war aswell. They tried their best to stay conservative in fear of upsetting the public and risk their careers. However this was short lived and sooner or later the public was destined to see the truth of the war. Unfortunatley for the American government it came sooner. Opposition continued to grow through music, media and the constant increase in the figures of the death toll. Music had the most influence on this shift in opinion as it was an important mode of communication at that time. Advancements in technology at the time made it quicker, easier and cheaper to create this music and many musicians were part of the up and coming flower power generation, therefore the expressed their views through song. They hadnt had to really worry about getting an audience as most had already a huge fan base, and many idolised these people.
The War had now been from loved to hate. Typical of a war with such involvement with new weaponry and media.
How do sources A, B and C show support for the war in vietnam?
In source A we are shown president Johnson making a speech on what was happening in vietnam. He states that the reason America was involved was because they were fighting for "Freedom." He used this as an excuse for the U.S' behaviour during the war with the use of extreme tactics and weaponry. In all, he was trying to make a bad situation into a good one. USA had a constant tradition of getting involved in wars that was not theres, and to try to defend those countries that couldn't defend themselves. Those were the countries that could not defend themselves against communism and America was afraid that if the growth of communism increased, democracy wouldn't have a chance. We seen this through World War one, two and in Korea. It was the same case with Berlin. America involved themselves where they needn't had to. However we are assured through Source A that America has to get involved and that it is in fact the "right" thing to do.
It seems to return to the idea of the "Truman Doctrine" where president Truman states in a series of speeches that " I believe that it must be a policy of the United states to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by out-side pressures" this was the americas free pass for involvement when wanted however it was the "Tonkin Incident" that enevidably led to the U.S' active involvement i.e the sending in of troops.
Source A seems to link in with the thought of 'duty' and 'acceptance' in source B. It is trying to persuade the public that the war is still largely supported and that there is only a minority who disagree. It showed support by giving the reasons for going to war to try to reinforce the public nationalism and patriotism. It also showed President Johnson's personal opinion and as suspected he also thought strongly of the War effort. By doing this he tried to become one of the public again and to try to sway their views, therefore creating more support.This was tactical as he was aware that the video clip would have been edited and back up his opinion. He also knew that America had now been taken over by the media and that this interview would have been broadcast to millions of American homes.
Source B followed the same sort of lines as in Source A. It wasn't strongly conservative but it was enough to be able to put its points across. It defending the U.S' involvement and in the opening lines says " Too little attention has been given to the public acceptance of the war." Trying to state that most of the people did accept it, so much that it was normal and therefore didn't make front page of news papers or on newsreel at the time. But what did make it on the news was the out of the ordinary anti-war demonstrations. The purpose of this was to build up the back bone of this war as it was the normal everyday people who were to be drafted, this source obviously didn't want to encourage any draft dodging or protests.Although this source comes across as unbiased in its lack of opinion in the wording it is attempting to reinforce the war. "Much was heard of deserters and youngsters fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft, but an overwhelming majority did what was required of them"
We see evidence from Virginia of volunteers boarding a bus for military induction and their mothers and girlfriends supporting what they were facing. It implies and backs up my point of acceptance to the war and how that this was the normal through the line "They never attracted televison cameras, and local news papers are rarely if ever, read in New York"
Source C shows us the table with the figures of those who attended the war. We see the increase and the stready rise in numbers which leads us to the believe that the war was a popular choice and then people wanted to go. The huge increase shows us that most people did not draft dodge and attended their duty. We can see the change in involvement in 1964 when america stopped sending advisors and began their active involvement following the tonkin resolution. Although they may have been forced to war it gives us the impression it is their own choice.
How reliable are source F and G as evidence if the activities of the US servicement in vietnam?
In source F we are told about the activites of the service men an their methods of interegation. It provides us with information and evidence of the activities of some Us servicemen and all its details are backed up with similar evidence in other sources. However the reliability is questionable as this may not be representative of the methods of all the americans and we can not base our beliefs on such biased and persuading sources. Though it is primary evidence and is written at the time of vietnam most of the first part of the source does not refer to any particular incident and is more of a summarative approach to americas methods focusing on the out of the ordinary incidents such as "a string of ears" and "cutting off the fingers." The article itself is published on the New York Herald Tribune, which even during the conservative part of the war, was strongly opposed to it and antiwar. Such a newpaper was expected to present radical articles as this. The newspaper used these actions of the servicemen to try to stir the public preception of the war and show the horrors that really happened. It did this because the Herald was a well respected paper, it was never in fear of losing sales by appearing unpatriotic and was always going to have a large demand rate so it was able to say what everyone else wanted to without it costing them anything.
Although I have said it doesn't prove the actions of all servicemen it also doesn't prove that this was a regular thing and happened occasionally. Infact it does the opposited but by implying it. In the source words like "Sometimes" and "Usually" appear frequently to try to suggest it was the normal. It does so with the airplane incident where the author fails to say that this happened repeatedly. The author can mention one incident and only one, therefore giving us the impression that this was not common and was worth reporting. The reporter also fails to state whether he seen this first hand or was told about it from another source.
Source G I feel tends to be more reliable as it is an interview rather than an overlook, and its an interview with an actual soldier who fought in the conflict. He describes the killing of a young vietnamese boy under the impression he was a member of the vietcong army. The source may come from a vietnamese veteran but it is a secondary source as it was written in 1984, 10 years after the vietnamisation period. The time lapse may concern us with the reliabilty of this source as it may have effecting the mans memory of what really happened and may exagerate and sensationalise this event to try to increase the book sales. During this time there was a general feeling among writers and authors to focus on the brutality of war because ten years on pepole where only interested in the cold hard facts, this may add or take away from the reliability of the source as we can not be exact and 100% that this veterans story is true. Also we are not made aware of the authors views of the war, is he pro or antiwar is left unstated so therefore we do not cannot be sure whether he is twisting the truth or not. Again we do not know if the author was a vietnamese veteran so as to give a biased account of the situation. From these facts we cannot say that's these sources are reliable however we can neither say that they are unreliable. All sources are reliable in that they give peoples views and opinions of the events during and after the war.
Johnson called North Vietnam a "fourth-rate, raggedy ass little country". How do sources C,D and E condradict this?
First of all we have to recognise this as being a view from an American perspective. It is only an opinion made by the american president therefore we can not take into account this as being politcally correct. He is comparing Vietnam to the U.S military and economic might at that time. Most American would have shared this view as they think that America would be the worlds biggest super power and that a small country such as vietnam would not have compared to their homeland. They believed that Vietnam weren't equipped to fight against them and they were only wasting time in resisting Americas authority.
From this statement Johnson is implying that Americas was most definatley going to win the war and that it wasn't worth their efforts- "fourth rate, raggedy ass" however in source C and D we see strong contradiction to this opinion. In source C it shows us that the war lasted over ten years, not the short period of time Johnson had originally expected. They had expected to defeat them within one or two years not the ten that it eventually took, and after those ten years America were no better off. From this statement we can see that the American government did not expect the war to end as a ceasefire and as undignified and disorganised as the withdrawal was. These sources show us that the numbers of troops escalated each year dramatically with at one stage there being five hundred thousand american troops and spending over 13% of the total Governments money went into fighting against the small numbers of the vietcong army. This is contrasted to Johnsons idea of a quick and easy war. If johnsons speech was true then why the need to send so many people into the war. It was only after 1969 that america began to reduce the amount of men fighting and not because of the success rate, that they didn't need to send such numbers, but because there was a change of policy- the vietnamisation. This evidence suggests that vietnam was not as fourth rate and raggedy ass as Johnson had so kindly put.
Source E contradicts the view of Johnsons statement aswell. We first see this in the title of the illustration " Victorys just around the corner" complimented by the faces of five presidents. Already suggesting ans sarcastically exclaiming that if war is just around the corner, why did it take ten years and five presidencys to resolve. This caption was used dileberatly as most knew what the outcome of the war was and that it was not "just around the corner".It was published in 1975 just after the last troops were withdrew from the war. This is where the cartoonist has and uses his benefit of Hindsight. By using this caption as he does demonstrates that the promise of each President to end the war and the expectation of Americas population had been false. Although Johnson stated that vietnam wasn't worthy of fighting america the cartoonist illustrated the fact that the war had been dragged through five preidencys, each believing that they had what it took to end the war and that the end would be soon. This victory was not around the corner and was not even achieved.
Therefore we can see that these sources contradict Johnsons views on the "fourth rate, raggedy ass little county" which was vietnam. This was the small country who managed to force america to withdraw their men and efforts from the war.
GCSE History Coursework
Ronan Doherty 12A
