How was opposition to the Vietnam War portrayed in contemporary literature, film and popular song?
History CourseworkHow was opposition to the Vietnam War portrayed in contemporaryliterature, film and popular song?Literature:During the Vietnam War, so many people were opposed to it they beganto write articles and stories to address their community and fellowAmericans. They tried to express their views on America’s involvementin the Vietnam War. Most of the middle classed youths were destined tobe drafted and through these articles and stories they tried to swaythe public opinion. In the early seventies they began to makepamphlets and magazines, which contained pictures and informationabout the young men at war who had lost their lives in the conflict.These radical youths were most definitely biased, they didn’t believein showing both sides of the argument, as it was these children whowere 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 moveAmerica made. Any tactics or information about the war the governmentreleased these newspapers supported because it was the government keptthem employed.Although the newspapers were conservative, there was a new form of“news” to hit America, a magazine called “Life”. It was introduced tothe public in 1969 and its contents stunned the American civiliansinto antiwar protests. It was an anti-war magazine, but it didn’tforce people to oppose it, it gave them the choice. However it didmanage to sway most Americans opinion by showing pictures of almost250 young men who had been killed in Vietnam including the 46 who hadbeen killed at “Hamburger Hill” that previous week. These men wereAmericans, and what shocked those back home was that they were normalAmericans, no younger nor older than their own children. The “flowerpower” generation were overwhelmed and shocked as they based theirideals on peace, love and harmony.Film:Back in the time of the war televisions became an everyday object inthe average household. There were very few channels but on thesechannels was the news. This newsreel had a very important role to playin the shift of opinion from the public’s perspective, although it didnot intentionally do so. Because the television was relatively newthere was no such thing as censorship, so when footage of a peacefulantiwar demonstration turned into disaster people were horrified. Thisdemonstration was at Kent State University, were young flower powerstudents were protesting against Americas efforts in the War but whenthe students resisted and stood up for what they believed in a smallnumber of them were shot dead on the spot by the national guard. Manypeople thought that these demonstrations were unpatriotic and thatthere was no place for it in America but after these deaths antiwarprotests were seen in a whole new light.Then came the shocking images of Vietnam itself. Clips and videos ofeverything that was happening in the battlefield was being broadcastall around the world to hundreds of millions homes. This faced Americawith a new type of movement they hadn’t expected. Whatever washappening in South Vietnam was happening in the average personshousehold. The slow realisation was now dawning upon the Americanpublic, that they were fighting a lost cause and that all the antiwarprotesters were in fact right. They witnessed the tactics America usedsuch as Napalm, bombing and search and destroy missions. Images ofchildren be scalded alive by chemicals shifted Americas oppositionfrom Vietnam to the once nationalist American home. Other incidentslike the burning down of hundreds of innocent Vietnamese homes andVietcong being executed added to the cumulative uproar against thiswar.From the revolutions of T.V came the ever-popular cinema. The power ofcinema then and now has the power to change the most toughest criticsmind. And that’s what it set out to do at the start of the VietnamWar. A new generation of film was about to start and the first in linewas a film called “The Green Berets”. It was released during the warin 1968 when most people were still supporting it and was stronglypro-war. It starred the superstar of the time John Wayne; themuch-loved actor played a colonel who lends his forces against theenemy (Vietcong). It was the very first Hollywood treatment of Vietnamand it proved a commercial success. It became a box office hitgrossing in over $8 million. The reason behind this because mostpeople secretly liked the idea of containing communism. It reinforcedtheir natural nationalism and patriotism. It was still conservativeand made America out to be fully in charge.Then, the complete opposite of this nationalist reviving epic cameabout. Released in the same year this documentary called “The Year ofthe Pig” hit the big screen. Because it was a
documentary, it was morereal and different from “The Green Berets”. It was like a long-windedversion of the news however it set out to change the publics mind. Itwas composed of archival footage of battles and interviews withsoldiers themselves. It showed soldiers limbless and bloody, it showedhow the war really was compared to the fancy tweaking and finishingtouches that were made in “ The Green Berets”. The humiliating “oldglory” song complimented corpses being dragged away from the battlescenes. When this was screened, those who believed that War was theright answer were undoubtedly proven wrong. This film made people seethe truth; this ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
documentary, it was morereal and different from “The Green Berets”. It was like a long-windedversion of the news however it set out to change the publics mind. Itwas composed of archival footage of battles and interviews withsoldiers themselves. It showed soldiers limbless and bloody, it showedhow the war really was compared to the fancy tweaking and finishingtouches that were made in “ The Green Berets”. The humiliating “oldglory” song complimented corpses being dragged away from the battlescenes. When this was screened, those who believed that War was theright answer were undoubtedly proven wrong. This film made people seethe truth; this truth was the start of the generations of antiwarprotesters that followed. It was a strong and bold antiwar film, whichthe people had been waiting for, many directors were too afraid tomake such a statement.Near the end and after the war, the impact of media was stillaffecting the public opinion, although now America tried to look onthe more comedic side of things, maybe as a way to cover up thefailure. One of these shows was called M.A.S.H. It was set in SouthKorea during the Korean War. It was a comedy, which focused on a groupof doctors and nurses whose job it was to tend and heal the wounded,who arrived at the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital. Although it was setin South Korea, and not deliberately linked with Vietnam, it stillrelated to the war efforts. In gave people an insight into thecasualties at war, and even though it sometimes exaggerated thebrutalities it was a less violent way of showing what war was like, ina humorous manner.Again, after the war had ended more films were released. Some were toget any patriotism, which was lost, back, and others were to do theopposite. One of these films was called Taxi-Driver. It was released ayear after the war had ended, following an ex-marine and it showed themental and physical effects the war had on him. Two years later TheDear Hunter was released (1978). It was about three steel workers whowere sent to Vietnam and expected so much more, and how it alters therest of their lives. And then the epic Apocalypse now was released oneyear on. An American military assassin goes to Cambodia to find andkill a colonel who has gone beyond the limits of the military code ofwarfare. Although fictional, even after the war they affected theperspective of the Americans involvement in the war.Popular Song:Throughout the Vietnam the antiwar music industry was beginning togrow. 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 artistsfelt it was necessary to write and sing about the evils of what washappening. They wanted to spread the peace and harmony, which theflower power generation had introduced. Music was extremely popularbecause of how quick it could be produced. It literally took two weeksto write, record and release an antiwar song as opposed to the longduration it took to make a film or book. Many of the public’sfavourite artists such as Johnny Cash and County Joe and the Fish werein the centre of these new unheard of antiwar songs. During this era,many people were affected in different ways by the events that hadoccurred overseas and this had created the antiwar atmosphere.Similarly also affected the people. It preaches of peace, protest andfreedom.One of this songs was called “Feel-like-I’m-fixin’-to-die-rag” by noneother that Country Joe himself. He used explicit lyrics, which wasdirected at the Vietnam War. He says of how the American public haveno 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 thedisoriented soldiers who were flying into war, and overall theirdeath. These lyrics satirically dehumanised those young men going intocombat, labelling and regarding them as unimportant figures.“Come on mothers throughout the landpack your boys off to Viet Namcome on fathers don't hesitatesend your sons off before it's too lateand you can be the first ones on your blockto have your boy come home in a box”This type of music forshadowed the destiny of the many young men whowere inexperienced and again as stated just figures, in this vietnamwar.Another antiwar artist was Loretta Lynn. A relatively new artist onthe scene in 1966 she was one of the first to stand up against thegovernment and to recount the events happening in vietnam. She was aninspiration to many artists at that time as it was her strong point ofview and here catchy lyrics which was to change public opinion. Hersong “ Dear Uncle Sam” is dedicated to all those who had lost lovedones in the war. This gesture of sympathy hit a lot of the publichard, as it was them who had fathers, brothers and sons who wereamongst 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 Iwear 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 singersreleasing his hit Drive on. It specifically dealt with the trauma,which many of the soldiers fighting were left with when they camehome. The impact of his song was vast and related to those VietnamVeterans who everyone in their own community knew and loved. Theeffects of war on them were apparent and Johnny Cash explained thisthrough his song:‘Many a good manI saw fall and even now,every time I dream I hear the menand the monkeys in the jungle scream’He also refers to “The Green Berets” in this song. He tries to makethe public realise of the impact of the film and attempts to explainhow it really is.“It was a real slow walk in a real sad rainand nobody tried to be John Wayne”He also implies not many of the soldiers were expected to come homealive and that even those who came home and had had long-term mentalissues were still regarded as miracles.“I talk, but my letter read from Whiskey Samyou're a walkin' talkin' miracle from Vietnam”Finally Perry Friedman, an artist who through his song told of how thegovernment 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 VietnamGood folks like my own,And I know I'm in the right, judge,And I don't stand alone.The U. S. judge in NurembergWho judged the Nazi crimesSaid killing's just as bad a sinWhen 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 picturesof 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 Warthere was a large majority who supported it. This was known as thenatural nationalism and patriotism experienced by the American public.Literature and media were also in favour of this war aswell. Theytried their best to stay conservative in fear of upsetting the publicand risk their careers. However this was short lived and sooner orlater the public was destined to see the truth of the war.Unfortunatley for the American government it came sooner. Oppositioncontinued to grow through music, media and the constant increase inthe figures of the death toll. Music had the most influence on thisshift in opinion as it was an important mode of communication at thattime. Advancements in technology at the time made it quicker, easierand cheaper to create this music and many musicians were part of theup and coming flower power generation, therefore the expressed theirviews through song. They hadnt had to really worry about getting anaudience as most had already a huge fan base, and many idolised thesepeople.The War had now been from loved to hate. Typical of a war with suchinvolvement 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 washappening in vietnam. He states that the reason America was involvedwas because they were fighting for “Freedom.” He used this as anexcuse for the U.S’ behaviour during the war with the use of extremetactics and weaponry. In all, he was trying to make a bad situationinto a good one. USA had a constant tradition of getting involved inwars that was not theres, and to try to defend those countries thatcouldn’t defend themselves. Those were the countries that could notdefend themselves against communism and America was afraid that if thegrowth of communism increased, democracy wouldn’t have a chance. Weseen this through World War one, two and in Korea. It was the samecase with Berlin. America involved themselves where they needn’t hadto. However we are assured through Source A that America has to getinvolved and that it is in fact the “right” thing to do.It seems to return to the idea of the “Truman Doctrine” wherepresident Truman states in a series of speeches that “ I believe thatit must be a policy of the United states to support free peoples whoare resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by out-sidepressures” this was the americas free pass for involvement when wantedhowever 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 stilllargely supported and that there is only a minority who disagree. Itshowed support by giving the reasons for going to war to try toreinforce the public nationalism and patriotism. It also showedPresident Johnson’s personal opinion and as suspected he also thoughtstrongly of the War effort. By doing this he tried to become one ofthe public again and to try to sway their views, therefore creatingmore support.This was tactical as he was aware that the video clipwould have been edited and back up his opinion. He also knew thatAmerica had now been taken over by the media and that this interviewwould have been broadcast to millions of American homes.Source B followed the same sort of lines as in Source A. It wasn’tstrongly conservative but it was enough to be able to put its pointsacross. It defending the U.S’ involvement and in the opening linessays “ Too little attention has been given to the public acceptance ofthe war.” Trying to state that most of the people did accept it, somuch that it was normal and therefore didn’t make front page of newspapers or on newsreel at the time. But what did make it on the newswas the out of the ordinary anti-war demonstrations. The purpose ofthis was to build up the back bone of this war as it was the normaleveryday people who were to be drafted, this source obviously didn’twant to encourage any draft dodging or protests.Although this sourcecomes across as unbiased in its lack of opinion in the wording it isattempting to reinforce the war. “Much was heard of deserters andyoungsters fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft, but an overwhelmingmajority did what was required of them”We see evidence from Virginia of volunteers boarding a bus formilitary induction and their mothers and girlfriends supporting whatthey were facing. It implies and backs up my point of acceptance tothe war and how that this was the normal through the line “They neverattracted 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 thewar. We see the increase and the stready rise in numbers which leadsus to the believe that the war was a popular choice and then peoplewanted to go. The huge increase shows us that most people did notdraft dodge and attended their duty. We can see the change ininvolvement in 1964 when america stopped sending advisors and begantheir active involvement following the tonkin resolution. Althoughthey may have been forced to war it gives us the impression it istheir own choice.How reliable are source F and G as evidence if the activities of theUS servicement in vietnam?In source F we are told about the activites of the service men antheir methods of interegation. It provides us with information andevidence of the activities of some Us servicemen and all its detailsare backed up with similar evidence in other sources. However thereliability is questionable as this may not be representative of themethods of all the americans and we can not base our beliefs on suchbiased and persuading sources. Though it is primary evidence and iswritten 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 summarativeapproach to americas methods focusing on the out of the ordinaryincidents such as “a string of ears” and “cutting off the fingers.”The article itself is published on the New York Herald Tribune, whicheven during the conservative part of the war, was strongly opposed toit and antiwar. Such a newpaper was expected to present radicalarticles as this. The newspaper used these actions of the servicemento try to stir the public preception of the war and show the horrorsthat really happened. It did this because the Herald was a wellrespected paper, it was never in fear of losing sales by appearingunpatriotic and was always going to have a large demand rate so it wasable to say what everyone else wanted to without it costing themanything.Although I have said it doesn’t prove the actions of all servicemen italso doesn’t prove that this was a regular thing and happenedoccasionally. Infact it does the opposited but by implying it. In thesource words like “Sometimes” and “Usually” appear frequently to tryto suggest it was the normal. It does so with the airplane incidentwhere the author fails to say that this happened repeatedly. Theauthor can mention one incident and only one, therefore giving us theimpression that this was not common and was worth reporting. Thereporter also fails to state whether he seen this first hand or wastold about it from another source.Source G I feel tends to be more reliable as it is an interview ratherthan an overlook, and its an interview with an actual soldier whofought in the conflict. He describes the killing of a young vietnameseboy under the impression he was a member of the vietcong army. Thesource may come from a vietnamese veteran but it is a secondary sourceas it was written in 1984, 10 years after the vietnamisation period.The time lapse may concern us with the reliabilty of this source as itmay have effecting the mans memory of what really happened and mayexagerate and sensationalise this event to try to increase the booksales. During this time there was a general feeling among writers andauthors to focus on the brutality of war because ten years on pepolewhere only interested in the cold hard facts, this may add or takeaway from the reliability of the source as we can not be exact and100% that this veterans story is true. Also we are not made aware ofthe authors views of the war, is he pro or antiwar is left unstated sotherefore we do not cannot be sure whether he is twisting the truth ornot. Again we do not know if the author was a vietnamese veteran so asto give a biased account of the situation. From these facts we cannotsay that’s these sources are reliable however we can neither say thatthey are unreliable. All sources are reliable in that they givepeoples views and opinions of the events during and after the war.Johnson called North Vietnam a “fourth-rate, raggedy ass littlecountry”. How do sources C,D and E condradict this?First of all we have to recognise this as being a view from anAmerican perspective. It is only an opinion made by the americanpresident therefore we can not take into account this as beingpolitcally correct. He is comparing Vietnam to the U.S military andeconomic might at that time. Most American would have shared this viewas they think that America would be the worlds biggest super power andthat a small country such as vietnam would not have compared to theirhomeland. They believed that Vietnam weren’t equipped to fight againstthem and they were only wasting time in resisting Americas authority.From this statement Johnson is implying that Americas was mostdefinatley going to win the war and that it wasn’t worth theirefforts- “fourth rate, raggedy ass” however in source C and D we seestrong contradiction to this opinion. In source C it shows us that thewar lasted over ten years, not the short period of time Johnson hadoriginally expected. They had expected to defeat them within one ortwo years not the ten that it eventually took, and after those tenyears America were no better off. From this statement we can see thatthe American government did not expect the war to end as a ceasefireand as undignified and disorganised as the withdrawal was. Thesesources show us that the numbers of troops escalated each yeardramatically with at one stage there being five hundred thousandamerican troops and spending over 13% of the total Governments moneywent into fighting against the small numbers of the vietcong army.This is contrasted to Johnsons idea of a quick and easy war. Ifjohnsons speech was true then why the need to send so many peopleinto the war. It was only after 1969 that america began to reduce theamount of men fighting and not because of the success rate, that theydidn’t need to send such numbers, but because there was a change ofpolicy- the vietnamisation. This evidence suggests that vietnam wasnot as fourth rate and raggedy ass as Johnson had so kindly put.Source E contradicts the view of Johnsons statement aswell. We firstsee this in the title of the illustration “ Victorys just around thecorner” complimented by the faces of five presidents. Alreadysuggesting ans sarcastically exclaiming that if war is just around thecorner, why did it take ten years and five presidencys to resolve.This caption was used dileberatly as most knew what the outcome of thewar was and that it was not “just around the corner”.It was publishedin 1975 just after the last troops were withdrew from the war. This iswhere the cartoonist has and uses his benefit of Hindsight. By usingthis caption as he does demonstrates that the promise of eachPresident to end the war and the expectation of Americas populationhad been false. Although Johnson stated that vietnam wasn’t worthy offighting america the cartoonist illustrated the fact that the war hadbeen dragged through five preidencys, each believing that they hadwhat it took to end the war and that the end would be soon. Thisvictory was not around the corner and was not even achieved.Therefore we can see that these sources contradict Johnsons views onthe “fourth rate, raggedy ass little county” which was vietnam. Thiswas the small country who managed to force america to withdraw theirmen and efforts from the war.
