In response to this article, I received a number of emails disagreeing with me on the Vietnam memorial. I've copied a reply I sent to a friend of mine here. I guess, this also extends the argument in the article.
Click here to see the entire entry
About the Vietnam memorial. My problem with the memorial is that it focusses exclusively on the US without mentioning the Vietnamese. The 'wound' does not heal, but the wound in the question is the wound to America; people are not reminded of the much deeper wound to the Vietnamese. The monument may make us reflect but what are we reflecting on? How this tragedy happened to America?
I think it is somewhat mistaken to ask the question of whether there are memorials for 'the other side' in other countries. More on this below.
This was an extremely unequal war. (I am sure you know all of this). The US invaded Vietnam without any justification and perpetuated the most horrific atrocities. About 4 million Vietnamese were killed, chemical weapons were dropped on civilians, and parts of the country are now *unusable* because of the number of bombs that were dropped. Never before has a military machine of this size been unleashed over a comparable area.
My problem with Carters statement and Cohen's statement recently[Bill Clinton's secretary of defense:"I see no reason to apologize, at least for the war. They have their scars... we certainly have ours"] is that it misrepresents who the victims are. Recall, that after the war America then refused to give aid and *stopped* aid from other countries[such as India]. Its only interactionwith the Vietnamese government has been to pressurize it to find the bodies of Americans missing in action. I am arguing against this entire culture of self-pity, focussing exclusively on American suffering even when America is the aggressor and has caused immeasurably more misery to the other side.
Precisely because of this culture, their has been no public outcry over the fact that they have refused to apologize and have given no aid to Vietnam. If the American people had a fair idea of history, surely they would protest this travesty?
A more balanced view of history would recognize the facts above and also recognize the travails of American troops. The final culpability lies with the politicians and the elite, who got away quite effectively.
I feel this self-engrossment is the cause of many wars. In this war, for example, Kristof is very good compared to the rest of the media. The New York Times famous editorial['Counting the Dead'] and the Washington Posts series of articles only speak of American casualties. Their primary concern about the war is that too many *Americans* are dying.
When I use the word 'propaganda' monument, I use it in the institutional sense. Institutions can perform the social role of 'propagandizing' because of the network of interests that is brought to bear upon any large public activity. So, as in the case of the media, I believe that it is somewhat fallacious to focus on the individual editor or, in this case, upon the designer.
So, what are the propaganda benefits of this monument? Mainly victimhood. Reagan, for example, dedicated the monument to the 'victims of communism'. Victimhood has clear benefits; it allows the state to expand its powers. If people question its decisions or power, it points to the dire consequences of disobedience[look at the horrible thing that happened. Do you want that to happen again?].
Returning to the history, when the rest of the world thinks of Vietnam they think of a genocide perpetuated by the US. If you visit the Vietnam memorial, there is no sense of this tragedy. The only emotion the memorial evokes is a sense of tragedy for 'America'. 'America' suffered. Its troops were forced to fight in the war.
That is undoubtedly true, but to focus on this part of history without pointing out the rest of it, is much worse than the BBC skipping out the Bay of Pigs invasion in a history of the US-Cuba relationship.
Now, returning to your original question about other countries having similar monuments. There are not many example of an armed force slaughtering 4 million people with such complete disregard for all humans of a particular race. The event that comes to mind is the Holocaust. The correct question to ask, in my view is then: "What if in Berlin, they constructed a monument to Nazi soldiers and not to the victims of the Holocaust?"
Even if this caused people to feel reflective, there would be a huge international outcry. Rightfully so.
I dislike using the example of the Holocaust, because it is used *so* often for rhetoric. Take another example. What if they constructed a monument to the "brave white 'Indian' fighters who perished while fighting the native Americans'." Well, white Europeans did perish. And we need to recognize their humanity. But to not accept a genocide and to focus on the perpetrators rather than the victims is unacceptable.
Perhaps I am not being lucid enough on this entire issue. I refer you the famous essay by Sartre 'On Genocide' written on the Vietnam war.
The American establishment is not ashamed of Vietnam. Instead, they continue to project themselves as victims. This view is not only deeply offensive to the Vietnamese, it prevents us from asking hard questions. This was not an inexplicable tragedy, as is commonly portrayed in movies. Oh, 'horrible things' happened. how could it have happened to 'America'? It was a natural outgrowth of American foreign policy brought about by the blatant disregard the American ruling elite shows for human life. All life. They do this within their borders too[the recent article in the Nytimes on the huge number of preventable deaths in workplaces]. Just that within the US they are hindered by the fact that they cant get away with it most of the time. So they are more careful.
The draft also showed that the elite was willing to sacrifice ordinary American people and a tremendous number of Vietnamese people for some ridiculous strategic aims.
This rotten tendency needs to be weeded out and discarded. If this has been done at the time of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, and innumerable other wars would have been prevented and lives could have been saved. The American people would not live under the illusion that the US
promotes 'freedom' through the world.
Unfortunately, this illusion persists. And as long as people cannot be made to focus on the tremendous tragedy that the US military causes to *other* people, lives will continue to be lost. The Vietnam memorial does not contribute to this cause. Rather it fortifies this insularity.
Now having argued that your question about about other countries about not having monuments for 'enemy' troops is inadmissible, let us admit it briefly. I'm sure you realize this does not show or justify anything. All this proves is that other states also systematically use propaganda to cast themselves as victims and divert the attention of their domestic population to certain historical events and away from other. In any case, if 'they' do it, that does not justify 'us' doing it
In Delhi, for example we have an 'Amar Jawan Jyoti' -- there are flames that are kept lit perpetually in memory of 'Indian' soldiers. Well, this *is* also an embarrassingly obvious propaganda monument.
So, India casts itself as a victim under attack from Pakistan. This is ridiculous, but allows the Indian government to appropriate funds for the army and use patriotic hype when policy decisions are questioned.
The unique part about Vietnam, of course, is that history is falsified so grossly. Leaving aside the applicability of the word 'victims' to nation states, A serious revisionist historian could possibly make a case that India has been the 'victim' in the India-Pakistan conflict. It is impossible to make an analogous case for US-Vietnam or to justify Carter and Cohen.
President Jimmy Carter, Nobel Peace Laureate and human rights activist. Here is what he said on the Vietnam War.
"Well, the destruction was mutual. You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese, and I don't feel that we ought to aoplogize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability.
Now, I'm willing to face the future without reference to the past. And that's what the Vietnamese leaders have proposed. And if normalization of relationships there evolves trade, normal aid processes, then I would respond well. But I don't feel that we have, that we owe a debt nor that we should be forced to pay reparations, or at all. "
Later, he says "President Mobutu has been a friend of ours".
You can find the entire transcript under the heading "Transcript of President's News Conference on Foreign and Domestic Issues", New York Times, Mar 25, 1977. This archive is accessible electronically through the Harvard library.
