Before traveling to Vietnam, I used to believe that I was fairly well versed in the history of the war that took place in the late 1960s and early ’70s. I knew the basics — incidents, dates, casualties and protests — and was able to talk about it with confidence to backpacker friends from outside of the United States as we made our way from the north to the south of the country. However, after visiting the various museums and memorials in Saigon, I’ve learned of an entirely new perspective on the war.
It’s not to say that I’ve taken on that perspective and now hold it as my personal beliefs on the Vietnam War. What it has done, though, is opened my eyes and made me rethink events throughout the war — those, that if I were alive would have either supported or protested against.
There are two sides to every story.
The War Remnants Museum and the Cu Chi Tunnels, while full of truths and gruesome images of American brutalities
toward the Vietnamese (it used to be formerly known as the American War Crimes Museum), fails to show the crimes committed by Vietnam toward American militia. For as U.S. soldiers may have been wrong to destroy innocent villages and kill civilians, the Vietnamese were equally as wrong to torture and hold captive U.S. soldiers in Hao Lo Prison in Hanoi, including U.S. Sen. John McCain, after shooting down their planes.
As a journalist, I learned in classes and through experience about propaganda and biases. No one side is 100 percent accurate. The Vietnamese will always have their version and the Americans will always have theirs. The right answer almost always lies somewhere in between the two stories, taking bits and pieces of history from each new account, making it harder and harder to decipher where the middle ground lies.
I can understand and appreciate the dissenting views, but, and maybe it’s the pacifist in me (the one who can’t even sit through a violent movie without hiding my head and cringing), I will never quite understand violence, no matter how “necessary” it may be deemed.
Now it’s your turn to tell me what you think? Are there two sides to every story? Is one side ever more justified than the other when it comes to war? Let me know what you think in the comments.
I’ve decided to extend my donations from this post for Haiti and Chile. For every comment on the post, I will donate an additional $1 to the Red Cross to help earthquake efforts in both Haiti and Chile through April 20.
Twitter Updates
Two thoughts…First, I would suggest that you do some reading on “justifiable war” as it is a concept that most (but not all) mainstream religions accept. For example, was World War II justifiable? If the allies, led by the US had not stood up and fought, what would the consequences have been. Throughout history, pacification of evil has always proven far worse and brought more serious consequences than attacking evil head on.
And second, and perhaps more important, are you ever planning on calling home again?
I find your pacifist ways very interesting.. I’m not sure how one could say that violence is “never” necessary. I realize you’re probably saying to yourself that I’m just running my mouth again as I do oh-so-frequently, but I honestly have a strong opinion on this article. As Dad mentioned, if the U.S. had not stood up against Natzi Germany, Al Quaeda, Communist Russia, Vietnam, and all the other terror groups, what would have happened? I understand it’s somewhat irrelevant, but being of Jewish faith it bothers me that one could think this. If it weren’t for the U.S. and the allies, who knows what extents Hitler could have reached with the Holocaust? Now I realize WW2 is a whole different chapter in history, but being one of the deadliest wars in American history, it relates to your story. I just think you should reconsider your “total pacifist ways”.
One more thing.. Whether or not you “agree” with violence, I think it is undebatable that it is necessary in certain situations.
I’m heading to Vietnam soon, but as an American I am ashamed to do so. Reading Zinn’s account you learn that America dropped more bombs on Vietnam than were used in the whole of WWII. Etc, etc. Even if wars can be justifiable (a very interesting conversation) it would be hard in this day and age to argue that US involvement was anything short of barbaric. Just my two cents…very interesting post.
@Gary Lipman – I think that “has always” is a pretty blanket statement to say that pacification has no beneficial end result. Look at what the sit-ins and marches on the capital accomplished under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the fight for Civil Rights in the ’60s. There are plenty of opportunities, though they are seldom taken advantage of, for peaceful remedies to conflict.
@Broski – I never think you’re “oh-so-frequently” running your 17-year-old mouth. I think you’re an intelligent young man (yikes, you’re a young man!) and I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. And I agree with you, World War II is probably one of the only cases where I can deem a war “justifiable.” As for Vietnam, aside from the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which Vietnamese still deem untrue), the extent to which bombs were dropped in Vietnam — which was MORE than in WWII — is unnecessary, and generally accepted as so in the mainstream.
@Ahmisa – Firstly, welcome! I’m so thrilled to have a new reader! I understand your views on visting Vietnam as an American, as I had similar feelings before coming here as well. I was beyond excited to learn more, but very keenly aware of the truths I would be learning (with some propaganda added in as well). My advice to you is to take it in with an open mind to both sides of the story. There’s a middle ground somewhere, and while I tend to think it’s closer to the Vietnamese side, it IS important to consider both sides. Enjoy your visit (it’s been my favorite place yet) and I look forward to starting a dialogue with you on your thoughts through your visit.
To Ahmisa…are you also ashamed as an American about all the good things that our country has done around the world? Perhaps you’re ashamed about America’s efforts in World War II…or the Marshall Plan? Or the relief efforts provided to SE Asia following the tsunami…or to Haiti in recent days? I think when traveling abroad, you should be proud to be an American. Mind you, not arrogant or obnoxious, but certainly proud.
While this country has certainly made some serious mistakes in its dealings with some other countries, both in the long ago past and in more recent years, most of our mistakes have come from a genuine belief that we were acting in the best interests of freedom and peace. Yes, there is an admitted arrogance to that point of view…that somehow we know or have a right to believe that “we know best”. And while we don’t always know best, we generally don’t (or at least very rarely) go into situations with a goal of conquest of land, or oppression of people. While that may end up the ultimate inadvertent by-product of our actions, unlike other countries or rulers, it certainly isn’t our intent (at least not in the 20th or 21st century).
I pains me when I hear a young American say that they are ashamed of this country. A whole lot of people around the world are better off economically and personally because of the good that Americans (and America) do around the world. When I travel the world, I do so proudly as an American.
@Gary Lipman – To further expand on that, I agree that it is certainly harmful to be ashamed of your country when traveling abroad because there is so much to be proud of. I take my job as an ambassador of my country seriously while I’m abroad — highlighting all the good and standing by my country and my new president when people question my thoughts on certain actions or moments and history. But at the same time, it’s equally as important to voice opinion when you disagree with some of the things that have occurred as result of poor choices made by American officials. As I mentioned, an honest and open mind is the most important way to travel.
@Sarah. Yes I have stopped by here a few times but it took a good political post to get me to delurk.
@Gary. I don’t want to come off as disrespectful, so I’m just going to say we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I should say that I am ashamed of my government, not of other Americans. Not sure if that makes a difference to you. I don’t think the government ever really acts out of good intentions or out of any beliefs of freedom; though individual people helping in Haiti, Chili, or the Peace Corp for instance have my deepest respect.
Having lived in Korea, I have seen the good that America can do. Seoul isn’t a perfect city but it’s a good example of nation building and recovery. But against the hundreds and thousands of people who are dieing every month due to our policies, not to mention non-action in places like Rwanda, East Timor, etc–it’s not anything that makes me proud, personally.
@Ahimsa…perhaps you could watch tonight’s 60 minutes. It was the US Government (actually Prez. Bush, believe it or not) who pushed for the largest economic aid to Africa to combat HIV/AIDS. And its working. I know that people are reluctant to give the US government credit for anything, especially Bush, but every once in a while, our government does something good. And we should give them credit for it. Hundreds and thousands of people are dieing every month due to our policies? Or due to our in-action? Please, quite the contrary…millions of people around the world are getting food and economic assistance because of our policies. As to our “in-action”, do you want us to be the world’s policeman, or not. I don’t think that you can have it both ways. If we intervene in East Timor, or even Rwanda (where we have been active), and we fall short of perfect in accomplishing our objective, then we get criticized for trying to impose “our agenda” on the world. See Iraq…viscious homicidal dictator deposed likely saving tens of thousands of lives, but civil war breaks out and its our fault (yes, there was a poorly planned and executved post war strategy but the goal was just even if the stated justification WMD may have been off). And aid to Haiti and Chile was not only individual…it was governmental as well.
And Ahimsa…an honest disagreement is never disrespectful. Please don’t be so apologetic. I’m enjoying our dialoge.
I don’t want the US to be the world’s policeman–that’s what the UN was for. (It’s effectiveness is another matter, of course.) But if the US was going to be defenders of freedom and democracy, there would be clear-cut places where they could help out. Myanmar, for instance.
Just saying that there are places where help is needed, but the US is rarely seen there. Nor should they be, in my opinions. More importantly, they could stop installing unpopular dictators (but friendly to the US) in Central America.
As for Iraq, that is a hugely bullshit war in a history of bullshit wars–first of all, we put Saddamn in power, and gave him weapons for years. Then, channeling the fear and anger after 9/11, we made up a reason (or made an honest mistake) to invade. We all learned how Haliburton made loads of money from this decision. And why that dictator? It’s hard not to imagine that Saddamn could have stayed in power for life if his country didn’t produce oil. That war is as unjust as can be, even leaving aside the WMD excuse entirely,
It is good to hear that huge aid packages go to Africa, and that it’s working. It would require even more cynicism than I have to expect the government not to ever do anything good, even if it is purely out of expediency.
I would like to hear your comments on Zinn’s People’s History of the United States, even just the latter half of the 20th century. You probably won’t agree with his conclusions, but his citations are flawless and it’s hard, I think, not to have your opinions changed with that influx of knowledge.